politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Populus responds to some of the points about its new online
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Populus responds to some of the points about its new online poll
Instead of sticking with its traditional past vote weighting approach the firm had adopted party ID weightings based back to what was recorded in British Social Attitudes Survey of 2010, when, of course, UKIP support was much lower than it is today. The effect is quite marked as this Tweet observes.
0
Comments
-
Hhmmm0
-
11/14 placed in special measures re NHS #Hunt0
-
Burnham for the backbenchs.
Let's see how ruthless Ed can be when needed.0 -
You have to feel a bit sorry for pollsters - they can only check if they are right one day once every 5 years.
0 -
0
-
Does it matter, tim?tim said:Govt spin on 13,000 deaths does not appear in the Keogh report.
What the public wants is a simple explanation of a complex problem.
The "13,000 deaths" may be neither academically nor clinically sound but it will resonate with families grieving the unnecessary or premature loss of their loved ones.
0 -
Yeah tim that's great, it's just that it's all over the media.tim said:Govt spin on 13,000 deaths does not appear in the Keogh report.
temperatures in central London must be soaring as Burnham's career goes up in flames.
0 -
I hope one lesson CCHQ (and indeed LDHQ) take from recent events is that attacking Labour hard on their record in power pays off big time – and that is because the record is indefensible.
I hope they also learn that endlessly repeating well prepared and focused mantras is effective. Going on and on and on about the result for patients, parents, users of public transport, etc from having the unions run the place is an easy win.0 -
Burnham is loathsome.
He is shrill, red-faced and desperate.
And I don't usually care about the rabble at Westminster.0 -
The big question for Populus is whether their method is correcting for a bias - UKIP voters being more enthusiastic about completing online surveys - or weighting everything to a fixed point in time - the 2010 general election - when the political ground has shifted considerably.
I don't know whether people's party ID will be stable in the way that Populus require for their weighting to work.0 -
Re ICM
"Since ICM started doing polls for the Guardian in 1984, only once has an opposition actually improved on its share of the vote at this point in the electoral cycle, and that was from such a subterranean level during William Hague’s leadership that there really was only one way for the Tory vote to go. The simple fact is that, whatever Labour’s relative CM poll rating is today, it is virtually certain to be lower – and probably much lower – in two years time..." http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100226633/of-course-labours-numbers-are-down-the-public-dont-trust-ed-and-ukip-is-collapsing-2015-is-camerons-to-lose/0 -
Hope people don't mind if I re-post this from the previous thread.
After yesterday's surprise poll from ICM Ed Miliband needs to get thinking. It's about time Labour swallowed its tribal instincts and recognised that they may need to work with the Lib Dems. Nick Clegg might be despised but the very same factors that have made it difficult for the Lib Dems to make a breakthrough in past elections will be in their favour in 2015. They could well still manage to get 40 MPs at the next election. I suggest Ed wite an apologetic letter to Lib Dems that reads something like this,
Dear Lib Dems,
The relationship between our parties hasn't always been easy. I know you feel resentful about the way we behaved arrogantly towards you in government and continued to support a silly electoral system even when we got an indefensible majority of 66 with a 35% share of the vote. Like you I believe such an electoral system is now holed below the water-line. We could have done with listening to you more on issues like Iraq and your Party was quite right to oppose what turned out to be the worst British foreign policy disaster since the 2nd World War. You also stood up for civil liberties at a time when the Labour government was becoming too authoritarian. I'm sorry we didn't listen to you more.
At the 2010 election campaign your party stood on an exciting platform promising to re-balance the British economy, putting fairness at the heart of everything you do, committed to supporting students, dealing with the mess in the banking system and being open-minded about the future of the UK's nuclear deterrant whilst maintaining a moderate stance on balancing deficit reduction with the need to maintain demand in the economy. With the sure-footed Vince Cable speaking on the economy and a new leader in Nick Clegg promising to 'do things differently' I can well understand why many progressive voters would have seen the Lib Dems as a more attractive option than a government that had been in power for 13 years and overseen the first British banking collapse in over a century.
0 -
Ed Miliband letter part 2
I'm well aware that a Lib/Lab pact was never a serious option after the election given the numbers in Parliament and that Gordon Brown would not have been an ideal leader of a coalition government. In the end your party chose to enter into a formal coalition with the Conservatives. Whilst the decision surprised many I can understand why you chose to do what you did. David Cameron had described himself as a 'liberal conservative' been supportive of gay rights and seemed to have moved his Party onto the centre-ground as the only way to defeat new Labour. Eric Pickles as Tory Chairman had talked about 'love-bombing' the Lib Dems, a somewhat terrifying thought but the intent was clear. This was a modern Conservative Party that could work with the Lib Dems. I put it to you that after three years of experience in government your decision has been proved wrong. The Tories had not changed as much as you thought and David Cameron was not the 'good egg' Nick Clegg naively assumed him to be. After three years of poor economic performance all the Conservative-dominated government appears to offer us is another credit fuelled housing bubble and more punitive measures for those on benefits. Surely you realise that these measures are at best ineffectual and at worst seriously detrimental to our country's long-term economic prospects as well as inflicting real hardship on the nation's poorest and most vulnerable people. This does not seem to rest easy with the social conscience your leader made much of at the last election. With all the evidence of the last three years, surely you do not believe that the fiscal programme the coalition embarked upon was a better policy than your own proposals at the election, which were quite similar to Labour's?
0 -
In the end it is for you as Lib Dems to decide how you wish to proceed. I've heard it said that since you went into the coalition for five years you have to stick to it. By that logic the Tories can force anything upon you and you have 'nowhere to go'. That can't be an effective position to be in. If you want serious influence the threat of pulling out needs to be ever present. If you are worried about how history might perceive you, ask yourself this. Would you rather be part of a five year government that was seen as a failure or part of a three year government that failed but you nonetheless saw the light and got out with your dignity intact before any more damage could be done? I know how I think history will recall this government from a progressive perspective, what else would you expect from a cabinet dominated by the children of Thatcher? Anyway whatever you decide I look forward to hearing your response and perhaps working together in the future,
yours sincerely,
Edward Miliband
0 -
Good of Rick Nye to respond. I think the current mood of the electorate makes it more difficult for pollsters to do their job but at least Populus are still going. The more polls there are, the more trends we have to compare I guess.0
-
Burnham is treading a strange line - he accepts the Francis Report and this in full but its all the Tories fault.0
-
This is not a general politics site, it is a political betting site. Deciding which methodology for polling, and therefore which vote share for UKIP, is most reliable is a potentially very profitable decision for the punter who makes the right choice.Plato said:
That we have a thread about what Another Polling Company thinks is weird.TGOHF said:You have to feel a bit sorry for pollsters - they can only check if they are right one day once every 5 years.
We've a statement on a huge issue now in the HoC - news value?0 -
pathetic diversion.tim said:AveryLP said:
Does it matter, tim?tim said:Govt spin on 13,000 deaths does not appear in the Keogh report.
What the public wants is a simple explanation of a complex problem.
The "13,000 deaths" may be neither academically nor clinically sound but it will resonate with families grieving the unnecessary or premature loss of their loved ones.
Jeremy is a serial statistical liar
Shadow Culture Secretary Mr Hunt, already facing a probe over expenses, said he let his Tory agent Margaret Chellingworth live rent-free for seven months at his second home in Farnham after he became MP for South West Surrey and lived in London.
He then changed his story and said she lived there for up to a year. But now he has admitted she stayed at the property - partly paid for by taxpayers' cash - for over THREE years.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/expenses-row-tory-jeremy-hunt-399904#ixzz2ZDAVE8aY
0 -
No good if the excitement of winning a political bet causes medical complications requiring NHS hospital admission.OblitusSumMe said:
This is not a general politics site, it is a political betting site. Deciding which methodology for polling, and therefore which vote share for UKIP, is most reliable is a potentially very profitable decision for the punter who makes the right choice.Plato said:
That we have a thread about what Another Polling Company thinks is weird.TGOHF said:You have to feel a bit sorry for pollsters - they can only check if they are right one day once every 5 years.
We've a statement on a huge issue now in the HoC - news value?
We all want to live to spend our winnings, Oblitus.
0 -
Piffle - a non-news thread when one is all over the media makes it redundant and actually reduces the comments about it's merits.OblitusSumMe said:
This is not a general politics site, it is a political betting site. Deciding which methodology for polling, and therefore which vote share for UKIP, is most reliable is a potentially very profitable decision for the punter who makes the right choice.Plato said:
That we have a thread about what Another Polling Company thinks is weird.TGOHF said:You have to feel a bit sorry for pollsters - they can only check if they are right one day once every 5 years.
We've a statement on a huge issue now in the HoC - news value?
It's like discussing electoral reform on Budget Day.0 -
Tim, listen to the debate. Jeremy Hunt is doing ok. Burnham was near-hysterical. That's my view and I am listening to it. The content is also transparent in my view in that I believe Lab are avoiding the central issue while the Cons are facing it.tim said:TOPPING said:
pathetic diversion.tim said:AveryLP said:
Does it matter, tim?tim said:Govt spin on 13,000 deaths does not appear in the Keogh report.
What the public wants is a simple explanation of a complex problem.
The "13,000 deaths" may be neither academically nor clinically sound but it will resonate with families grieving the unnecessary or premature loss of their loved ones.
Jeremy is a serial statistical liar
Shadow Culture Secretary Mr Hunt, already facing a probe over expenses, said he let his Tory agent Margaret Chellingworth live rent-free for seven months at his second home in Farnham after he became MP for South West Surrey and lived in London.
He then changed his story and said she lived there for up to a year. But now he has admitted she stayed at the property - partly paid for by taxpayers' cash - for over THREE years.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/expenses-row-tory-jeremy-hunt-399904#ixzz2ZDAVE8aY
Thats what sort of man Hunt is.
"13,000 needless deaths"
What a performance from him.
Bringing expenses-related or other personal issues into it is beneath you.0 -
tim, PEOPLE DIED UNNECESSARILY.
Spinning your way out of it or smearing someone else is about as undignified as it is possible to get get. Trying to blame someone else for something that happened when Labour were in power is equally undignified.0 -
Whatever next?Plato said:Burnham is treading a strange line - he accepts the Francis Report and this in full but its all the Tories fault.
Prescott will rise from his lunch table at tea time and blame Murdoch.
I'm disappointed that BenM hasn't tried to pin it on Thatcher.
0 -
Burnham is very excitable in the HoC - he's scattergunning everything he can think of as a line of attack.
1/10 for a response - there's no coherence, no theme or consistency just lots of We Love NHS Staff.0 -
There it is - page 5:
However
That's the despicable typically Tory partisan attack on death rates squashed by the report author.
tempting it may be, it is clinically meaningless and academically reckless to
use such statistical measures to quantify actual numbers of avoidable deaths.
Robert Francis himself said, ‘it is in my view misleading and a potential
misuse of the figures to extrapolate from them a conclusion that any particular
number, or range of numbers of deaths were caused or contributed to by
inadequate care’;
http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/bruce-keogh-review/Documents/outcomes/keogh-review-final-report.pdf0 -
There are normally bets on the budget - number of sips of water, mentions of "Prudence", etc, and we've had recent experience of a budget changing the political narrative, with the Omnishambles budget.Plato said:
Piffle - a non-news thread when one is all over the media makes it redundant and actually reduces the comments about it's merits.OblitusSumMe said:
This is not a general politics site, it is a political betting site. Deciding which methodology for polling, and therefore which vote share for UKIP, is most reliable is a potentially very profitable decision for the punter who makes the right choice.Plato said:
That we have a thread about what Another Polling Company thinks is weird.TGOHF said:You have to feel a bit sorry for pollsters - they can only check if they are right one day once every 5 years.
We've a statement on a huge issue now in the HoC - news value?
It's like discussing electoral reform on Budget Day.
There have been loads of big news days over the last couple of years, and how many of them have had a sustained impact? In political betting terms today's events in the Commons are almost as off-topic as discussion of Test cricket.
Discussion of the minutiae of polling methodology is almost the reason this site exists. On another day perhaps Mike would have run a thread with some of the recent polling results on the NHS to tie in with today's Commons statement, but leading with remarks from Populus is not remarkable.0 -
Curse of the new thread:
Dear Ed,
Thank you for your letter - you are sensible to use Politicalbetting rather than the post which if it comes at all often doesn't arrive until late in the afternoon.
It would have been easier to continue with spending money on bureaucracy and welfare, as Labour seems to be suggesting - it would even have made the economy look as if it was growing. However if we had done that then we would have been faced with unemployment levels similar to Spain and high interest rates coupled with a massive devaluation of sterling which would have caused painful price inflation, which really would have hurt working people.
Joining a coalition with the Conservative wasn't easy - and we haven't got everything we wanted, and in some cases -student fees for example, did not press hard enough. However we really did put the country and economy before party and need the full five years to show that the economy is rebalanced from an over reliance on the public sector and the city.
The voting system sucks but it is all we have. We need to wait until we see the result of the General Election but it may be sensible to form a small group -two from each side to lay the foundations of possible future cooperation. I should warn you that we have learnt a lot working with the Conservatives, we wont be pushed around!
Best wishes
The Liberal Democrats
(all of us - we all* voted for the Coalition)
*except about 12 members at the NEC meeting.0 -
This is bad stuff...Burnham is stony faced...
Re Barbara Young, H of CQC and Labour peer "the HMG hated the idea that the regulator would criticise it, I think we were under more pressure when Andy Burnham became minister from the politics..."
Watch it on BBC24 http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/tv/bbc_parliament/watchlive0 -
I did statistics as part of my degree and there are some on here who could do with some basic understanding of the topic.
There are clearly issues for both parties here: (1) Labour - who appear not to accept any responsibility for what happened when they were in charge and who give the impression that NHS staff should never be criticised on principle. This is silly and bad politics. Far better to admit to mistakes and learn from them. (2) the Coalition - they have been in charge for 3 years now. Even if they weren't the cause of the problems - and they weren't, can they give a coherent story about how their policies are going to resolve the problems which have been identified?
The shrieking about Burnham and statistics is rather beside the point though it does show that - on this occasion - Labour appear to have been comprehensively outgunned in the black arts. People may rightly complain that "13000 needless deaths" is not correct but it will be as fruitless as IDs saying that the "bedroom tax" is not a tax.0 -
So in summary Labour's only defence is that Tory Health ministers are not allowed to comment on Health.
"Know your privilege !"0 -
More Keogh slapdowns for Tories (Page 4):
Between 2000 and 2008, the
NHS was rightly focused on rebuilding capacity and improving access after
decades of neglect.0 -
FPT.JackW said:Hhmmm
Hello Jack, I do not believe I have the knowledge to confirm your position , but it would not be impossible and given the way labour are copies of the Tories nowadays , there is a good chance.
Would be very nice but only likely if a NO vote in referendum which I believe will not be the case and so would expect a very strange vote in 2015 as the country prepares for independence.
0 -
The Sunday Telegraph needs to issue a prominent front page apology this Sunday.
Irresponsible rightwing rag.0 -
The big picture, and the one that will resonate with the public, is that there was a godawful c*ck up with the NHS, Lab were somehow involved, what with them being in power and all, but that they are adopting a "nothing to do with us, Gov" attitude.tim said:
I'm listening.TOPPING said:
Tim, listen to the debate. Jeremy Hunt is doing ok. Burnham was near-hysterical. That's my view and I am listening to it. The content is also transparent in my view in that I believe Lab are avoiding the central issue while the Cons are facing it.tim said:TOPPING said:
pathetic diversion.tim said:AveryLP said:
Does it matter, tim?tim said:Govt spin on 13,000 deaths does not appear in the Keogh report.
What the public wants is a simple explanation of a complex problem.
The "13,000 deaths" may be neither academically nor clinically sound but it will resonate with families grieving the unnecessary or premature loss of their loved ones.
Jeremy is a serial statistical liar
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/expenses-row-tory-jeremy-hunt-399904#ixzz2ZDAVE8aY
Thats what sort of man Hunt is.
"13,000 needless deaths"
What a performance from him.
Bringing expenses-related or other personal issues into it is beneath you.
Labour are accepting the Keogh report.
Hunt is seemingly stalling, particularly on staffing ratios.
Hence the big lie on 13,000 deaths that was spun.
I haven't followed the 13,000 deaths saga save to say that there was some Professor bloke on the telly using those very numbers. If we could somehow get Charles' succinct explanation of what he really meant emailed to every voter I'm sure this would become a non-issue.
Thing is, at the moment, the big red banner headline on eg. BBC News, Sky News, etc is "Hospital Scandal" and my guess is this will slowly percolate into people's perceptions (slowly, I admit with the NHS/Labour).
You usually smell out the critical elements of any story. In this case, your antennae have failed you.
0 -
(page 16)
It is important to understand that mortality in all NHS hospitals has been falling over the last decade: overall mortality has fallen by about 30% and the improvement is even greater when the increasing complexity of patients being treated is taken into account. Interestingly, the rate of improvement in the 14 hospitals under review has
Tories don't understand. They don't want to understand.
been similar to other NHS hospitals.0 -
If the term "excess deaths does not mean "deaths that, according to a complicated range of factors, could potentially have been avoided if the quality of healthcare had been better" as the Guardian seems to accept, what does it mean? And what is the point of calculating it?
Keogh is plainly covering himself: the terms "clinically meaningless" and "reckless academically" are themselves utterly meaningless. He isn't saying unreliable, or wrong, or not robust, because the findings are in fact robust and reliable. Why publish them otherwise?
0 -
That's why I said "appear". I think the focus on Burnham is a mistake (though Burnham himself should have stayed away from the media until after the report was published). Far better to make the more general point that Labour were so keen on trumpeting good news about the NHS that they turned a blind eye to warning signs and that this was unfair on and caused harm to patients and others.tim said:@Cyclefree
Labour appear to have been comprehensively outgunned in the black arts
If so it's resulted in a rise for Labours polling on health in todays YouGov, particularly among 2010 Lib Dem voters
And now you have Lib Dems divorcing themselves from Hunts disgraceful performance.
When things go wrong, what's needed is a sober assessment of why and what needs to be put right, how and over what time period not hysteria.
Still, Labour have been very good at manufacturing stories to make some political point at the Tories' expense so they're just getting back what they dish out.0 -
Labour source says David Cameron must apologise for authorising a politically motivated smear campaign ...
Maybe when Labour have apologised for doing this twice as hard every day for 13 years and more.
Let's have a PB competition: Who can think of the most egregious and deliberately misleading or outright nasty Labour smears when they were in power? The names Draper, Watson, Balls, Brown, Campbell, Mandelson, Blair, Hodges, Harman, Abbott, Byers, and all the rest may provoke a few unpleasant memories to get the list rolling!
It's incredible and frankly lame that the coalition has only just, after 3 years in power, started having a go at Labour and one day into this process Labour, whose whole approach to politics is founded upon denial and smears, are getting upset. Suck it up there's more to come.0 -
timtim said:@Cyclefree
Labour appear to have been comprehensively outgunned in the black arts
If so it's resulted in a rise for Labours polling on health in todays YouGov, particularly among 2010 Lib Dem voters
And now you have Lib Dems divorcing themselves from Hunts disgraceful performance.
It was precisely because Labour preferred to quote meaningless NHS Satisfaction Survey results rather than take action on independent clinical studies and whistleblower reports that the problems identified by Keogh exist today.
Less self advertisement and more outcome driven management should have been Labour's main priority.
Instead we got the Danny Boyle Olympics Opening ceremony promoting a utopian vision of dancing bed ridden children and their nurses.
Pure sentimental deception in place of effective management. Burnham paid more attention to political polls than he did to mortality rates.
He deserves everything coming to him.
0 -
Lib Dem, Tory and Labour MPs should reach cross-party agreement that the NHS is dangerous and if you use it you are likely to die. That way more people will go private.
Continual bad and negative news and scare stories about people dying from dental fillings would probably save the taxpayer a fortune on health costs, and allow governments - of all colours - to lower taxes and spend money on more joyful things.
Just a thought.0 -
The leadership of the Labour on the NHS failings remind me of the Catholic church and child sex abuse.
Both were more interested in the reputation of their organization ahead of the protection of children and the interest of patients.0 -
At a quick look the Keogh review looks like a remarkable piece of work, giving the big picture rather than getting bogged down in detail. Hopefully the recommendations will be followed and will indeed lead to better outcomes, both in the 14 hospitals studied and more generally in the NHS.
The point which Labour supporters don't or won't understand is that this sort of report could have been undertaken earlier, if the previous government had heeded the statistical warning signs rather than burying them or ignoring them. Therefore, improvements could have been made earlier, which in turn might well have saved a significant number of lives, even if you can't identify specifically which ones.0 -
Hey ho malcolmg.malcolmg said:
FPT.JackW said:Hhmmm
Hello Jack, I do not believe I have the knowledge to confirm your position , but it would not be impossible and given the way labour are copies of the Tories nowadays , there is a good chance.
Would be very nice but only likely if a NO vote in referendum which I believe will not be the case and so would expect a very strange vote in 2015 as the country prepares for independence.
Unlike you to be so coy but I understand.
Smiles ....
0 -
Very true Jack , but I really do not dabble in great depth and so would not like to just post a pointless view.JackW said:
Hey ho malcolmg.malcolmg said:
FPT.JackW said:Hhmmm
Hello Jack, I do not believe I have the knowledge to confirm your position , but it would not be impossible and given the way labour are copies of the Tories nowadays , there is a good chance.
Would be very nice but only likely if a NO vote in referendum which I believe will not be the case and so would expect a very strange vote in 2015 as the country prepares for independence.
Unlike you to be so coy but I understand.
Smiles ....
I do expect the YES vote to cause a very strange vote, as well as panic in labour ranks.0 -
Oh, tim, what a humiliation.tim said:No cabinet ministers supporting Hunt today.
not surprised after the big deaths lie.
But he does have the support of one health expert.
Maria Hutchings @MariaHutchings
Know Jeremy Hunt - have 100% belief that NHS is safest in his hands; empathetic,honourable and do-er!
Yay, it's MMR-autism whackjob and anti-fluoride conspiracist Hutchings.
I feel for you. I really do.
0 -
Tories don't understand. They don't want to understand.BenM said:(page 16)
It is important to understand that mortality in all NHS hospitals has been falling over the last decade: overall mortality has fallen by about 30% and the improvement is even greater when the increasing complexity of patients being treated is taken into account. Interestingly, the rate of improvement in the 14 hospitals under review has
been similar to other NHS hospitals.
If the rate of improvement in the 14 hospitals under review has been similar to the rest of the NHS, that means the 14 have been underpeforming for a decade.
That would be a very serious failing by the government of the day - and ultimately the responsible minister - unless there is a damn good reason why.0 -
Nothing from Stewart Jackson? You're slacking.tim said:No cabinet ministers supporting Hunt today.
not surprised after the big deaths lie.
But he does have the support of one health expert.
Maria Hutchings @MariaHutchings
Know Jeremy Hunt - have 100% belief that NHS is safest in his hands; empathetic,honourable and do-er!
Yay, it's MMR-autism whackjob and anti-fluoride conspiracist Hutchings.
'Stewart Jackson MP @SJacksonMP 31m
Shocking yobbish behaviour by Labour MPs in Commons unwilling to face up to their NHS failings'0 -
The mortality rates are robust and reliable.Ishmael_X said:If the term "excess deaths does not mean "deaths that, according to a complicated range of factors, could potentially have been avoided if the quality of healthcare had been better" as the Guardian seems to accept, what does it mean? And what is the point of calculating it?
Keogh is plainly covering himself: the terms "clinically meaningless" and "reckless academically" are themselves utterly meaningless. He isn't saying unreliable, or wrong, or not robust, because the findings are in fact robust and reliable. Why publish them otherwise?
It's just clinically meaningless and reckless academically to apply the formula (mortality rate X - mortality rate y) * no of patients = no of excess deaths0 -
The Honourable gentleman does himself a disservice is thinking he lacks depth. We may disagree on the type of depth but might I suggest he has enough wobble room to breach the surface and venture a provisional view on the Yes/No vote ratio ??malcolmg said:
Very true Jack , but I really do not dabble in great depth and so would not like to just post a pointless view.JackW said:
Hey ho malcolmg.malcolmg said:
FPT.JackW said:Hhmmm
Hello Jack, I do not believe I have the knowledge to confirm your position , but it would not be impossible and given the way labour are copies of the Tories nowadays , there is a good chance.
Would be very nice but only likely if a NO vote in referendum which I believe will not be the case and so would expect a very strange vote in 2015 as the country prepares for independence.
Unlike you to be so coy but I understand.
Smiles ....
I do expect the YES vote to cause a very strange vote, as well as panic in labour ranks.
0 -
Excellent comment by @RIchardNabavi.0
-
Oh dear, poor tim, reduced to retweeting Labour hacks like Anthony Painter and anonymous Labour sources as 'evidence' that Labour have been smeared.
I'd have thought it was more evidence that Labour are rattled, but heigh-ho.0 -
malcolm ( fpt ) , I'm surprised that you agree with Salmond's project to relegate Scotland to UK Crown dependency status.malcolmg said:
Very true Jack , but I really do not dabble in great depth and so would not like to just post a pointless view.JackW said:
Hey ho malcolmg.malcolmg said:
FPT.JackW said:Hhmmm
Hello Jack, I do not believe I have the knowledge to confirm your position , but it would not be impossible and given the way labour are copies of the Tories nowadays , there is a good chance.
Would be very nice but only likely if a NO vote in referendum which I believe will not be the case and so would expect a very strange vote in 2015 as the country prepares for independence.
Unlike you to be so coy but I understand.
Smiles ....
I do expect the YES vote to cause a very strange vote, as well as panic in labour ranks.
0 -
While I don't want to get sucked into this whole NHS debate (I have work to do, and all...), I would like to point out that mortality rates are complicated.
The DGH in Eastbourne is going to have a higher mortality rate than the one in Brighton. Not because it's a worse hospital, but because Eastbourne has more old people.
Sometimes the best surgeons have the highest mortality rates, and the worst the lowest. Why? Because the most difficult cases get sent to the best surgeons, while the weakest (usually least experienced) get the most routine cases.
These are only two of the two-hundred odd things that make taking raw mortality statistics meaningless.0 -
Andy Burnham's not sweating at all, no, no. no.tim said:
Frankly I'm amazed that the PM has let Hunt run this line, he must know he's not going to understand what he's doing, it was always going to blow up in his face.RichardNabavi said:Oh dear, poor tim, reduced to retweeting Labour hacks like Anthony Painter and anonymous Labour sources as 'evidence' that Labour have been smeared.
I'd have thought it was more evidence that Labour are rattled, but heigh-ho.
If it was supposed to be a decapitation strategy then Jeremy isn't the man to put in charge of it.
Who's that bloke with the big black cape and scythe who keeps following him around ?0 -
@rcs1000
Tell that to the victims.0 -
There was no lie. Hunt very properly drilled down into the potential problems potentially highlighted by the excess death figures and came up with substantive claims based on other, clinical evidence. The claim that the Tories have lied about this is astonishing. Where are the lies? (link please).
Never seen the timariat as rattled as this. They whine for years about the unreliability of PB tory anecdotes, you show them an incredibly rigorous academic study and they don't like that either.0 -
I think David Cameron must have learned from his mistakes.tim said:
Frankly I'm amazed that the PM has let Hunt run this line, he must know he's not going to understand what he's doing, it was always going to blow up in his face.RichardNabavi said:Oh dear, poor tim, reduced to retweeting Labour hacks like Anthony Painter and anonymous Labour sources as 'evidence' that Labour have been smeared.
I'd have thought it was more evidence that Labour are rattled, but heigh-ho.
If it was supposed to be a decapitation strategy then Jeremy isn't the man to put in charge of it.
As you rightly pointed out, the Tories banging on about Europe only strengthened UKIP's presence and political offer.
The same will now apply in reverse.
The more Burnham and Labour bang on about the NHS the more the public will be aware of its problems and the measures being taken by Hunt to solve them.
0 -
Is Ann Clwyd in the chamber ??0
-
If the rate of improvement in the 14 hospitals under review has been similar to the rest of the NHS, that means the 14 have been underpeforming for a decade.Charles said:
Tories don't understand. They don't want to understand.BenM said:(page 16)
It is important to understand that mortality in all NHS hospitals has been falling over the last decade: overall mortality has fallen by about 30% and the improvement is even greater when the increasing complexity of patients being treated is taken into account. Interestingly, the rate of improvement in the 14 hospitals under review has
been similar to other NHS hospitals.
That would be a very serious failing by the government of the day - and ultimately the responsible minister - unless there is a damn good reason why.
I would not totally agree that it would be a very serious failing in that scenario . If you are comparing something to an average then must always be some of the individual data in the series below that average and some above that average .
In the subject of this discussion the object should be to analyse why certain hospitals are " under performing " whether the under performance although there is serious .
What should not happen is Plato and others shrieking hysterically about 13,000 deaths .0 -
Given the level of understanding of statistics displayed by some here today I can understand why OGH felt there was a profit to be made from betting on politics.0
-
I would not totally agree that it would be a very serious failing in that scenario . If you are comparing something to an average then must always be some of the individual data in the series below that average and some above that average .MarkSenior said:
If the rate of improvement in the 14 hospitals under review has been similar to the rest of the NHS, that means the 14 have been underpeforming for a decade.Charles said:
Tories don't understand. They don't want to understand.BenM said:(page 16)
It is important to understand that mortality in all NHS hospitals has been falling over the last decade: overall mortality has fallen by about 30% and the improvement is even greater when the increasing complexity of patients being treated is taken into account. Interestingly, the rate of improvement in the 14 hospitals under review has
been similar to other NHS hospitals.
That would be a very serious failing by the government of the day - and ultimately the responsible minister - unless there is a damn good reason why.
In the subject of this discussion the object should be to analyse why certain hospitals are " under performing " whether the under performance although there is serious .
What should not happen is Plato and others shrieking hysterically about 13,000 deaths .
so you prefer the alternative of denying there are any deaths at all ?0 -
so you prefer the alternative of denying there are any deaths at all ?Alanbrooke said:
I would not totally agree that it would be a very serious failing in that scenario . If you are comparing something to an average then must always be some of the individual data in the series below that average and some above that average .MarkSenior said:
If the rate of improvement in the 14 hospitals under review has been similar to the rest of the NHS, that means the 14 have been underpeforming for a decade.Charles said:
Tories don't understand. They don't want to understand.BenM said:(page 16)
It is important to understand that mortality in all NHS hospitals has been falling over the last decade: overall mortality has fallen by about 30% and the improvement is even greater when the increasing complexity of patients being treated is taken into account. Interestingly, the rate of improvement in the 14 hospitals under review has
been similar to other NHS hospitals.
That would be a very serious failing by the government of the day - and ultimately the responsible minister - unless there is a damn good reason why.
In the subject of this discussion the object should be to analyse why certain hospitals are " under performing " whether the under performance although there is serious .
What should not happen is Plato and others shrieking hysterically about 13,000 deaths .
No , I prefer finding out the truth .
0 -
I would not totally agree that it would be a very serious failing in that scenario . If you are comparing something to an average then must always be some of the individual data in the series below that average and some above that average .MarkSenior said:
If the rate of improvement in the 14 hospitals under review has been similar to the rest of the NHS, that means the 14 have been underpeforming for a decade.Charles said:
Tories don't understand. They don't want to understand.BenM said:(page 16)
It is important to understand that mortality in all NHS hospitals has been falling over the last decade: overall mortality has fallen by about 30% and the improvement is even greater when the increasing complexity of patients being treated is taken into account. Interestingly, the rate of improvement in the 14 hospitals under review has
been similar to other NHS hospitals.
That would be a very serious failing by the government of the day - and ultimately the responsible minister - unless there is a damn good reason why.
In the subject of this discussion the object should be to analyse why certain hospitals are " under performing " whether the under performance although there is serious .
What should not happen is Plato and others shrieking hysterically about 13,000 deaths .
Shrieking hysterically about 13,000 deaths is a hell of a lot more healthy than quoting NHS Satisfaction Survey results as jusification for ignoring real problems.
Today marks a massive change in the politics of the NHS. Today, the NHS lost its immunity from political criticism.
There are problems. They need solving.
It doesn't matter how you identify the problems. You can take Robert S.'s informed and academic approach or you can speak the language of the abused patients and their bereaved families. Either approach will do.
0 -
No , I prefer finding out the truth .MarkSenior said:
so you prefer the alternative of denying there are any deaths at all ?Alanbrooke said:
I would not totally agree that it would be a very serious failing in that scenario . If you are comparing something to an average then must always be some of the individual data in the series below that average and some above that average .MarkSenior said:
If the rate of improvement in the 14 hospitals under review has been similar to the rest of the NHS, that means the 14 have been underpeforming for a decade.Charles said:
Tories don't understand. They don't want to understand.BenM said:(page 16)
It is important to understand that mortality in all NHS hospitals has been falling over the last decade: overall mortality has fallen by about 30% and the improvement is even greater when the increasing complexity of patients being treated is taken into account. Interestingly, the rate of improvement in the 14 hospitals under review has
been similar to other NHS hospitals.
That would be a very serious failing by the government of the day - and ultimately the responsible minister - unless there is a damn good reason why.
In the subject of this discussion the object should be to analyse why certain hospitals are " under performing " whether the under performance although there is serious .
What should not happen is Plato and others shrieking hysterically about 13,000 deaths .
Which I think today is highlighting nobody could be bothered to look at for political reasons for about ten years or so. The good news about the truth though is that it will always come out. We're just getting a small amuse-bouche this afternoon.0 -
Please don't become an NHS holocaust denier, tim.tim said:Neil said:Given the level of understanding of statistics displayed by some here today I can understand why OGH felt there was a profit to be made from betting on politics.
but what about the 13,000 dead, eh, eh?
George Freeman MP @Freeman_George 25m
Keogh Report highlights over 13,000 patients dying needlessly+culture of denial +cover up by Labour Ministers and some Trusts #badpolitics
0 -
I suspect if these people were actually betting they'd get better at figuring out the statistics. Part of the problem seems to be that people treat the things they're discussing as tribal identifiers rather than questions they're trying to find the answer to. Which is why it turns out that partisans will get the answer right if you pay them to:Neil said:Given the level of understanding of statistics displayed by some here today I can understand why OGH felt there was a profit to be made from betting on politics.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/03/if-you-pay-them-money-partisans-will-tell-you-the-truth/?wprss=rss_ezra-klein0 -
Tim and BenM are sounding desperate, cornered.
The problem, I think, is that they want it both ways: it didn't happen, and the Tories are sick for trying to capitalise on it.
The trouble is that both lines appear ludicrous, and the second requires them anyway to concede the truth of the headline.
Maybe this link will help tim and BenM?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre#Soviet_actions
Labour needs its own Nikolai Burdenko PFQ. Clue - "Andy" Burnham won't do.
0 -
After this report Keogh had better get some security for the graves of his grandparents.0
-
The issue for Labour is this: they spent a lot of time boasting about how much money they spent on the NHS, how this was putting right the Tories' neglect etc etc. Now reports are coming out about how during that same time not everything was always for the best in the best of all possible worlds - and this does tend to undermine Labour's case that lack of money was and is the only problem.
0 -
This is priceless. Political party complaining about politics. "It's not fair, sir, he done what I wanted to do."
Did Sunny Jim ever say "Crisis? What crisis?" Nope. Did the Sun ever apologise for making it up. Nope. Do the Labour party ever stop themselves shroud-waving or smearing if they can see some political benefit? Nope.
Politicians break down complex discussions into useful sound-bites for themselves, not to aid understanding.? Is anyone on their side bothered? Guess?
Hypocrisy knows no bounds today.0 -
Shakespeare got there first, tim.tim said:
NHS England @NHSEnglandAveryLP said:
Please don't become an NHS holocaust denier, tim.tim said:Neil said:Given the level of understanding of statistics displayed by some here today I can understand why OGH felt there was a profit to be made from betting on politics.
but what about the 13,000 dead, eh, eh?
George Freeman MP @Freeman_George 25m
Keogh Report highlights over 13,000 patients dying needlessly+culture of denial +cover up by Labour Ministers and some Trusts #badpolitics
Keogh#: measuring mortality is complex. National fall of around 30 to 50 percent since 2005.
Jeremy Chum chose to run on the smears instead.
GLOUCESTER
O, let me kiss that hand!
KING LEAR
Let me wipe it first; it smells of mortality.
0 -
Actually they want it four ways. Pre-May 2010, the two ways you describe, but for post-May 2010, it did happen, and Labour are statesmanlike and responsible for trying to capitalise on it.Bond_James_Bond said:
The problem, I think, is that they want it both ways: it didn't happen, and the Tories are sick for trying to capitalise on it.0 -
Hold on, that's your 'job'.tim said:
NHS England @NHSEnglandAveryLP said:
Please don't become an NHS holocaust denier, tim.tim said:Neil said:Given the level of understanding of statistics displayed by some here today I can understand why OGH felt there was a profit to be made from betting on politics.
but what about the 13,000 dead, eh, eh?
George Freeman MP @Freeman_George 25m
Keogh Report highlights over 13,000 patients dying needlessly+culture of denial +cover up by Labour Ministers and some Trusts #badpolitics
Keogh#: measuring mortality is complex. National fall of around 30 to 50 percent since 2005.
Jeremy Chum chose to run on the smears instead.
A fine bottle of hypocrisy from your cellar.
0 -
Hypocrisy knows no bounds today.
It's interesting that Labour made Leveson a very, very tory problem, even though a lot of the hacking and News Corp brown nosing happened under them.
Perhaps the tories were determined not to let the same happen in this case....0 -
The mortality rate is 100%. What is at issue is whether the mortality rates at particular hospitals were a sign of good, bad or indifferent care, the sorts of patients being treated there and whether they were ignored for the wrong reasons. The other issue is whether - for those people who were dying anyway - the care they received was of a good standard and statistics cannot tell you anything regarding that.tim said:
NHS England @NHSEnglandAveryLP said:
Please don't become an NHS holocaust denier, tim.tim said:Neil said:Given the level of understanding of statistics displayed by some here today I can understand why OGH felt there was a profit to be made from betting on politics.
but what about the 13,000 dead, eh, eh?
George Freeman MP @Freeman_George 25m
Keogh Report highlights over 13,000 patients dying needlessly+culture of denial +cover up by Labour Ministers and some Trusts #badpolitics
Keogh#: measuring mortality is complex. National fall of around 30 to 50 percent since 2005.
Jeremy Chum chose to run on the smears instead.0 -
@ Jack W
"The leadership of the Labour on the NHS failings remind me of the Catholic church and child sex abuse.
Both were more interested in the reputation of their organization ahead of the protection of children and the interest of patients."
Yes - this.
The party of the producer interest. Patients not so much.
Burnham did an English degree, has never had a real job, run anything, built anything, created anything or brought about a new job for someone else through his own efforts. He also appears to wear mascara. Despite all this, the fool was put in charge of the NHS and nobody in Labour will admit even today that this was perhaps a foolish decision.0 -
Even the Telegraph headline is saying low staffing levels are to blame for hospital deaths and it's difficult to see how that is going to work in the Tories favour. Hunt tried to spin the report outrageously before it came out with the "13000 deaths" line and it's fallen flat on its face within 24 hours now everyone else has seen the report. In fact the report is pointing out that mortality has in fact dropped significantly since 2005. Hunt just looks like an idiot but its not stopping the PB Tories still trying to carry on spinning it for all its worth!0
-
0
-
Only in Stafford.tim said:
Hospital mortality rates aren't 100% obviously, which is what the debate is about.Cyclefree said:
The mortality rate is 100%. What is at issue is whether the mortality rates at particular hospitals were a sign of good, bad or indifferent care, the sorts of patients being treated there and whether they were ignored for the wrong reasons. The other issue is whether - for those people who were dying anyway - the care they received was of a good standard and statistics cannot tell you anything regarding that.tim said:
NHS England @NHSEnglandAveryLP said:
Please don't become an NHS holocaust denier, tim.tim said:Neil said:Given the level of understanding of statistics displayed by some here today I can understand why OGH felt there was a profit to be made from betting on politics.
but what about the 13,000 dead, eh, eh?
George Freeman MP @Freeman_George 25m
Keogh Report highlights over 13,000 patients dying needlessly+culture of denial +cover up by Labour Ministers and some Trusts #badpolitics
Keogh#: measuring mortality is complex. National fall of around 30 to 50 percent since 2005.
Jeremy Chum chose to run on the smears instead.
Unless you believe everyone dies within 30 days of coming out of hospital.0 -
RichardNabavi said:
Oh dear, poor tim, reduced to retweeting Labour hacks like Anthony Painter and anonymous Labour sources as 'evidence' that Labour have been smeared.
I'd have thought it was more evidence that Labour are rattled, but heigh-ho.
Two respected posters offering different spellings of 'hey/heigh ho'!JackW said:
Hey ho malcolmg.malcolmg said:
FPT.JackW said:Hhmmm
Hello Jack, I do not believe I have the knowledge to confirm your position , but it would not be impossible and given the way labour are copies of the Tories nowadays , there is a good chance.
Would be very nice but only likely if a NO vote in referendum which I believe will not be the case and so would expect a very strange vote in 2015 as the country prepares for independence.
Unlike you to be so coy but I understand.
Smiles ....
Which is correct?
0 -
yeah, you can put that one with Labour never borrowed too much money. You know the same people who said they'd never run a deficit until the IMF pointed out it was 5.2%. before the crisis hit.OllyT said:Even the Telegraph headline is saying low staffing levels are to blame for hospital deaths and it's difficult to see how that is going to work in the Tories favour. Hunt tried to spin the report outrageously before it came out with the "13000 deaths" line and it's fallen flat on its face within 24 hours now everyone else has seen the report. In fact the report is pointing out that mortality has in fact dropped significantly since 2005. Hunt just looks like an idiot but its not stopping the PB Tories still trying to carry on spinning it for all its worth!
0 -
I don't think the second thing is the same as the first. Talking about an issue increases its salience, which boosts the party that is more trusted on it. So talking about Europe boosts UKIP, and talking about the NHS boosts Labour. To boost the Tories they need to find an issue that they're relatively trusted on compared to both Labour and UKIP. They used to be able to use all kinds of social right-wingery but a lot of that has been cut off by UKIP. Their obvious strength is the economy, where there's no obvious pincer movement.AveryLP said:
I think David Cameron must have learned from his mistakes.tim said:
Frankly I'm amazed that the PM has let Hunt run this line, he must know he's not going to understand what he's doing, it was always going to blow up in his face.RichardNabavi said:Oh dear, poor tim, reduced to retweeting Labour hacks like Anthony Painter and anonymous Labour sources as 'evidence' that Labour have been smeared.
I'd have thought it was more evidence that Labour are rattled, but heigh-ho.
If it was supposed to be a decapitation strategy then Jeremy isn't the man to put in charge of it.
As you rightly pointed out, the Tories banging on about Europe only strengthened UKIP's presence and political offer.
The same will now apply in reverse.
The more Burnham and Labour bang on about the NHS the more the public will be aware of its problems and the measures being taken by Hunt to solve them.
It is true that there have been successful campaigns based on taking a strength and turning it into a weakness. The classic one was the swift-boat campaign against John Kerry. But even there, heroism in war wasn't associated with the Democrats and the man himself came over as a bit of a doofus, so the attackers were going with the grain of the voters' prejudices, and all they had to deal with were actual facts.0 -
funny thing I've noticed about tim is that he never does "mellow and worldly"
his moods swing between "sneering arrogance" via "desperate spinning" through "cornered and bullshitting" to today's "rattled smearing".
you can disagree with someone's politics but give them the benefit of the doubt as a person because they seem well meaning. Jon Cruddas seems like a decent bloke, for example. As did John Smith.
But in none of his mood swings does our tim ever, ever come across as agreeable or well-meaning.
hell of an indictment really, though not surprising he feels the pain today.0 -
Yet more twaddle.OllyT said:Even the Telegraph headline is saying low staffing levels are to blame for hospital deaths and it's difficult to see how that is going to work in the Tories favour. Hunt tried to spin the report outrageously before it came out with the "13000 deaths" line and it's fallen flat on its face within 24 hours now everyone else has seen the report. In fact the report is pointing out that mortality has in fact dropped significantly since 2005. Hunt just looks like an idiot but its not stopping the PB Tories still trying to carry on spinning it for all its worth!
The NHS problems are staff care, effective management and clinical performance.
Are you arguing that the 14 NHS Trust Hospitals reported on by Keogh are under-resourced compared with better performing hospitals?
As for resources, more is being spent on health under the Coalition government than under any previous government as is demonstrated by this table of spend as %GDP.
:
Spend on Health
Year %GDP
1997-98 5.2
1998-99 5.3
1999-00 5.2
2000-01 5.5
2001-02 5.8
2002-03 6.1
2003-04 6.5
2004-05 6.8
2005-06 7.0
2006-07 7.0
2007-08 7.1
2008-09 7.7
2009-10 8.4
2010-11 8.2
2011-12 7.9
But resources are not an end in themselves. It is outcomes by which the NHS should be measured.
0 -
Heigh-ho! sing, heigh-ho! unto the green hollyisam said:Two respected posters offering different spellings of 'hey/heigh ho'!
Which is correct?
Most friendship is feigning, most loving mere folly
As You Like It, Act II, Scene VII
Jack probably remembers an earlier spelling.0 -
@OilyT
'Even the Telegraph headline is saying low staffing levels are to blame for hospital deaths'
And from the same article:
'The scandal at Stafford Hospital occurred after massive staff cutbacks, which meant that on one floor of the hospital, there were just two qualified nurses to care for patients at night.'
So Labour now taking full responsibility for the Stafford hospital deaths?
0 -
Hunt seems quite an astute performer to me, something that clearly pains tribal Labourists indoctrinated with the idea that all Etonians are thick. It must be doubly galling to have rings run round you by someone your prejudices instruct you to despise: Cameron, Osborne and now Hunt.
There is almost certainly more pain to be piled on Burnham by Hunt yet.0 -
Kind of on topic!
Has a poll ever been conducted using a version of AV?
Ask each person their top two choices in order with a percentage of likelihood to vote for either with the option to only nominate one party
It might give a clearer indication and stop so much messing about weighting the sample etc
0 -
Yes, we noticed Burnham skewered Hunt totally with the Lynton Crosby comment.Bond_James_Bond said:
There is almost certainly more pain to be piled on Burnham by Hunt yet.0 -
I wasn't referring to hospital mortality rates but to our overall one. Mortality rates in hospitals will of course vary.tim said:
Hospital mortality rates aren't 100% obviously, which is what the debate is about.Cyclefree said:
The mortality rate is 100%. What is at issue is whether the mortality rates at particular hospitals were a sign of good, bad or indifferent care, the sorts of patients being treated there and whether they were ignored for the wrong reasons. The other issue is whether - for those people who were dying anyway - the care they received was of a good standard and statistics cannot tell you anything regarding that.tim said:
NHS England @NHSEnglandAveryLP said:
Please don't become an NHS holocaust denier, tim.tim said:Neil said:Given the level of understanding of statistics displayed by some here today I can understand why OGH felt there was a profit to be made from betting on politics.
but what about the 13,000 dead, eh, eh?
George Freeman MP @Freeman_George 25m
Keogh Report highlights over 13,000 patients dying needlessly+culture of denial +cover up by Labour Ministers and some Trusts #badpolitics
Keogh#: measuring mortality is complex. National fall of around 30 to 50 percent since 2005.
Jeremy Chum chose to run on the smears instead.
Unless you believe everyone dies within 30 days of coming out of hospital.
0 -
There's E100k to be won from the IEA on a Brexit plan - see ads on this site.
That'd be nice.
A good way to elicit top notch policy input - offer a prize open to all and collate the submissions.0 -
They areAveryLP said:
:
But resources are not an end in themselves. It is outcomes by which the NHS should be measured.
John Appleby @jappleby123
.@frasernelson @jdportes Hi funding: NHS prod 2000-04: 2.1%; 2004-2009: 2.4%....and lo funding:1995-2000: prod= 0.1% http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171766_289768.pdf …
Productivity rose 2.1% when more cash spent on NHS under Labour
Only 0.1% when starved of cash under Tory and 1st term Labour govts.
Tribal Tory beliefs != Reality.0 -
Interesting is it not that Labour's response today is "how dare you malign the producers" whereas normal people's response "what on earth were the producers doing?"0
-
BenM said:
Yes, we noticed Burnham skewered Hunt totally with the Lynton Crosby comment.Bond_James_Bond said:
There is almost certainly more pain to be piled on Burnham by Hunt yet.
because the huge mass of the electorate knows who Lynton Crosby is Ben, right ?
or maybe they're now trying to figure out why Bing's son is working in hospital services.
0 -
edit: anecdote alertOllyT said:Even the Telegraph headline is saying low staffing levels are to blame for hospital deaths and it's difficult to see how that is going to work in the Tories favour. Hunt tried to spin the report outrageously before it came out with the "13000 deaths" line and it's fallen flat on its face within 24 hours now everyone else has seen the report. In fact the report is pointing out that mortality has in fact dropped significantly since 2005. Hunt just looks like an idiot but its not stopping the PB Tories still trying to carry on spinning it for all its worth!
I don't know how widespread this was but my understanding is a lot of nurses quit or went agency over a relatively short space of time over stuff to do with targets (this was quite a few years ago) and the government had to go on an emergency trawl abroad to try and replace them.
The other thing i'd imagine vis a vis staffing levels is places that have been operating at well above the capacity they were designed for e.g. London maternity hospitals, are more likely to have *relatively* low staffing levels, especially fully qualified staff, for the workload they're dealing with and hence are likely to have made more mistakes.0 -
Thank youRichardNabavi said:
Heigh-ho! sing, heigh-ho! unto the green hollyisam said:Two respected posters offering different spellings of 'hey/heigh ho'!
Which is correct?
Most friendship is feigning, most loving mere folly
As You Like It, Act II, Scene VII
Jack probably remembers an earlier spelling.
0
![[Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/d2ea526b1b06ed109333f390c7ae956b_100.png)
This discussion has been closed.