Skip to content

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Three words pollsters would rather you didn’t mention; diff

SystemSystem Posts: 12,683
edited December 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Three words pollsters would rather you didn’t mention; differential non response

While trumpeting the fact that samples are representative of the adult population, researchers seldom, if ever, publish response rate data. Truth is that for telephone polls, response rates are frighteningly low and falling.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • JBriskinJBriskin Posts: 2,380
    Err, First? - reads a bit like pollster pioneer is writing off both phone and internet polls a bit. Where the hell does that leave us ????
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    JBriskin said:

    Err, First? - reads a bit like pollster pioneer is writing off both phone and internet polls a bit. Where the hell does that leave us ????

    Guessing?
  • JBriskinJBriskin Posts: 2,380
    MTimT said:

    JBriskin said:

    Err, First? - reads a bit like pollster pioneer is writing off both phone and internet polls a bit. Where the hell does that leave us ????

    Guessing?
    And laying the draw of course lol
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    Is Mr Sparrow suggesting that the Leave vote is being overestimated? Presumably, if the change vs continuity thing is a general phenomenon, then it is less pronounced the more engaged the entire electorate is on an issue. Thus the Yes vote for Scottish Independence, while still overstated in the polls, would be less so than something of little general interest, such as AV.

    Do the facts bear this out?
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    Even if it's true that opinion polls routinely underestimate the conservative side, it's still not clear what the "conservative" side in the EURef will actually be.

    Will the status quo be the conservative side, or will the "traditionalist" "patriotic" side be the more conservative?
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    Danny565 said:

    Even if it's true that opinion polls routinely underestimate the conservative side, it's still not clear what the "conservative" side in the EURef will actually be.

    Will the status quo be the conservative side, or will the "traditionalist" "patriotic" side be the more conservative?

    My guess is that the status quo (i.e. the current arrangement) will be the conservative side on most issues, even if continuation of the status quo is not really an option. Thus in the EU context, I'd expect it to be Remain, even though standing still vis-a-vis the EU is not really an option.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    edited December 2015
    Great article - thanks Nick.

    I compared the lack of interest in politics to those of us with little to bugger all interest in sport a few threads ago.

    Every news bulletin has 5mins on football or whatever - and I pay no attention. I don't care. Ditto tweets about it or newspaper articles. When something huge comes along like the Olympics [the GE of sport] or juicy fraud like FIFA bribes, then I'll pay some attention, but promptly forget 98% of it.

    If YouGov sent me surveys about sport - 80% of the questions will mean nothing to me so I'll guess or get bored and click away. The other 20% will be answers based on opinions that aren't informed by much [what I knew 20yrs ago] or what I infer "Should X be sacked?" Well I don't know who X is, but if he's being asked about - probably he's done something bad or stupid. So sack him.

    When I look at politcal polls with my sport specs on - they don't hold much water, if I were a typical low interest/low information respondent.
  • JBriskinJBriskin Posts: 2,380
    "Maybe the answer is to become far less obsessed with who will win,"

    Forget Corby's Red flag shenanigans - looks like pollsters are waving the White flag!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    MTimT said:

    Is Mr Sparrow suggesting that the Leave vote is being overestimated? Presumably, if the change vs continuity thing is a general phenomenon, then it is less pronounced the more engaged the entire electorate is on an issue. Thus the Yes vote for Scottish Independence, while still overstated in the polls, would be less so than something of little general interest, such as AV.

    Do the facts bear this out?

    The Yes vote for Scottish independence was got spot on by the polls. The eve of poll polls all (bar one) had it at 45%. They only 'overstated' the Yes vote if you did something foolish with the Don't Knows like ignored them entirely. In the IndyRef Don't Knows were Nos

    The trick with EuroRef is working out what the DK's actually mean.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,910
    edited December 2015
    A very perceptive article from Nick Sparrow. So to summarise, it's looking more and more like traditional polling as we know it is dead and after the general election screwup political pollsters are fighting for their lives.

    More and more people are choosing to filter out and not engage with pollsters, and those that do especially online will have their own unrepresentative biases - making a balanced poll all but impossible. Good luck to them is all I can say, there are a lot of big brains between the pollsters so hopefully they can come up with something in advance of the EU referendum. Remember that one rogue poll caused a huge reaction in the final days of the Scottish referendum a year ago.

    Now back to the cricket. Surely England can't lose from here?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    One of 2015's best articles. There's much to think about here. Thank you.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,707
    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2015/12/a-knighthood-lynton-crosby-deserves-a-hereditary-peerage/

    TSE's suggestion he be offered a royal dukedom is gaining traction. :D
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,910
    AlastairMeeks said:

    One of 2015's best articles. There's much to think about here. Thank you.

    Modest of you as ever. If there was a top 10 articles of the year, yours would be half of them!
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    On floods - this reminds me of Uckfield/Lewes controversy a few years back. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/weather/12071198/UK-floods-York-Leeds-Manchester-live-updates.html
    The leader of York Council, Chris Steward, told the Yorkshire Post that the decision to open the Foss Barrier meant that areas that would have ordinarily been protected were flooded.

    He said:“The Environment Agency did not want the barrier to lock in place. They didn’t deploy the barrier, which meant areas that would normally be protected were flooded, such as Huntingdon Road, Yearsley Crescent and Foss Island.

    “Obviously it’s a guessing game as to what would have happened had they not taken that decision,” he said. “But it’s in the next weeks and months that we’ll be asking questions about that - not right now.”
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    edited December 2015
    Alistair said:



    The trick with EuroRef is working out what the DK's actually mean.

    Yup - will "Don't Knows" mean people who will default to the safety option when it comes to the crunch, or will it be people who are too embarrassed to tell pollsters that they agree with Nigel Farage?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,910
    Alistair said:

    MTimT said:

    Is Mr Sparrow suggesting that the Leave vote is being overestimated? Presumably, if the change vs continuity thing is a general phenomenon, then it is less pronounced the more engaged the entire electorate is on an issue. Thus the Yes vote for Scottish Independence, while still overstated in the polls, would be less so than something of little general interest, such as AV.

    Do the facts bear this out?

    The Yes vote for Scottish independence was got spot on by the polls. The eve of poll polls all (bar one) had it at 45%. They only 'overstated' the Yes vote if you did something foolish with the Don't Knows like ignored them entirely. In the IndyRef Don't Knows were Nos

    The trick with EuroRef is working out what the DK's actually mean.
    An educated guess would be that the DKs break for the Status Quo if they turn out at all. Turnout is going to be key for the EU referendum, the Leave voters are highly motivated, so the lower the turnout the more it favours that result.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,910
    Danny565 said:

    Alistair said:



    The trick with EuroRef is working out what the DK's actually mean.

    Yup - will "Don't Knows" mean people who will default to the safety option when it comes to the crunch, or will it be people who are too embarrassed to tell pollsters that they agree with Nigel Farage?
    The Leave campaign really needs to buy Nigel Farage a round-the-world cruise. That finishes the day after the referendum. Let the Hannans and Hoeys make the right and left wing cases for exit, Farage is poison to the floating voters.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    edited December 2015
    Given that there will be no actual Status Quo option in the EURef - how will that impact the choices? We'll be voting for Cameron's Deal EU or Leave.

    Given Cameron's leadership trust ratings and his preference for Remain - it seems more likely that Remain will gain a substantial benefit from his credibility and A Bit Less EU vs No EU.

    I can't see Leave winning this fight.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    On topic -- going ex-directory is the most obvious and probably earliest non-response mechanism but is not mentioned in the OP; it is also differential (more posh people opt out).

    At first glance, last-digit randomisation will catch these people, but as I've been banging on about for the past umpteen years on pb, it fails to get a proper sample because landline phone numbers are not allocated at random.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 87,552
    "Three words pollsters would rather you didn’t mention; "

    "No f##king idea"....
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    I was phone polled by ICM a decade ago on my ex-dir home phone. I wasn't 18-25 so it stopped there. Never been polled on my mobile.
    DecrepitJohnL said:

    On topic -- going ex-directory is the most obvious and probably earliest non-response mechanism but is not mentioned in the OP; it is also differential (more posh people opt out).

    At first glance, last-digit randomisation will catch these people, but as I've been banging on about for the past umpteen years on pb, it fails to get a proper sample because landline phone numbers are not allocated at random.

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,774
    Superb article Nick.
  • TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    An interesting article from Mr Sparrow. I agree that online polling suffers from the difference in participation. A bit more than phone polling, but that difference may be marginal. Both types are biased with the engaged voters and understate those less active. Yes, these type of voters that are undereported, are conservative. But how may that work out in a referendum on the EC? Are Conservative voters going to break more for the Remain or the Leave? Is the safety point that conservatives will prefer the circa 900 years as a country independent of Europe or the 40 years being tied to a European grouping?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 87,552
    Compton out for 49....
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,774
    edited December 2015
    Because Mike and I lived in a marginal/key seats, we got contacted by the pollsters a lot before the election, it made us both wonder that the pollsters were focussing on too narrow a demographic (ie the very politically engaged)
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,885
    An excellent article from Nick.

    I'd be fascinated to know how people would respond to the question: if the UK weren't in the EU, would you vote to join it? I suspect that a significant majority of the UK population would not vote to join the EU as it is currently configured. If so, then the LEAVE campaign has to work out how to get people to ask themelves why they would vote to REMAIN in something they wouldn't join....
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 87,552
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Because Mike and I lived in a marginal/key seats, we got contacted by the pollsters a lot before the election, it made us both wonder that the pollsters were focussing on too narrow a demographic (ie the very politically engaged)

    In the same way as the media took far too much notice of the tw@tterati. Just because something was trending among a small group of extremely politically engaged people doesn't mean the country is thinking that.

    You would think they had learned, but no, Corbynism is sweeping twitter, thus it is sweeping the country.
  • TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    edited December 2015
    Plato_Says said:

    On floods - this reminds me of Uckfield/Lewes controversy a few years back. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/weather/12071198/UK-floods-York-Leeds-Manchester-live-updates.html

    The leader of York Council, Chris Steward, told the Yorkshire Post that the decision to open the Foss Barrier meant that areas that would have ordinarily been protected were flooded.
    On the news this AM was a man from Hebden Bridge. He said that for the past 30 years or so the silt had been allowed to build up so the volume of water that could flow through was much lower than it should have been. Last year a contributory factor to the flooding in Somerset was the discontinuance of dredging by the Environmental Agency...... and the volume of water that could flow through was much less than it should have been....
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 87,552
    edited December 2015
    MarqueeMark said:

    An excellent article from Nick.

    I'd be fascinated to know how people would respond to the question: if the UK weren't in the EU, would you vote to join it? I suspect that a significant majority of the UK population would not vote to join the EU as it is currently configured. If so, then the LEAVE campaign has to work out how to get people to ask themelves why they would vote to REMAIN in something they wouldn't join....

    The problem is that lots of things you wouldn't organize the same if you were to start from scratch today. NHS, tax system, benefits system.

    But the fear of the change and uncertainty is a very difficult one to overcome e.g. Scottish Independence Referendum.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    How many MPs do you know who will definitely vote to LEAVE ?

    My guess:

    Tories - 150

    Labour - 15

    LD - 0

    UKIP - 1

    SNP - 0

    Green - 0

    Others - 10

  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Response rates are very low but this might be addressed by pollsters not asking so many damn fool questions. I've lost count of the number of surveys I've abandoned after the first couple of minutes.

    If you want to know who I'll vote for, ask that and stop. Don't waste my time with half an hour of abstruse supplementaries, however useful OGH will find them for thread headers on a slow news day. If you really do need to know my thoughts on Osborne's, Corbyn's or May's affability then split these questions up and pose them to separate subgroups so that no-one has to give up more than a minute of their valuable time.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,774
    Boo - We're not going to get a referendum on electoral reform.

    I was looking forward to writing the threads on it

    The federal Liberals say they will not hold a referendum to gauge public opinion on voting reform as they fulfill their promise to abandon the first-past-the-post system but will instead leave it up to Parliament – where they hold a majority of seats – to decide how Canadians will elect future governments.

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberals-wont-hold-referendum-on-voting-reform/article27942303/
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    An excellent article from Nick.

    I'd be fascinated to know how people would respond to the question: if the UK weren't in the EU, would you vote to join it? I suspect that a significant majority of the UK population would not vote to join the EU as it is currently configured. If so, then the LEAVE campaign has to work out how to get people to ask themelves why they would vote to REMAIN in something they wouldn't join....

    The problem is that lots of things you wouldn't organize the same if you were to start from scratch today. NHS, tax system, benefits system.

    But the fear of the change and uncertainty is a very difficult one to overcome e.g. Scottish Independence Referendum.
    If there were no NHS, it would have to created. The idea that people would prefer a health insurance scheme is absolutely barmy. This is not the USA.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    An excellent article from Nick.

    I'd be fascinated to know how people would respond to the question: if the UK weren't in the EU, would you vote to join it? I suspect that a significant majority of the UK population would not vote to join the EU as it is currently configured. If so, then the LEAVE campaign has to work out how to get people to ask themelves why they would vote to REMAIN in something they wouldn't join....

    The problem is that lots of things you wouldn't organize the same if you were to start from scratch today. NHS, tax system, benefits system.

    But the fear of the change and uncertainty is a very difficult one to overcome e.g. Scottish Independence Referendum.
    Part of that must be that change nearly always comes with winners and losers, and losers always feel the loss more than winners feel the gain.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited December 2015
    TCPoliticalBetting said:

    An interesting article from Mr Sparrow. I agree that online polling suffers from the difference in participation. A bit more than phone polling, but that difference may be marginal. Both types are biased with the engaged voters and understate those less active. Yes, these type of voters that are undereported, are conservative. But how may that work out in a referendum on the EC? Are Conservative voters going to break more for the Remain or the Leave? Is the safety point that conservatives will prefer the circa 900 years as a country independent of Europe or the 40 years being tied to a European grouping?

    Be careful on your capitalisations in a conversation like this small c conservative and big C Conservatives are not the same thing.

    My guessing is that the small c conservatives who are unsure will break for the status quo that they have known for most or all of their adult lifetime. I.e. remain.

    You would have to be aged 105 or above to have known the UK out of the EEC/EU etc for most of your adult life if the referendum is next year. I doubt that don't know centurions are that large a swing vote.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 87,552
    edited December 2015
    surbiton said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    An excellent article from Nick.

    I'd be fascinated to know how people would respond to the question: if the UK weren't in the EU, would you vote to join it? I suspect that a significant majority of the UK population would not vote to join the EU as it is currently configured. If so, then the LEAVE campaign has to work out how to get people to ask themelves why they would vote to REMAIN in something they wouldn't join....

    The problem is that lots of things you wouldn't organize the same if you were to start from scratch today. NHS, tax system, benefits system.

    But the fear of the change and uncertainty is a very difficult one to overcome e.g. Scottish Independence Referendum.
    If there were no NHS, it would have to created. The idea that people would prefer a health insurance scheme is absolutely barmy. This is not the USA.
    Yawn....for some people the health debate is always NHS vs US system....No other country has the NHS system and certainly not one that tries to do everything for everybody.

    The vast majority have some sort of health insurance based scheme.

    Given the aging population, highly mobile world population and vast range and disparity in costs of different drugs and treatments, I highly doubt anybody would now propose a system as it is unsustainable in the long term. It is a black hole that no matter how much money you put in, it will be never enough to cover everything.

    Eventually, a British government will have to be honest with the public and say sorry but the remit of the NHS is going to be curtailed to a certain range of treatments. It already is to some extent via NICE and health trusts, but it is just leading to a post code lottery.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    surbiton said:

    How many MPs do you know who will definitely vote to LEAVE ?

    My guess:

    Tories - 150

    Labour - 15

    LD - 0

    UKIP - 1

    SNP - 0

    Green - 0

    Others - 10

    The DUP and UUP are hard to read on this. Some will vote Leave, but not necessarily all. Northern Ireland does well out of EU grants.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    Re - Oxbridge. I know a guy about to get early retirement in his mid 50s who is seriously pondering applying to Oxford to do PPE. He already has a degree - English I think - from another university from the late 1970s. He says his O level and A level grades were not brilliant but wonders whether so many years later they would be viewed as relevant anyway. How would he be treated as a mature applicant? I have warned him such a course would be likely to cost him £50000 plus because he has already had a grant for his first degree back in the 70s!
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,774
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Because Mike and I lived in a marginal/key seats, we got contacted by the pollsters a lot before the election, it made us both wonder that the pollsters were focussing on too narrow a demographic (ie the very politically engaged)

    In the same way as the media took far too much notice of the tw@tterati. Just because something was trending among a small group of extremely politically engaged people doesn't mean the country is thinking that.

    You would think they had learned, but no, Corbynism is sweeping twitter, thus it is sweeping the country.
    When I was contacted by ICM*, one of the questions I was asked was

    On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is little and 10 is a lot , 'How much interest do you take in politics?'

    I replied with "Well I'm a Tory activist and I'm the regular guest editor of Britain's most popular political blog, so what do you think?'

    *It might not have been ICM, it was their call centre, but I think they did the fieldwork for another pollster.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    surbiton said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    An excellent article from Nick.

    I'd be fascinated to know how people would respond to the question: if the UK weren't in the EU, would you vote to join it? I suspect that a significant majority of the UK population would not vote to join the EU as it is currently configured. If so, then the LEAVE campaign has to work out how to get people to ask themelves why they would vote to REMAIN in something they wouldn't join....

    The problem is that lots of things you wouldn't organize the same if you were to start from scratch today. NHS, tax system, benefits system.

    But the fear of the change and uncertainty is a very difficult one to overcome e.g. Scottish Independence Referendum.
    If there were no NHS, it would have to created. The idea that people would prefer a health insurance scheme is absolutely barmy. This is not the USA.
    Yawn....for some people the health debate is always NHS vs US system....No other country has the NHS system and certainly not one that tries to do everything for everybody.

    The vast majority have some sort of health insurance scheme.

    Given the aging population, highly mobile world population and vast range and disparity in costs of different drugs and treatments, I highly doubt anybody would now propose a system as it is unsustainable in the long term.
    Ours is not a free system. Prescription charges are quite onerous. Sometimes £7.60 is paid for a £2 medicine.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    surbiton said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    An excellent article from Nick.

    I'd be fascinated to know how people would respond to the question: if the UK weren't in the EU, would you vote to join it? I suspect that a significant majority of the UK population would not vote to join the EU as it is currently configured. If so, then the LEAVE campaign has to work out how to get people to ask themelves why they would vote to REMAIN in something they wouldn't join....

    The problem is that lots of things you wouldn't organize the same if you were to start from scratch today. NHS, tax system, benefits system.

    But the fear of the change and uncertainty is a very difficult one to overcome e.g. Scottish Independence Referendum.
    If there were no NHS, it would have to created. The idea that people would prefer a health insurance scheme is absolutely barmy. This is not the USA.
    There is a middle ground between the USA and UK. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the rest of continental Europe etc where are they in your example?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,774
    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Response rates are very low but this might be addressed by pollsters not asking so many damn fool questions. I've lost count of the number of surveys I've abandoned after the first couple of minutes.

    If you want to know who I'll vote for, ask that and stop. Don't waste my time with half an hour of abstruse supplementaries, however useful OGH will find them for thread headers on a slow news day. If you really do need to know my thoughts on Osborne's, Corbyn's or May's affability then split these questions up and pose them to separate subgroups so that no-one has to give up more than a minute of their valuable time.

    James Morris said when those questions were asked before the VI, they were a better predictor of the general election result.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 87,552
    edited December 2015
    surbiton said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    surbiton said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    An excellent article from Nick.

    I'd be fascinated to know how people would respond to the question: if the UK weren't in the EU, would you vote to join it? I suspect that a significant majority of the UK population would not vote to join the EU as it is currently configured. If so, then the LEAVE campaign has to work out how to get people to ask themelves why they would vote to REMAIN in something they wouldn't join....

    The problem is that lots of things you wouldn't organize the same if you were to start from scratch today. NHS, tax system, benefits system.

    But the fear of the change and uncertainty is a very difficult one to overcome e.g. Scottish Independence Referendum.
    If there were no NHS, it would have to created. The idea that people would prefer a health insurance scheme is absolutely barmy. This is not the USA.
    Yawn....for some people the health debate is always NHS vs US system....No other country has the NHS system and certainly not one that tries to do everything for everybody.

    The vast majority have some sort of health insurance scheme.

    Given the aging population, highly mobile world population and vast range and disparity in costs of different drugs and treatments, I highly doubt anybody would now propose a system as it is unsustainable in the long term.
    Ours is not a free system. Prescription charges are quite onerous. Sometimes £7.60 is paid for a £2 medicine.
    I never said anything about it being "free".

    It is all a mute debate, because nobody is going to suggest scrapping the NHS and it would be a bad idea anyway because of the enormous upheaval. However, that is very different from saying if we were to start from scratch, knowing what we know now, world situation, the direction of the future over the next century etc, if the model proposed in the 1940's is the optimal model for 21st Century.

    I would suggest most institutions wouldn't be arranged as they currently are.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Yes, if pollsters start with a known phone number and randomise the last digit, they may well end up phoning you (or anyone else who is ex-directory).

    The problems for sampling are that the first N digits, the ones that were not randomised, are allocated in blocks. To put it crudely, the Tory mansions have different prefixes from the Labour council estates, and the former are also more likely to be ex-directory which means that phone numbers with the posh precinct are under-represented in the pool which is the starting point for randomisation.
    Plato_Says said:

    I was phone polled by ICM a decade ago on my ex-dir home phone. I wasn't 18-25 so it stopped there. Never been polled on my mobile.

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    On topic -- going ex-directory is the most obvious and probably earliest non-response mechanism but is not mentioned in the OP; it is also differential (more posh people opt out).

    At first glance, last-digit randomisation will catch these people, but as I've been banging on about for the past umpteen years on pb, it fails to get a proper sample because landline phone numbers are not allocated at random.

  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Response rates are very low but this might be addressed by pollsters not asking so many damn fool questions. I've lost count of the number of surveys I've abandoned after the first couple of minutes.

    If you want to know who I'll vote for, ask that and stop. Don't waste my time with half an hour of abstruse supplementaries, however useful OGH will find them for thread headers on a slow news day. If you really do need to know my thoughts on Osborne's, Corbyn's or May's affability then split these questions up and pose them to separate subgroups so that no-one has to give up more than a minute of their valuable time.

    James Morris said when those questions were asked before the VI, they were a better predictor of the general election result.
    Then ask them instead. The key point is that asking too many questions puts people off.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,584
    TCPoliticalBetting said:

    Plato_Says said:

    On floods - this reminds me of Uckfield/Lewes controversy a few years back. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/weather/12071198/UK-floods-York-Leeds-Manchester-live-updates.html

    The leader of York Council, Chris Steward, told the Yorkshire Post that the decision to open the Foss Barrier meant that areas that would have ordinarily been protected were flooded.
    On the news this AM was a man from Hebden Bridge. He said that for the past 30 years or so the silt had been allowed to build up so the volume of water that could flow through was much lower than it should have been. Last year a contributory factor to the flooding in Somerset was the discontinuance of dredging by the Environmental Agency...... and the volume of water that could flow through was much less than it should have been....


    Yesterday Mike was scornful of the role played in all of this flooding by the EU. Seems some people who actually know what they are talking about disagree with him.

    http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/flooding-cause-government-would-keep-10580092
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    AlastairMeeks said:

    surbiton said:

    How many MPs do you know who will definitely vote to LEAVE ?

    My guess:

    Tories - 150

    Labour - 15

    LD - 0

    UKIP - 1

    SNP - 0

    Green - 0

    Others - 10

    The DUP and UUP are hard to read on this. Some will vote Leave, but not necessarily all. Northern Ireland does well out of EU grants.
    I would have thought Toryshires also do well out of EU grants.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 87,552
    edited December 2015
    justin124 said:

    Re - Oxbridge. I know a guy about to get early retirement in his mid 50s who is seriously pondering applying to Oxford to do PPE. He already has a degree - English I think - from another university from the late 1970s. He says his O level and A level grades were not brilliant but wonders whether so many years later they would be viewed as relevant anyway. How would he be treated as a mature applicant? I have warned him such a course would be likely to cost him £50000 plus because he has already had a grant for his first degree back in the 70s!

    Universities in general are very accommodating of mature students, because they know somebody coming in such a situation is normally extremely motivated and often very knowable of the subject (despite whatever grades they got 30-40 years ago). Also, given he already has a degree, I am sure they are more interested in that (and achievements in the world of work), than any lesser qualifications.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,584
    surbiton said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    An excellent article from Nick.

    I'd be fascinated to know how people would respond to the question: if the UK weren't in the EU, would you vote to join it? I suspect that a significant majority of the UK population would not vote to join the EU as it is currently configured. If so, then the LEAVE campaign has to work out how to get people to ask themelves why they would vote to REMAIN in something they wouldn't join....

    The problem is that lots of things you wouldn't organize the same if you were to start from scratch today. NHS, tax system, benefits system.

    But the fear of the change and uncertainty is a very difficult one to overcome e.g. Scottish Independence Referendum.
    If there were no NHS, it would have to created. The idea that people would prefer a health insurance scheme is absolutely barmy. This is not the USA.
    It certainly wouldn't be created in anything like the form it is today. I would hope we would look to Europe and learn from their systems, many of which are far better than our monolithic health system and which have far better health outcomes.
  • PlankPlank Posts: 71
    Thanks for such an interesting article.
  • JBriskinJBriskin Posts: 2,380
    mute/moot ERROR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Lifetime in labourlist or something
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    edited December 2015
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    surbiton said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    An excellent article from Nick.

    I'd be fascinated to know how people would respond to the question: if the UK weren't in the EU, would you vote to join it? I suspect that a significant majority of the UK population would not vote to join the EU as it is currently configured. If so, then the LEAVE campaign has to work out how to get people to ask themelves why they would vote to REMAIN in something they wouldn't join....

    The problem is that lots of things you wouldn't organize the same if you were to start from scratch today. NHS, tax system, benefits system.

    But the fear of the change and uncertainty is a very difficult one to overcome e.g. Scottish Independence Referendum.
    If there were no NHS, it would have to created. The idea that people would prefer a health insurance scheme is absolutely barmy. This is not the USA.
    It certainly wouldn't be created in anything like the form it is today. I would hope we would look to Europe and learn from their systems, many of which are far better than our monolithic health system and which have far better health outcomes.
    Thanks, but I quite liked that, when I was ill, I had full confidence that I was being treated in my best interests, rather than in the interests of individuals' profits.
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    MarqueeMark said:

    An excellent article from Nick.

    I'd be fascinated to know how people would respond to the question: if the UK weren't in the EU, would you vote to join it? I suspect that a significant majority of the UK population would not vote to join the EU as it is currently configured. If so, then the LEAVE campaign has to work out how to get people to ask themelves why they would vote to REMAIN in something they wouldn't join....

    Though I'm pessimistic about Remain's chances I think Leave will struggle to do what you are saying as they are fundamentally different questions. "Would you marry this person?" is very different from "Do you want a divorce?"
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    surbiton said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    An excellent article from Nick.

    I'd be fascinated to know how people would respond to the question: if the UK weren't in the EU, would you vote to join it? I suspect that a significant majority of the UK population would not vote to join the EU as it is currently configured. If so, then the LEAVE campaign has to work out how to get people to ask themelves why they would vote to REMAIN in something they wouldn't join....

    The problem is that lots of things you wouldn't organize the same if you were to start from scratch today. NHS, tax system, benefits system.

    But the fear of the change and uncertainty is a very difficult one to overcome e.g. Scottish Independence Referendum.
    If there were no NHS, it would have to created. The idea that people would prefer a health insurance scheme is absolutely barmy. This is not the USA.
    It certainly wouldn't be created in anything like the form it is today. I would hope we would look to Europe and learn from their systems, many of which are far better than our monolithic health system and which have far better health outcomes.
    Far better perhaps but not cheaper. Britain spends less on health than France and Germany, let alone America. See the OECD figures:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 87,552
    JBriskin said:

    mute/moot ERROR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Lifetime in labourlist or something

    Damn phone autocorrect.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    surbiton said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    An excellent article from Nick.

    I'd be fascinated to know how people would respond to the question: if the UK weren't in the EU, would you vote to join it? I suspect that a significant majority of the UK population would not vote to join the EU as it is currently configured. If so, then the LEAVE campaign has to work out how to get people to ask themelves why they would vote to REMAIN in something they wouldn't join....

    The problem is that lots of things you wouldn't organize the same if you were to start from scratch today. NHS, tax system, benefits system.

    But the fear of the change and uncertainty is a very difficult one to overcome e.g. Scottish Independence Referendum.
    If there were no NHS, it would have to created. The idea that people would prefer a health insurance scheme is absolutely barmy. This is not the USA.
    It certainly wouldn't be created in anything like the form it is today. I would hope we would look to Europe and learn from their systems, many of which are far better than our monolithic health system and which have far better health outcomes.
    I doubt that we would have a monarchy, a House of Lords or FPTP. Or the political parties that we do either.

    Everything is created from what existed before. We never have a blank sheet of paper.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,584
    Danny565 said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    surbiton said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    An excellent article from Nick.

    I'd be fascinated to know how people would respond to the question: if the UK weren't in the EU, would you vote to join it? I suspect that a significant majority of the UK population would not vote to join the EU as it is currently configured. If so, then the LEAVE campaign has to work out how to get people to ask themelves why they would vote to REMAIN in something they wouldn't join....

    The problem is that lots of things you wouldn't organize the same if you were to start from scratch today. NHS, tax system, benefits system.

    But the fear of the change and uncertainty is a very difficult one to overcome e.g. Scottish Independence Referendum.
    If there were no NHS, it would have to created. The idea that people would prefer a health insurance scheme is absolutely barmy. This is not the USA.
    It certainly wouldn't be created in anything like the form it is today. I would hope we would look to Europe and learn from their systems, many of which are far better than our monolithic health system and which have far better health outcomes.
    Thanks, but I quite liked that, when I was ill, I had full confidence that I was being treated in my best interests, rather than in the interests of individuals' profits.
    Whether or not you liked your treatment is immaterial. What matters for a health system is how effective they are overall at actually keeping people alive and healthy. And on that score the NHS performs very poorly compared to many other first world countries which do not have the same funding model. And for every individual like you there will be one like my father who died because the health service couldn't be bothered to keep him alive any more.
  • JBriskinJBriskin Posts: 2,380
    A likely story FUrquhart. Such a favorite error of mine I had to say something.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 87,552
    Seems people are getting distracted by the somewhat overdone NHS crap, amazing, envy of the world, shit hole...rather than my comment on

    "I'd be fascinated to know how people would respond to the question: if the UK weren't in the EU, would you vote to join it? I suspect that a significant majority of the UK population would not vote to join the EU as it is currently configured."

    Which was basically nothing we take for granted would be arranged as it is now, but it is very different from the proposal of change once you have a certain system in place.
  • JBriskinJBriskin Posts: 2,380
    daymn
  • JBriskinJBriskin Posts: 2,380
    that doesn't count in the same way anyway - everyone knows that.
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    And thanks Nick for a really fascinating article.

    Does face-to-face polling provide any kind of solution. Or do the uninterested just walk away. If provided with an incentive to participate, is there the problem that the sample is skewed in favour of people who like the look of the incentive?
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Or find an innocuous proxy question, whereby people reveal how they will vote, without actually realizing it.

    PM approval, for example...
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    FSX Yes we did have a blank sheet of paper The NHS was created after the war..as you well know
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 87,552
    Japan and South Korea agree WW2 'comfort women' deal

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-35188135

    Don't let that tw@t from the "RhodesMustFall" campaign hear about this...he will be demanding Oxford ban all Japanese students...
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,584
    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    surbiton said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    An excellent article from Nick.

    I'd be fascinated to know how people would respond to the question: if the UK weren't in the EU, would you vote to join it? I suspect that a significant majority of the UK population would not vote to join the EU as it is currently configured. If so, then the LEAVE campaign has to work out how to get people to ask themelves why they would vote to REMAIN in something they wouldn't join....

    The problem is that lots of things you wouldn't organize the same if you were to start from scratch today. NHS, tax system, benefits system.

    But the fear of the change and uncertainty is a very difficult one to overcome e.g. Scottish Independence Referendum.
    If there were no NHS, it would have to created. The idea that people would prefer a health insurance scheme is absolutely barmy. This is not the USA.
    It certainly wouldn't be created in anything like the form it is today. I would hope we would look to Europe and learn from their systems, many of which are far better than our monolithic health system and which have far better health outcomes.
    Far better perhaps but not cheaper. Britain spends less on health than France and Germany, let alone America. See the OECD figures:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita
    I would be very happy to see a higher percentage of national income, either private or public, spent on health provision if the basic system was more effective at doing its job. Unfortunately when the system is broken it really doesn't matter how much money you spend. The US - as you point out - is a good example of this.
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    Btw, we have come to just accept that Twitter and Facebook misrepresent public opinion on politics. That's quite a striking fact though. Facebook, in particular, is all about measuring affiliation.

    Of course, there are at least two competing theories as to why social media give a misleading signal:

    * People with more conservative opinions don't participate in social media as much
    * Certain types of opinion are expressed just because they sound good - aka "virtue signalling"

    At all events, it's perplexing that we have this problem with opinion polls when, in principle, we have far more information about what we all think than ever before.
  • glwglw Posts: 10,516
    edited December 2015
    Wanderer said:

    At all events, it's perplexing that we have this problem with opinion polls when, in principle, we have far more information about what we all think than ever before.

    More "information" from social media isn't the same more information about a voting intention, particularly when one is public and the other private.

    I was discussing this just yesterday with a friend, the data mining of social media he was talking about almost entirely ignores the actual content as it is considered to be of very low value, but instead looks at things like volume, rate of posting, location and so on.

    If someone can figure out how to turn the unwritten parts of social media into an indicator of voting intention they might be on to something.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 87,552
    edited December 2015
    Wanderer said:


    * People with more conservative opinions don't participate in social media as much
    * Certain types of opinion are expressed just because they sound good - aka "virtue signalling"

    I don't think this is true. Remember, the Tories approach was to blitz Facebook. I think it is more accurate to say that perhaps those people don't participate as much in shouting matches over politics via social media.

    Twitter in particular has always seemed an awful medium to debate any issues that aren't black and white i.e. politics.

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 87,552
    edited December 2015
    glw said:

    Wanderer said:

    At all events, it's perplexing that we have this problem with opinion polls when, in principle, we have far more information about what we all think than ever before.

    More "information" from social media isn't the same more information about a voting intention, particularly when one is public and the other private.

    I was discussing this just yesterday with a friend, the data mining of social media he was talking about almost entirely ignores the actual content as it is considered to be of very low value, but instead looks at things like volume, rate of posting, location and so on.

    If someone can figure out how to turn the unwritten parts of social media into an indicator of voting intention they might be on to something.
    There is another problem...I believe the vast bulk of original content is created by a tiny % of users (I would have to look up the actual %'s). The rest is all liking, retweeting, reposting etc, but that doesn't give you the full story of their beliefs.

    Furthermore, there is a small subset of people who have huge numbers of followers, "the broadcasters", most people are just listeners.

    Edit:- I just checked up and what I said isn't quite right. It is that a huge % of original content that is READ by other users is created by a tiny % of users.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,584
    On the flooding. At last we know the real reason...

    http://news.bfnn.co.uk/britain-sinking-under-weight-of-immigrants/

    :-)
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,910
    Steady batting from England this evening. I stand by my earlier prediction of a roughly lunchtime declaration and a target of 350. Should be an easy win, but three decades of following England at cricket suggests that the easy win can and does sometimes go aray.
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    glw said:

    Wanderer said:

    At all events, it's perplexing that we have this problem with opinion polls when, in principle, we have far more information about what we all think than ever before.

    More "information" from social media isn't the same more information about a voting intention, particularly when one is public and the other private.

    I was discussing this just yesterday with a friend, the data mining of social media he was talking about almost entirely ignores the actual content as it is considered to be of very low value, but instead looks at things like volume, rate of posting, location and so on.

    If someone can figure out how to turn the unwritten parts of social media into an indicator of voting intention they might be on to something.
    There is another problem...I believe the vast bulk of original content is created by a tiny % of users (I would have to look up the actual %'s). The rest is all liking, retweeting, reposting etc.

    Furthermore, there is a small subset of people who have huge numbers of followers, "the broadcasters", most people are just listeners.
    Certainly true of Twitter. Again, though, the extent to which particularly tweetcasters (apologies - wanted a different word from "broadcaster" to avoid confusion) stuff was retweeted might give us some useful signal. Don't think it does though.

    Maybe the issue is the same one Nick is talking about: most social media users don't use the platform to talk about politics at all. Only politics geeks *cough* do that and we are not representative.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,180
    surbiton said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    An excellent article from Nick.

    I'd be fascinated to know how people would respond to the question: if the UK weren't in the EU, would you vote to join it? I suspect that a significant majority of the UK population would not vote to join the EU as it is currently configured. If so, then the LEAVE campaign has to work out how to get people to ask themelves why they would vote to REMAIN in something they wouldn't join....

    The problem is that lots of things you wouldn't organize the same if you were to start from scratch today. NHS, tax system, benefits system.

    But the fear of the change and uncertainty is a very difficult one to overcome e.g. Scottish Independence Referendum.
    If there were no NHS, it would have to created. The idea that people would prefer a health insurance scheme is absolutely barmy. This is not the USA.
    Lol - one would like to think this might be that final utterly brainless comment for 2015 but unfortunately surby posts regularly.
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    On the flooding. At last we know the real reason...

    http://news.bfnn.co.uk/britain-sinking-under-weight-of-immigrants/

    :-)

    Love the comments from people who think it's serious.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,910
    edited December 2015
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    surbiton said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    An excellent article from Nick.

    I'd be fascinated to know how people would respond to the question: if the UK weren't in the EU, would you vote to join it? I suspect that a significant majority of the UK population would not vote to join the EU as it is currently configured. If so, then the LEAVE campaign has to work out how to get people to ask themelves why they would vote to REMAIN in something they wouldn't join....

    The problem is that lots of things you wouldn't organize the same if you were to start from scratch today. NHS, tax system, benefits system.

    But the fear of the change and uncertainty is a very difficult one to overcome e.g. Scottish Independence Referendum.
    If there were no NHS, it would have to created. The idea that people would prefer a health insurance scheme is absolutely barmy. This is not the USA.
    It certainly wouldn't be created in anything like the form it is today. I would hope we would look to Europe and learn from their systems, many of which are far better than our monolithic health system and which have far better health outcomes.
    Far better perhaps but not cheaper. Britain spends less on health than France and Germany, let alone America. See the OECD figures:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita
    I would be very happy to see a higher percentage of national income, either private or public, spent on health provision if the basic system was more effective at doing its job. Unfortunately when the system is broken it really doesn't matter how much money you spend. The US - as you point out - is a good example of this.
    The Annual NHS Crisis is a result of demographics and will only end when there is a reduction in demand. I'd start with tax relief at the 40% rate for companies and individuals opting for private health insurance. That would make a much bigger difference than another few billion chucked at the existing system. BUPA would start building more hospitals tomorrow.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 87,552
    edited December 2015
    Wanderer said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    glw said:

    Wanderer said:

    At all events, it's perplexing that we have this problem with opinion polls when, in principle, we have far more information about what we all think than ever before.

    More "information" from social media isn't the same more information about a voting intention, particularly when one is public and the other private.

    I was discussing this just yesterday with a friend, the data mining of social media he was talking about almost entirely ignores the actual content as it is considered to be of very low value, but instead looks at things like volume, rate of posting, location and so on.

    If someone can figure out how to turn the unwritten parts of social media into an indicator of voting intention they might be on to something.
    There is another problem...I believe the vast bulk of original content is created by a tiny % of users (I would have to look up the actual %'s). The rest is all liking, retweeting, reposting etc.

    Furthermore, there is a small subset of people who have huge numbers of followers, "the broadcasters", most people are just listeners.
    Certainly true of Twitter. Again, though, the extent to which particularly tweetcasters (apologies - wanted a different word from "broadcaster" to avoid confusion) stuff was retweeted might give us some useful signal. Don't think it does though.

    Maybe the issue is the same one Nick is talking about: most social media users don't use the platform to talk about politics at all. Only politics geeks *cough* do that and we are not representative.
    I would guess most people use it to talk about things they are interested in eg sports, TV, etc & political debate is mostly certainly a minority sport. But those that are into it do a shit tonne of shouting about it.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,180
    Danny565 said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    surbiton said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    An excellent article from Nick.

    I'd be fascinated to know how people would respond to the question: if the UK weren't in the EU, would you vote to join it? I suspect that a significant majority of the UK population would not vote to join the EU as it is currently configured. If so, then the LEAVE campaign has to work out how to get people to ask themelves why they would vote to REMAIN in something they wouldn't join....

    The problem is that lots of things you wouldn't organize the same if you were to start from scratch today. NHS, tax system, benefits system.

    But the fear of the change and uncertainty is a very difficult one to overcome e.g. Scottish Independence Referendum.
    If there were no NHS, it would have to created. The idea that people would prefer a health insurance scheme is absolutely barmy. This is not the USA.
    It certainly wouldn't be created in anything like the form it is today. I would hope we would look to Europe and learn from their systems, many of which are far better than our monolithic health system and which have far better health outcomes.
    Thanks, but I quite liked that, when I was ill, I had full confidence that I was being treated in my best interests, rather than in the interests of individuals' profits.
    Then you were wrong - the NHS too often operates primarily in the interests of the work force - not the original idea but sadly too true today.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,584
    Wanderer said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    On the flooding. At last we know the real reason...

    http://news.bfnn.co.uk/britain-sinking-under-weight-of-immigrants/

    :-)

    Love the comments from people who think it's serious.
    There are more than a few face-palm moments in those comments. :-)
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    Sandpit said:

    Steady batting from England this evening. I stand by my earlier prediction of a roughly lunchtime declaration and a target of 350. Should be an easy win, but three decades of following England at cricket suggests that the easy win can and does sometimes go aray.

    Three decades just excludes Lords in '84?
  • TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    edited December 2015
    felix said:

    Danny565 said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    surbiton said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    An excellent article from Nick.

    I'd be fascinated to know how people would respond to the question: if the UK weren't in the EU, would you vote to join it? I suspect that a significant majority of the UK population would not vote to join the EU as it is currently configured. If so, then the LEAVE campaign has to work out how to get people to ask themelves why they would vote to REMAIN in something they wouldn't join....

    The problem is that lots of things you wouldn't organize the same if you were to start from scratch today. NHS, tax system, benefits system.

    But the fear of the change and uncertainty is a very difficult one to overcome e.g. Scottish Independence Referendum.
    If there were no NHS, it would have to created. The idea that people would prefer a health insurance scheme is absolutely barmy. This is not the USA.
    It certainly wouldn't be created in anything like the form it is today. I would hope we would look to Europe and learn from their systems, many of which are far better than our monolithic health system and which have far better health outcomes.
    Thanks, but I quite liked that, when I was ill, I had full confidence that I was being treated in my best interests, rather than in the interests of individuals' profits.
    Then you were wrong - the NHS too often operates primarily in the interests of the work force - not the original idea but sadly too true today.
    Sad but true. Religions such as the Catholic and CofE worked like that in the past. Just donate some wealth to assuage your guilt and the priests lived the high life.... The NHS is just a modern form of religion. Except that no other country has adopted it.
  • TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    surbiton said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    An excellent article from Nick.

    I'd be fascinated to know how people would respond to the question: if the UK weren't in the EU, would you vote to join it? I suspect that a significant majority of the UK population would not vote to join the EU as it is currently configured. If so, then the LEAVE campaign has to work out how to get people to ask themelves why they would vote to REMAIN in something they wouldn't join....

    The problem is that lots of things you wouldn't organize the same if you were to start from scratch today. NHS, tax system, benefits system.

    But the fear of the change and uncertainty is a very difficult one to overcome e.g. Scottish Independence Referendum.
    If there were no NHS, it would have to created. The idea that people would prefer a health insurance scheme is absolutely barmy. This is not the USA.
    Surbiton, there are 200+ other countries in the world. What percentage of them have copied our NHS?
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    This has perhaps been mulled over on a previous thread, but Howard would have some influence with Cameron? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/michael-howard-ex-tory-leader-calls-for-ministers-to-be-given-free-vote-on-eu-exit-a6787816.html
  • TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    TCPoliticalBetting said:

    Plato_Says said:

    On floods - this reminds me of Uckfield/Lewes controversy a few years back. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/weather/12071198/UK-floods-York-Leeds-Manchester-live-updates.html

    The leader of York Council, Chris Steward, told the Yorkshire Post that the decision to open the Foss Barrier meant that areas that would have ordinarily been protected were flooded.
    On the news this AM was a man from Hebden Bridge. He said that for the past 30 years or so the silt had been allowed to build up so the volume of water that could flow through was much lower than it should have been. Last year a contributory factor to the flooding in Somerset was the discontinuance of dredging by the Environmental Agency...... and the volume of water that could flow through was much less than it should have been....
    Yesterday Mike was scornful of the role played in all of this flooding by the EU. Seems some people who actually know what they are talking about disagree with him.

    http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/flooding-cause-government-would-keep-10580092

    Thanks a very informed article on the local realities in Cockermouth.
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Wanderer said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    glw said:

    Wanderer said:

    At all events, it's perplexing that we have this problem with opinion polls when, in principle, we have far more information about what we all think than ever before.

    More "information" from social media isn't the same more information about a voting intention, particularly when one is public and the other private.

    I was discussing this just yesterday with a friend, the data mining of social media he was talking about almost entirely ignores the actual content as it is considered to be of very low value, but instead looks at things like volume, rate of posting, location and so on.

    If someone can figure out how to turn the unwritten parts of social media into an indicator of voting intention they might be on to something.
    There is another problem...I believe the vast bulk of original content is created by a tiny % of users (I would have to look up the actual %'s). The rest is all liking, retweeting, reposting etc.

    Furthermore, there is a small subset of people who have huge numbers of followers, "the broadcasters", most people are just listeners.
    Certainly true of Twitter. Again, though, the extent to which particularly tweetcasters (apologies - wanted a different word from "broadcaster" to avoid confusion) stuff was retweeted might give us some useful signal. Don't think it does though.

    Maybe the issue is the same one Nick is talking about: most social media users don't use the platform to talk about politics at all. Only politics geeks *cough* do that and we are not representative.
    I would guess most people use it to talk about things they are interested in eg sports, TV, etc & political debate is mostly certainly a minority sport. But those that are into it do a shit tonne of shouting about it.
    I like that you have a metric shit tonne. So much easier to calculate with than the Imperial shit ton.
  • TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    Sandpit said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    surbiton said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    An excellent article from Nick.

    I'd be fascinated to know how people would respond to the question: if the UK weren't in the EU, would you vote to join it? I suspect that a significant majority of the UK population would not vote to join the EU as it is currently configured. If so, then the LEAVE campaign has to work out how to get people to ask themelves why they would vote to REMAIN in something they wouldn't join....

    The problem is that lots of things you wouldn't organize the same if you were to start from scratch today. NHS, tax system, benefits system.

    But the fear of the change and uncertainty is a very difficult one to overcome e.g. Scottish Independence Referendum.
    If there were no NHS, it would have to created. The idea that people would prefer a health insurance scheme is absolutely barmy. This is not the USA.
    It certainly wouldn't be created in anything like the form it is today. I would hope we would look to Europe and learn from their systems, many of which are far better than our monolithic health system and which have far better health outcomes.
    Far better perhaps but not cheaper. Britain spends less on health than France and Germany, let alone America. See the OECD figures:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita
    I would be very happy to see a higher percentage of national income, either private or public, spent on health provision if the basic system was more effective at doing its job. Unfortunately when the system is broken it really doesn't matter how much money you spend. The US - as you point out - is a good example of this.
    The Annual NHS Crisis is a result of demographics and will only end when there is a reduction in demand. I'd start with tax relief at the 40% rate for companies and individuals opting for private health insurance. That would make a much bigger difference than another few billion chucked at the existing system. BUPA would start building more hospitals tomorrow.
    There appear to be very few countries in the world that spend more than the UK does per capita on health, which have a lower GDP per person. In the OECD 2012 Health PPP there were only two New Zealand and Japan. (IMF GDP per capita PPP figs) that spent slightly more per capita and yet had a slightly lower gdp per capita.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita#List_of_countries_and_dependencies

  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903
    TCPoliticalBetting said:

    surbiton said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    An excellent article from Nick.

    I'd be fascinated to know how people would respond to the question: if the UK weren't in the EU, would you vote to join it? I suspect that a significant majority of the UK population would not vote to join the EU as it is currently configured. If so, then the LEAVE campaign has to work out how to get people to ask themelves why they would vote to REMAIN in something they wouldn't join....

    The problem is that lots of things you wouldn't organize the same if you were to start from scratch today. NHS, tax system, benefits system.

    But the fear of the change and uncertainty is a very difficult one to overcome e.g. Scottish Independence Referendum.
    If there were no NHS, it would have to created. The idea that people would prefer a health insurance scheme is absolutely barmy. This is not the USA.
    Surbiton, there are 200+ other countries in the world. What percentage of them have copied our NHS?
    Quite a lot of countries have compulsory deducted money (taxes y any other name) deducted from individuals and companies to pay for health care.
    The emphasis is on compulsion that pays for care, compared with there being no central control or direction at all. Even America before Obama care spent huge sums in taxes on health care.
    In France there is compulsion in the form of insurance with the govt for instance directing what drugs qualify for use or not and providing a share of funding via taxation. It is a universal service providing health care for every citizen, irrespective of wealth, age or social status. Its called La Sécurité Sociale. France (among many other countries) has a 'National Health Service'.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 61,421
    edited December 2015
    TCPoliticalBetting said:

    There appear to be very few countries in the world that spend more than the UK does per capita on health, which have a lower GDP per person. In the OECD 2012 Health PPP there were only two New Zealand and Japan. (IMF GDP per capita PPP figs) that spent slightly more per capita and yet had a slightly lower gdp per capita.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita#List_of_countries_and_dependencies

    Are you sure that's correct? If you look at health spending as a percentage of GDP, the UK is middling to low. See: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS?order=wbapi_data_value_2013+wbapi_data_value+wbapi_data_value-last&sort=desc 
    United States		17.1
    Netherlands		12.9
    France			11.7
    Switzerland		11.5
    Germany			11.3
    Belgium			11.2
    Austria			11.0
    Canada			10.9
    Denmark			10.6
    Japan			10.3
    Greece			 9.8
    New Zealand		 9.7
    Sweden			 9.7
    Portugal		 9.7
    Norway			 9.6
    Australia		 9.4
    Finland			 9.4
    United Kingdom		 9.1
    Italy			 9.1
    Ireland			 8.9
    Spain			 8.9
  • TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    flightpath01 said:

    TCPoliticalBetting said:

    surbiton said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    An excellent article from Nick.

    I'd be fascinated to know how people would respond to the question: if the UK weren't in the EU, would you vote to join it? I suspect that a significant majority of the UK population would not vote to join the EU as it is currently configured. If so, then the LEAVE campaign has to work out how to get people to ask themelves why they would vote to REMAIN in something they wouldn't join....

    The problem is that lots of things you wouldn't organize the same if you were to start from scratch today. NHS, tax system, benefits system.

    But the fear of the change and uncertainty is a very difficult one to overcome e.g. Scottish Independence Referendum.
    If there were no NHS, it would have to created. The idea that people would prefer a health insurance scheme is absolutely barmy. This is not the USA.
    Surbiton, there are 200+ other countries in the world. What percentage of them have copied our NHS?
    Quite a lot of countries have compulsory deducted money (taxes y any other name) deducted from individuals and companies to pay for health care. .....
    In France there is compulsion in the form of insurance with the govt for instance directing what drugs qualify for use or not and providing a share of funding via taxation. It is a universal service providing health care for every citizen, irrespective of wealth, age or social status. Its called La Sécurité Sociale. France (among many other countries) has a 'National Health Service'.
    Are all the employees in french hospitals employees of one state institution?

    I prefer the French system to the NHS as the patient has choice of hospitals etc.
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903
    Sandpit said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    surbiton said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    An excellent article from Nick.

    I'd be fascinated to know how people would respond to the question: if the UK weren't in the EU, would you vote to join it? I suspect that a significant majority of the UK population would not vote to join the EU as it is currently configured. If so, then the LEAVE campaign has to work out how to get people to ask themelves why they would vote to REMAIN in something they wouldn't join....

    The problem is that lots of things you wouldn't organize the same if you were to start from scratch today. NHS, tax system, benefits system.

    But the fear of the change and uncertainty is a very difficult one to overcome e.g. Scottish Independence Referendum.
    If there were no NHS, it would have to created. The idea that people would prefer a health insurance scheme is absolutely barmy. This is not the USA.
    It certainly wouldn't be created in anything like the form it is today. I would hope we would look to Europe and learn from their systems, many of which are far better than our monolithic health system and which have far better health outcomes.
    Far better perhaps but not cheaper. Britain spends less on health than France and Germany, let alone America. See the OECD figures:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita
    I would be very happy to see a higher percentage of national income, either private or public, spent on health provision if the basic system was more effective at doing its job. Unfortunately when the system is broken it really doesn't matter how much money you spend. The US - as you point out - is a good example of this.
    The Annual NHS Crisis is a result of demographics and will only end when there is a reduction in demand. I'd start with tax relief at the 40% rate for companies and individuals opting for private health insurance. That would make a much bigger difference than another few billion chucked at the existing system. BUPA would start building more hospitals tomorrow.
    Would you want to be treated by an inferior BUPA hospital? If you have a car accident would you want to go to a BUPA A&E? If you were properly ill and not just fiddling with some bit of a cataract would you go to a BUPA high dependency bed? If your child developed leukaemia just where would you go?
    Where would your wife or daughter go to give birth? 'Babies R Us' BUPA?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 56,935
    TCPoliticalBetting said:

    flightpath01 said:

    TCPoliticalBetting said:

    surbiton said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    An excellent article from Nick.

    I'd be fascinated to know how people would respond to the question: if the UK weren't in the EU, would you vote to join it? I suspect that a significant majority of the UK population would not vote to join the EU as it is currently configured. If so, then the LEAVE campaign has to work out how to get people to ask themelves why they would vote to REMAIN in something they wouldn't join....

    The problem is that lots of things you wouldn't organize the same if you were to start from scratch today. NHS, tax system, benefits system.

    But the fear of the change and uncertainty is a very difficult one to overcome e.g. Scottish Independence Referendum.
    If there were no NHS, it would have to created. The idea that people would prefer a health insurance scheme is absolutely barmy. This is not the USA.
    Surbiton, there are 200+ other countries in the world. What percentage of them have copied our NHS?
    Quite a lot of countries have compulsory deducted money (taxes y any other name) deducted from individuals and companies to pay for health care. .....
    In France there is compulsion in the form of insurance with the govt for instance directing what drugs qualify for use or not and providing a share of funding via taxation. It is a universal service providing health care for every citizen, irrespective of wealth, age or social status. Its called La Sécurité Sociale. France (among many other countries) has a 'National Health Service'.
    Are all the employees in french hospitals employees of one state institution?

    I prefer the French system to the NHS as the patient has choice of hospitals etc.
    You have, in fact a choice of hospitals, consultants etc under the NHS. If you know how to play the system.

    If you simply accept what you are given, you get a completely different standard of care. Sadly.
  • TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    edited December 2015
    rcs1000 said:

    TCPoliticalBetting said:

    There appear to be very few countries in the world that spend more than the UK does per capita on health, which have a lower GDP per person. In the OECD 2012 Health PPP there were only two New Zealand and Japan. (IMF GDP per capita PPP figs) that spent slightly more per capita and yet had a slightly lower gdp per capita.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita#List_of_countries_and_dependencies

    Are you sure that's correct? If you look at health spending as a percentage of GDP, the UK is middling to low. See: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS?order=wbapi_data_value_2013+wbapi_data_value+wbapi_data_value-last&sort=desc
    Not my area of expertise but I just picked out some of the data sets different to those quoted previously.
    rcs1000 Is it the share of our gdp that matters or the cost per head of the population? It would appear that there are only 2 countries with a smaller gdp per capita in ppp terms that spend more per head on health than we do. If our population is getting rapidly bigger than some in the OECD it stands to reason that our spending is getting spread on a per head basis thinner and thinner due to population growth. We are running just to stand still.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,113
    rcs1000 said:

    TCPoliticalBetting said:

    There appear to be very few countries in the world that spend more than the UK does per capita on health, which have a lower GDP per person. In the OECD 2012 Health PPP there were only two New Zealand and Japan. (IMF GDP per capita PPP figs) that spent slightly more per capita and yet had a slightly lower gdp per capita.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita#List_of_countries_and_dependencies

    Are you sure that's correct? If you look at health spending as a percentage of GDP, the UK is middling to low. See: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS?order=wbapi_data_value_2013+wbapi_data_value+wbapi_data_value-last&sort=desc 
    United States		17.1
    Netherlands		12.9
    France			11.7
    Switzerland		11.5
    Germany			11.3
    Belgium			11.2
    Austria			11.0
    Canada			10.9
    Denmark			10.6
    Japan			10.3
    Greece			 9.8
    New Zealand		 9.7
    Sweden			 9.7
    Portugal		 9.7
    Norway			 9.6
    Australia		 9.4
    Finland			 9.4
    United Kingdom		 9.1
    Italy			 9.1
    Ireland			 8.9
    Spain			 8.9
    How do our demographics and systems compare to Italy, Spain and Ireland ?
  • TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    Malmesbury said:

    TCPoliticalBetting said:

    flightpath01 said:

    TCPoliticalBetting said:

    surbiton said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    An excellent article from Nick.

    I'd be fascinated to know how people would respond to the question: if the UK weren't in the EU, would you vote to join it? I suspect that a significant majority of the UK population would not vote to join the EU as it is currently configured. If so, then the LEAVE campaign has to work out how to get people to ask themelves why they would vote to REMAIN in something they wouldn't join....

    The problem is that lots of things you wouldn't organize the same if you were to start from scratch today. NHS, tax system, benefits system.

    But the fear of the change and uncertainty is a very difficult one to overcome e.g. Scottish Independence Referendum.
    If there were no NHS, it would have to created. The idea that people would prefer a health insurance scheme is absolutely barmy. This is not the USA.
    Surbiton, there are 200+ other countries in the world. What percentage of them have copied our NHS?
    Quite a lot of countries have compulsory deducted money (taxes y any other name) deducted from individuals and companies to pay for health care. .....
    In France there is compulsion in the form of insurance with the govt for instance directing what drugs qualify for use or not and providing a share of funding via taxation. It is a universal service providing health care for every citizen, irrespective of wealth, age or social status. Its called La Sécurité Sociale. France (among many other countries) has a 'National Health Service'.
    Are all the employees in french hospitals employees of one state institution?

    I prefer the French system to the NHS as the patient has choice of hospitals etc.
    You have, in fact a choice of hospitals, consultants etc under the NHS. If you know how to play the system.

    If you simply accept what you are given, you get a completely different standard of care. Sadly.
    If your GP is friendly or gives in easily.
  • pb_accountpb_account Posts: 17
    surbiton said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    surbiton said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    An excellent article from Nick.

    I'd be fascinated to know how people would respond to the question: if the UK weren't in the EU, would you vote to join it? I suspect that a significant majority of the UK population would not vote to join the EU as it is currently configured. If so, then the LEAVE campaign has to work out how to get people to ask themelves why they would vote to REMAIN in something they wouldn't join....

    The problem is that lots of things you wouldn't organize the same if you were to start from scratch today. NHS, tax system, benefits system.

    But the fear of the change and uncertainty is a very difficult one to overcome e.g. Scottish Independence Referendum.
    If there were no NHS, it would have to created. The idea that people would prefer a health insurance scheme is absolutely barmy. This is not the USA.
    Yawn....for some people the health debate is always NHS vs US system....No other country has the NHS system and certainly not one that tries to do everything for everybody.

    The vast majority have some sort of health insurance scheme.

    Given the aging population, highly mobile world population and vast range and disparity in costs of different drugs and treatments, I highly doubt anybody would now propose a system as it is unsustainable in the long term.
    Ours is not a free system. Prescription charges are quite onerous. Sometimes £7.60 is paid for a £2 medicine.
    Not many people actually pay those charges.

    http://www.politics.co.uk/reference/nhs-prescription-charges
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    surbiton said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    surbiton said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    An excellent article from Nick.

    I'd be fascinated to know how people would respond to the question: if the UK weren't in the EU, would you vote to join it? I suspect that a significant majority of the UK population would not vote to join the EU as it is currently configured. If so, then the LEAVE campaign has to work out how to get people to ask themelves why they would vote to REMAIN in something they wouldn't join....

    The problem is that lots of things you wouldn't organize the same if you were to start from scratch today. NHS, tax system, benefits system.

    But the fear of the change and uncertainty is a very difficult one to overcome e.g. Scottish Independence Referendum.
    If there were no NHS, it would have to created. The idea that people would prefer a health insurance scheme is absolutely barmy. This is not the USA.
    Yawn....for some people the health debate is always NHS vs US system....No other country has the NHS system and certainly not one that tries to do everything for everybody.

    The vast majority have some sort of health insurance scheme.

    Given the aging population, highly mobile world population and vast range and disparity in costs of different drugs and treatments, I highly doubt anybody would now propose a system as it is unsustainable in the long term.
    Ours is not a free system. Prescription charges are quite onerous. Sometimes £7.60 is paid for a £2 medicine.
    I never said anything about it being "free".

    It is all a mute debate, because nobody is going to suggest scrapping the NHS and it would be a bad idea anyway because of the enormous upheaval. However, that is very different from saying if we were to start from scratch, knowing what we know now, world situation, the direction of the future over the next century etc, if the model proposed in the 1940's is the optimal model for 21st Century.

    I would suggest most institutions wouldn't be arranged as they currently are.
    But the NHS could still evolve with broad consent and consensus if it were not made into a political football by the Left and also seen as a shibboleth by the dumbo Right.
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    This is starting to get serious.

    #coys
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 56,935
    TCPoliticalBetting said:

    Malmesbury said:

    TCPoliticalBetting said:

    flightpath01 said:

    TCPoliticalBetting said:

    surbiton said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    An excellent article from Nick.

    I'd be fascinated to know how people would respond to the question: if the UK weren't in the EU, would you vote to join it? I suspect that a significant majority of the UK population would not vote to join the EU as it is currently configured. If so, then the LEAVE campaign has to work out how to get people to ask themelves why they would vote to REMAIN in something they wouldn't join....

    The problem is that lots of things you wouldn't organize the same if you were to start from scratch today. NHS, tax system, benefits system.

    But the fear of the change and uncertainty is a very difficult one to overcome e.g. Scottish Independence Referendum.
    If there were no NHS, it would have to created. The idea that people would prefer a health insurance scheme is absolutely barmy. This is not the USA.
    Surbiton, there are 200+ other countries in the world. What percentage of them have copied our NHS?
    Quite a lot of countries have compulsory deducted money (taxes y any other name) deducted from individuals and companies to pay for health care. .....
    In France there is compulsion in the form of insurance with the govt for instance directing what drugs qualify for use or not and providing a share of funding via taxation. It is a universal service providing health care for every citizen, irrespective of wealth, age or social status. Its called La Sécurité Sociale. France (among many other countries) has a 'National Health Service'.
    Are all the employees in french hospitals employees of one state institution?

    I prefer the French system to the NHS as the patient has choice of hospitals etc.
    You have, in fact a choice of hospitals, consultants etc under the NHS. If you know how to play the system.

    If you simply accept what you are given, you get a completely different standard of care. Sadly.
    If your GP is friendly or gives in easily.
    There is an art to getting what you want/need in a hospital as well.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 56,935
    flightpath01 said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    surbiton said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    surbiton said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    An excellent article from Nick.

    I'd be fascinated to know how people would respond to the question: if the UK weren't in the EU, would you vote to join it? I suspect that a significant majority of the UK population would not vote to join the EU as it is currently configured. If so, then the LEAVE campaign has to work out how to get people to ask themelves why they would vote to REMAIN in something they wouldn't join....

    The problem is that lots of things you wouldn't organize the same if you were to start from scratch today. NHS, tax system, benefits system.

    But the fear of the change and uncertainty is a very difficult one to overcome e.g. Scottish Independence Referendum.
    If there were no NHS, it would have to created. The idea that people would prefer a health insurance scheme is absolutely barmy. This is not the USA.
    Yawn....for some people the health debate is always NHS vs US system....No other country has the NHS system and certainly not one that tries to do everything for everybody.

    The vast majority have some sort of health insurance scheme.

    Given the aging population, highly mobile world population and vast range and disparity in costs of different drugs and treatments, I highly doubt anybody would now propose a system as it is unsustainable in the long term.
    Ours is not a free system. Prescription charges are quite onerous. Sometimes £7.60 is paid for a £2 medicine.
    I never said anything about it being "free".

    It is all a mute debate, because nobody is going to suggest scrapping the NHS and it would be a bad idea anyway because of the enormous upheaval. However, that is very different from saying if we were to start from scratch, knowing what we know now, world situation, the direction of the future over the next century etc, if the model proposed in the 1940's is the optimal model for 21st Century.

    I would suggest most institutions wouldn't be arranged as they currently are.
    But the NHS could still evolve with broad consent and consensus if it were not made into a political football by the Left and also seen as a shibboleth by the dumbo Right.
    Strangely in all the debates on the NHS, the fact that Beveridge himself contemplated an National Health Insurance scheme (option 2 in his famous report) is often forgotten. The broad idea was of a government run insurance scheme (compulsory) with *some* publicly owned hospitals, but largely leaving the existing hospital system alone...

    Or that this second option was in the 1945 Conservative manifesto.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    "At this point, dare I mention that pollsters can ill afford an EU referendum in which they predict a better result for the “out” camp than it actually achieves?"

    Nick Sparrow

    Does this mean that to overstate the "in" camp is all part of the political game and doesn't matter, Nick?
This discussion has been closed.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025