politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Populus online has CON closing the gap to just 5 pc – but a

seant latest:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/100228569/britains-murderers-up-in-arms-after-heartless-tory-van-campaign-disses-them/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

tim said:

@TGOHF

PCL house prices to rise by 6% (not 0%) this year – Knight Frank

July 29, 2013
Barely a week after Savills tore up its start-of-the-year predictions, adding 6.6% to the expected increase in property prices (read all about it here), Knight Frank has followed suit, revising up its prime central London house price forecasts for the year from 0% to 6%.

http://www.primeresi.com/pcl-house-prices-to-rise-by-6-not-0-this-year-knight-frank/19064/

And that's before Osborne has started to throw taxpayer subsidised mortgages at non new build and remortgaging.

Up to £600k a pop.

P / SP CL house prices are in no way representative of UK house prices. They are a different market, with a different buyer universe.

And £600K won't buy you much in P CL (or SP CL)

@DavidL

Interesting stuff, I wonder if the Sports Direct financial PR people got one over the FT when they published this:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f3f11e5c-ef71-11e2-8229-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2aS3qbi5l

@Roger

It did leave me wondering when wasting taxpayers' money became an issue for just the left, the Guardian and the Lib Dems though.

Neil said:

@DavidL

Interesting stuff, I wonder if the Sports Direct financial PR people got one over the FT when they published this:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f3f11e5c-ef71-11e2-8229-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2aS3qbi5l

Hard to say, especially when you are too mean to subscribe to the FT! But a one off bonus seems to me very much a part of the culture. You don't have entitlements, you are subject to the whims and grace and favour of the employer. It is demeaning and wrong.

(switches right wing bias back on again)

NickPalmer said:

DavidL said:

This is the sort of campaign from Unite that I would hope could obtain cross party support. Apparently 90% of Sports Direct staff are on zero hours contracts.

Frankly, I would think rather better of Ed Miliband if he got behind this as well. It might even give some meaning to his rather flakey "predator" nonsense. These contracts are an abuse of a dominant position and need to be stopped.

Yes, it's not yet official Labour policy (for all the usual reasons) but Andy Burnham has called for zero-hours contracts to be banned.

I often scratch my head over your posts - half of them are centrist, reasonable, and kind-hearted, with often a good word for unions and benefit recipients, and I often agree with you. Half are virulently partisan Tory posts. I'd have thought that you'd have mixed feelings about all the parties and be open to persuasion?

I certainly do not believe that any party has the sole source of wisdom or insight. But when I do come over all tory is in macro economics. The last government, which you supported Nick, did terrible things to this country creating a disaster that will impoverish our children, let alone my generation. I cannot forgive them for that and would not contemplate voting Labour while some of the guilty men remain in office.

As you will have seen I don't think Osborne has got everything right either but he is at least trying to go in the right directions. Brown just lied and lied and spent and spent.

On social policy I find some tory positions hard to stomach although this has been much less of a problem under Cameron and Osborne, who do not get nearly enough credit for this, than previous leaders. There are clearly opportunities for different points of view and a pragmatic approach. I frequently find myself in agreement with yourself and Southam Observer in particular.

JosiasJessop said:

Plato said:

TGOHF said:

Ted Nugent's "Cat Scratch Fever" is an all time classic - surely even Democrats must enjoy his music...

What a peculiar conversation this is. Cat scratches and bites are very well known to be sources of nasty infections - my MiL almost lost a finger and my GP prescribed me antibiotics to keep in the cupboard so I could treat any injuries promptly.

In just a couple of hours an infection can track up your arm rather seriously if you're unlucky.

We both know that cat scratches can be serious in some rare cases, both immediately and in the longer term. You know that. The world knows that.

Tim does not.

I'm waiting for Labour's next manifesto. "The NHS will deal with any accident at A&E, except when it is a cat scratch. Then the patient can just FOAD."

In fact, that sounds a bit like the way Stafford treated a relative of mine after a head injury: "Go home, and if you're alive in the morning we'll deal with you." ...

JJ, you seem a bright chap, why do you allow yourself to be trolled?

Tim doesn't really care about the stuff he bangs on about, he does it to provoke a reaction, once he gets that reaction he will endlessly repeat it, in and out of context, in the hope of provoking further reaction.

So, I'm genuinely interested, why allow yourself to be trolled?

JosiasJessop said:

myvanilla88 said:

JosiasJessop said:

Plato said:

TGOHF said:

T
ed Nugent's "Cat Scratch Fever" is an all time classic - surely even Democrats must enjoy his music...

What a peculiar conversation this is. Cat scratches and bites are very well known to be sources of nasty infections - my MiL almost lost a finger and my GP prescribed me antibiotics to keep in the cupboard so I could treat any injuries promptly.

In just a couple of hours an infection can track up your arm rather seriously if you're unlucky.

We both know that cat scratches can be serious in some rare cases, both immediately and in the longer term. You know that. The world knows that.

Tim does not.

I'm waiting for Labour's next manifesto. "The NHS will deal with any accident at A&E, except when it is a cat scratch. Then the patient can just FOAD."

In fact, that sounds a bit like the way Stafford treated a relative of mine after a head injury: "Go home, and if you're alive in the morning we'll deal with you." ...

JJ, you seem a bright chap, why do you allow yourself to be trolled?

Tim doesn't really care about the stuff he bangs on about, he does it to provoke a reaction, once he gets that reaction he will endlessly repeat it, in and out of context, in the hope of provoking further reaction.

So, I'm genuinely interested, why allow yourself to be trolled?

Because I've just had a rather long teleconference with a client, and I need to let my annoyance out somewhere. ;-)

However, I'm not sure Tim's a troll. There's still an infinitesimal chance he might be the world-renowned-expert-in-everything he makes himself out to be.

Tim is a troll, that's why he stalking you as we speak, in a pathetic attempt to get another reaction from you. Still, your keyboard, your rules. Have fun.

Plato said:

OT Amazing and shocking tale of the sinking of USS Indianapolis and the sharks http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23455951?ocid=socialflow_twitter_bbcnewsmagazine

I seem to remember that story being told somewhat vividly in "Jaws" when they were on the boat and comparing scars.

carl said:

myvanilla88 said:

JosiasJessop said:

Plato said:

TGOHF said:

Ted Nugent's "Cat Scratch Fever" is an all time classic - surely even Democrats must enjoy his music...

What a peculiar conversation this is. Cat scratches and bites are very well known to be sources of nasty infections - my MiL almost lost a finger and my GP prescribed me antibiotics to keep in the cupboard so I could treat any injuries promptly.

In just a couple of hours an infection can track up your arm rather seriously if you're unlucky.

We both know that cat scratches can be serious in some rare cases, both immediately and in the longer term. You know that. The world knows that.

Tim does not.

I'm waiting for Labour's next manifesto. "The NHS will deal with any accident at A&E, except when it is a cat scratch. Then the patient can just FOAD."

In fact, that sounds a bit like the way Stafford treated a relative of mine after a head injury: "Go home, and if you're alive in the morning we'll deal with you." ...

JJ, you seem a bright chap, why do you allow yourself to be trolled?

Tim doesn't really care about the stuff he bangs on about, he does it to provoke a reaction, once he gets that reaction he will endlessly repeat it, in and out of context, in the hope of provoking further reaction.

So, I'm genuinely interested, why allow yourself to be trolled?

Are you attempting to troll a troll who is trolling someone else who is allowing themselves to be trolled?

Isn't the internet odd.

I'm not trolling anybody. I'm genuinely interested why in the face of all the evidence, somebody allows themselves to be trolled. No ulterior motive, no desire to become massively engaged in some sort of troll off. So to prove the point, that's my last post on the matter.

carl said:

Zero hour contracts are a tricky one.

They can be genuinely beneficial for employees / potential employees. The problem is that they are abused by employers, as the Sports Direct example shows..

Yes, that is spot-on.

I can't see how a government could ban (or rationally would want to ban) an arrangement whereby, for example, a catering company can have a pool of people whom they can call on when they have a particularly large requirement for staff (for the Henley Regatta, say).

However, the key thing is that it should be a genuine flexible arrangement willingly entered into on both sides, with no obligation on either side to supply or accept the work, not a wheeze to get round employment law.

In fact, it's quite likely that a lot of zero-hour contracts are in fact legally dubious:

Thus, when deciding whether a zero-hours contract constitutes a contract of employment, conferring employee status, the wording of the contract will not be determinative of whether there is, in practice, a mutuality of obligation. The tribunal will look closely at the reality of the agreement. If the reality is that there is a pattern of regular work which is regularly accepted, the tribunal may deem the contract to be one of employment

http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06553.pdf

@Plato

"OT Amazing and shocking tale of the sinking of USS Indianapolis and the sharks"

Don't you remember the second best scene in JAWS?

"Hooper: You were on the Indianapolis?

Brody: What happened?

Quint: Japanese submarine slammed two torpedoes into our side, Chief. We was comin' back from the island of Tinian to Leyte... just delivered the bomb. The Hiroshima bomb. Eleven hundred men went into the water. Vessel went down in 12 minutes. Didn't see the first shark for about a half an hour. Tiger. 13-footer. You know how you know that when you're in the water, Chief? You tell by looking from the dorsal to the tail fin. What we didn't know, was our bomb mission had been so secret, no distress signal had been sent. They didn't even list us overdue for a week. Very first light, Chief, sharks come cruisin', so we formed ourselves into tight groups. You know, it was kinda like old squares in the battle like you see in the calendar named "The Battle of Waterloo" and the idea was: shark comes to the nearest man, that man he starts poundin' and hollerin' and screamin' and sometimes the shark will go away... but sometimes he wouldn't go away. Sometimes that shark he looks right into ya. Right into your eyes. And, you know, the thing about a shark... he's got lifeless eyes. Black eyes. Like a doll's eyes. When he comes at ya, doesn't seem to be living... until he bites ya, and those black eyes roll over white and then... ah then you hear that terrible high-pitched screamin'. The ocean turns red.......................",

tim said:

"I'm not trolling anybody. I'm genuinely interested why in the face of all the evidence, somebody allows themselves to be trolled. No ulterior motive, no desire to become massively engaged in some sort of troll off. So to prove the point, that's my last post on the matter."

Josias Jessop always comments on my posts, this morning on housing, this afternoon with his "call an ambulance it might get infected" idiocy, you'd have to ask him why


It's because I'm secretly in love with you.

No, as I have said it all depends on the UKIP vote and centrist 2010 LDs, if Cameron wins them both he can get a majority

RichardNabavi said:

DavidL said:

I also think that this is the sort of case that the public sector should use its economic muscle by making it clear that it will be a condition of any public sector contracts that the employees providing these services are not to be on these contracts.

What about catering, for which these contacts are very well suited?

I think the qualifying period deals with that. If someone is taken on to deal with a one off event then they will have the contract they have. If, however, the caterer is using the same pool of people week in, week out to meet a range of different contracts then that reality should be reflected in the employment relationship and the rights of the employee.

I don't really agree with the comments made in the HoC paper you linked to. It is out of date. There is, in my experience, an increasing trend to reflect the actual words of the contract that parties signed fair or not. This is a result of the sort of principles that exist in commercial contractual interpretation bleeding over into employment contracts.

That is why I think we need the kind of provision that I have tentatively suggested.

Good evening, everyone.

Interesting thoughts, as usual, from Gary Anderson: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/23492408

I agree with him on Alonso. Earlier today I was thinking of laying Alonso to be top 3 in the title race, but the lay odds are 1.55, which is a bit too long for me.

Allison's returned to Ferrari as chassis technical director: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/23495111

He's got his work cut out.

DavidL said:

I think the qualifying period deals with that. If someone is taken on to deal with a one off event then they will have the contract they have. If, however, the caterer is using the same pool of people week in, week out to meet a range of different contracts then that reality should be reflected in the employment relationship and the rights of the employee.

Surely the point is the unpredictability of it. The catering company will want to call upon a pool of people whom they know are reliable and competent (so they won't want to take on casual staff they've never used before), but the actual hours when they'll need those staff are completely variable - it might be nothing one week, and 500 people the next week because they've got the contract to provide catering to a sports event or whatever. If the staff don't mind working on that basis, because it's just some extra money or their other commitments are very flexible, then surely that is fine, and indeed the only practical way of working - unless you're going to ban smaller companies from operating at all in this field, and effectively allow only mega-corporations to do so.

On the other end of the scale, the example given in that parliamentary paper of "Edinburgh University found 27% of staff are on such contracts, rising to 47% for those in the College of Humanities and Social Science" sounds like an abuse.

RichardNabavi said:

DavidL said:

Surely the point is the unpredictability of it. The catering company will want to call upon a pool of people whom they know are reliable and competent (so they won't want to take on casual staff they've never used before), but the actual hours when they'll need those staff are completely unpredictable - it might be nothing one week, and 500 people the next week because they've got the contract to provide catering to a sports event or whatever. If the staff don't mind working on that basis, because it's just some extra money or their other commitments are very flexible, then surely that is fine, and indeed the only practical way of working - unless you're going to ban smaller companies from operating at all in this field, and effectively allow only mega-corporations to do so.

On the other end of the scale, the example given in that parliamentary paper of "Edinburgh University found 27% of staff are on such contracts, rising to 47% for those in the College of Humanities and Social Science" sounds like an abuse.

You are in serious danger of wandering into one of my favourite hobby horses here. The short version is that all contracts are about the allocation of risk. it is why every lawyer should be compelled to study economics.

The risk in your scenario is that the employer will one week find himself short of work. He passes that risk to the employee by a zero hour contract. Who is best placed to take that risk?

Well that depends on the nature of the relationship. If you are a chef, for example, you may have similar arrangements with several "employers" and you may be willing to take that risk for a higher rate of pay. If you are less skilled and lower paid it is not fair or reasonable for the risk to be put on the employee or indeed the state who pick up the tab in benefits. Those most at risk have only 1 employer or one group of employers which is why I made that a condition of qualifying.

If these conditions were imposed on all employers in catering there would be a level playing field and the cost of catering would no doubt rise slightly to reflect the risk the employer has taken on. That seems to me to be an appropriate cost for the employer to have to take on.

tim said:

JosiasJessop said:

tim said:

JosiasJessop said:

tim said:

"I'm not trolling anybody. I'm genuinely interested why in the face of all the evidence, somebody allows themselves to be trolled. No ulterior motive, no desire to become massively engaged in some sort of troll off. So to prove the point, that's my last post on the matter."

Josias Jessop always comments on my posts, this morning on housing, this afternoon with his "call an ambulance it might get infected" idiocy, you'd have to ask him why

It's because I'm secretly in love with you.

There's nothing wrong with having ambition.

Quite the opposite. You'd be my dirty down-at-hell lover, shuffling around the mean streets of Liverpool in a dirty mac as you yearn for my presence. It'll be a step down for me. But at least our affair will get you away from posting on PB for a few hours a day ...

You don't strike me as being "hours a day" interesting.

Well, I am a Geek. And the Geeks will inherit the Earth.

@Sunil

" What was the best scene? "

The first one.

Roger said:

@TGOHF


Roger said:
'Crap tasteless and very unfunny blog by Sean.
Should go down really well on here.'

"What was tasteless about it ?"

Reducto ad absurdam arguments are for schoolchildren or those with a very limited IQ. Sean is neither (unlike some of his fans on here).

Roger

I am surprised that Sean targetted murder in his blog.

According to the latest MORI polls I believe immigration has greater salience.

I, for one, would be interested to hear Sean's views on illegal immigrants.

DavidL said:

@JosiasJessop @Tim

Get a room. Without an internet connection. Please. This got weird some time ago.

Seriously homoerotic stuff. Could be a New Labour cabinet meeting.

murali_s said:

tim said:

Tories taking a hammering on the evening news over 111, deservedly
No ministers available, just the old buffer from the Lords.
Surely Hunt Soubry and Dr Dan didn't all go on holiday at the same time?

The NHS is simply not safe in Tory hands. Simples.

I'd rather the patients were safe than the institution.

RichardNabavi said:

DavidL said:

If these conditions were imposed on all employers in catering there would be a level playign field and the cost of catering would no doubt raise slightly to reflect the risk the employer has taken on. That seems to me to be an appropriate cost for the employer to have to take on.

No, what would happen is that there would be a small number of monopoly employers because the barriers to entry for new firms would be insuperable. That's not in anyone's interest (except Compass plc).

In any case you're starting from the assumption that this must be definition be an abusive relationship. But 'tain't necessarily so: lots of people don't mind having the option - but, crucially, not the obligation - to work a few evenings a month. Whether they do so for one or several companies doesn't alter that; they may prefer to work on an occasional basis for just one company who they in turn trust and like.

I don't see the barriers to entry point. New businesses typically have owner/employer staff and would not be affected. By the time they were employing people on a sufficiently regular basis for them to qualify they are well enough established to take on the cost, particularly if all their competitors have the same cost.

The second point is more complicated because my suggestion clearly does remove some flexibility. But employment rights are contingent upon working enough hours to qualify so a student, for example, is unlikely to qualify. If they do work enough hours then perhaps they should get the rights I have suggested. Such rights are of course self limiting as they will be fixed by reference to the hours worked.

ANDY JS /ROGER

MODERATION IS NOT A SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION ON PB

Charles said:

RN, if they were restricted to these cases, where there is a common interest in the flexibility then they are fine.

The problem is that they are often used by big companies / organisations versus workers with limited real choice / other options. Examples are cleaning staff in hospitals - companies know how much work they will have on a reasonably predictable basis, so there should be no need for zero hours contracts

Yes, that's basically what I'm saying. However, the parliamentary briefing paper which I linked to earlier seems to suggest that, in the latter case, the staff are actually employees and the zero-hours contract wouldn't stand up. DavidL suggests that is a wrong interpretation of the law - I'm not qualified to give an opinion on that, but it sounds as though what is needed is either a further test case (over to you, trades unions!), or an amendment to existing law.

However, one does need to be careful not to throw out the baby with the regulatory bathwater. As we all know, the only beneficiaries of excessive regulation are big, semi-monopolistic companies.

TIM
YOU ARE NOT PERMITTED TO MAKE ANY COMMENT ABOUT JEREMY HUNT WITHOUT A BONA FIDE LINK
PLEASE PROVIDE A LINK PROVING WHAT YOU SAY OR EDIT YOUR COMMENT ACCORDINGLY>

Reports are coming in of a bad train crash in Switzerland.

I think that makes four bad train crashes in Europe in just a few weeks. :-(

Re Zero Hour Contracts

In Italy we even have permanent "job on call" contracts.
Waiters, receptionist, people working at gas stations, phone operators, janitors are among the categories of jobs where it's allowed. And obviously for weekends, summer, Christmas periods.
The worker can't work for the same employer for more than 400 datys in a 3 years period.

There're 2 type of contracts...1) the worker can't refuse the call 2) the worker can tell the employer that he's already busy with something else.
In case of Type 1, he receives a monthly allowance for his availability.

It can't be used to replace striking workers.

@Tim

'Tories taking a hammering on the evening news over 111, deservedly
No ministers available, just the old buffer from the Lords.
Surely Hunt Soubry and Dr Dan didn't all go on holiday at the same time?'

Labour put Captain Birdseye on BBC who agreed that 111 was signed off by Labour.

Is Andy in hiding again or too hysterical to make an appearance?

Teresa Pearce reselected for Labour in Erith & Thamesmead:

https://twitter.com/tpearce003/status/361895169894785025

Best keep 111 on speed dial on Sundays (£):

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article3828692.ece

Eltham MP too. Check Cllr John Fahy's twitter (comment from a few days ago)

Andy_JS said:

Teresa Pearce reselected for Labour in Erith & Thamesmead:

https://twitter.com/tpearce003/status/361895169894785025

I wonder if this technique would work on blog trolls as well

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10209643/Internet-troll-who-abused-Mary-Beard-apologises-after-threat-to-tell-his-mother.html

Mumeeeeeee

carl said:

You get the feeling the 111 fiasco is the tip of a very large iceberg.

The Tories are certainly doing a cracking job confirming the electorate's worst fears about their ability to look after the NHS.

What in God's name was Cameron thinking allowing all this upheaval he promised wouldn't happen?

Carl, in your opinion what do you think the top 5 changes for the worse are since 2010? I very rarely (thankfully) have had to make use of it and would be hard pushed to tell what, if any, differences there are.

TIM ... YOU ARE INDIRECTLY REFERENCING SOMEONE YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO REFER TO..

FITALASS... PLEASE DO NOT DISCUSS MODERATION

tim said:

Right wing press not looking good here, Chums = NHS Vandals

http://www.express.co.uk/

The Labour model of a monolithic, national telephone health advice and information service staffed by nurses has proved to be uneconomic when compared to private sector supply.

NHS Direct can only break even on the service if paid £13 per call whereas its smaller, regionally based competitors are able to contract at a rate of between £7 and £9 per call.

Any businessmen familiar with the de-monopolising of state services will be familiar with the arguments currently being rehearsed in public.

How may times have I heard the cry from the depossessed monopoly of "how can they can ever make a profit at those prices?".

But as we all know, when a market is opened up to competition new entrants push down pricing and costs and the new, fitter providers tend to win. "How can the Chinese make televisions/kettles/computers at those prices?".

So who is really complaining about this inevitable process? The Express article you quote gives us a clue:

Sara Gorton, deputy head of health at Unison, said the union previously warned that the new service would be a "shadow" of the former helpline.

"The Government rushed through the trials of 111 in its haste to increase private competition and it is patients who are now paying the price," she said.

Unite's national officer for health Barrie Brown said: "There was no logic for the Government to replace the successful single-service NHS Direct, which was highly rated by users, with a fragmented NHS 111 set up with 46 different contracts.

"The impetus here is not patient care, but cost-cutting by a Government whose foot is firmly on the privatisation accelerator."

And it won't be long before we hear allegations of life-endangering drops in service quality.

When they arise - and they will - all eyes should focus on independent and objective measurements of service quality delivery. Such quality assurance rarely lies and the pattern of a monopoly fragmenting is that the new entrants not only cut costs but they tend to be far more inventive at service development and effective in quality improvement than their predecessors.

What we are seeing with the 111 debate today is real evidence that the Lansley reforms are beginning to work.

AveryLP said:

tim said:

Right wing press not looking good here, Chums = NHS Vandals

http://www.express.co.uk/

The Labour model of a monolithic, national telephone health advice and information service staffed by nurses has proved to be uneconomic when compared to private sector supply.

NHS Direct can only break even on the service if paid £13 per call whereas its smaller, regionally based competitors are able to contract at a rate of between £7 and £9 per call.

Any businessmen familiar with the de-monopolising of state services will be familiar with the arguments currently being rehearsed in public.

How may times have I heard the cry from the depossessed monopoly of "how can they can never make a profit at those prices?". But as we all know, when a market is opened up to competition new entrants push down pricing and costs and the new, fitter providers tend to win.

So who is really complaining about this inevitable process? The Express article you quote gives us a clue:

Sara Gorton, deputy head of health at Unison, said the union previously warned that the new service would be a "shadow" of the former helpline.

"The Government rushed through the trials of 111 in its haste to increase private competition and it is patients who are now paying the price," she said.

Unite's national officer for health Barrie Brown said: "There was no logic for the Government to replace the successful single-service NHS Direct, which was highly rated by users, with a fragmented NHS 111 set up with 46 different contracts.

"The impetus here is not patient care, but cost-cutting by a Government whose foot is firmly on the privatisation accelerator."

And it won't be long before we hear allegations of life-endangering drops in service quality. When they arise - and they will - all eyes should focus on independent and objective measurements of service quality delivery. Such quality assurance rarely lies and the pattern of a monopoly fragmenting is that the new entrants not only cut costs but they tend to be far more inventive at service development and effective in quality improvement than their predecessors.

What we are seeing with the 111 debate today is real evidence that the Lansley reforms are beginning to work.

There is as yet no evidence that any of the companies contracting at £ 7 to 9 per call are making or can make a profit .

@ALP

I suppose you get what you pay for.If you pay 7 to 9 pounds per call,we now see what the private sector does.They stuff the call centres with poorly trained non-clinical staff to make a profit who then send everyone to A&E.And then the A&E and ambulance services gets overloaded and we have got a crisis on our hands.I am all for the private sector but it is not the panacea for everything that`s for sure.

SMukesh said:

@ALP

I suppose you get what you pay for.If you pay 7 to 9 pounds per call,we now see what the private sector does.They stuff the call centres with poorly trained non-clinical staff to make a profit who then send everyone to A&E.And then the A&E and ambulance services gets overloaded and we have got a crisis on our hands.I am all for the private sector but it is not the panacea for everything that`s for sure.

Sorry, SMukesh, can't agree with you.

The telephone service is not - and is not intended to be - a conventional diagnosis by a qualified medical professional.

It is simply a screening and patient interaction process whose quality will be dependent on the intelligence of the software systems used by the call centre and the ability of the call handler to relate to the caller.

A well designed software system has the potential to be even more effective, in the vast majority of cases, than a conventional face to face medical diagnosis, as it won't be prone to human error and can exhaust all possible diagnoses in a way that no doctor or nurse can.

This is not to say that advice based on computer systems analysis will be more effective for all diagnostic work or medical information provision. The key is the ability of the system to screen callers so that only those who would benefit from direct interaction with medical professionals are passed through.

The success of the service will depend on the effectiveness of such "exception management".

I note that "tim" has eschewed PB's new motto :

"IN ALL THINGS MODERATION"