politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Two weeks to go until Iowa: White House Race Round up

I could believe the Tories being on 49% because Corbyn is a nutter.. Labour on 25 Ukip 11 LD 8 seems more like it. 7% = don't know and zoomers

Sunil_Prasannan said:

How exactly is Trump "dangerous"? Has he beheaded any UK citizens?

Worse. He has offended people.

SquareRoot said:

I could believe the Tories being on 49% because Corbyn is a nutter.. Labour on 25 Ukip 11 LD 8 seems more like it. 7% = don't know and zoomers

Cameron could prove himself the second coming of Jesus and invite all Tories to be his new apostles and I could not see them getting close to 50.

If we are going to have a debate about banning Trump, we should be having a debate about banning a lot more people. It is like the Geert Wilders thing all over again. They have unpleasant and unworkable views, but they aren't advocating violence etc.

At the same time as losing the plot over what Trump says, it doesn't interest the same people of some of the extremist nutters that preach to our young people in mosques, on university campuses and via the internet. Much easier to get in a huff about The Donald.

Richard_Nabavi said:

kle4 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Jack Dromey is surely on course to get the Most Stupid Speech In The Stupid Debate prize.

Well, with that as set up, don't hold back - how bad could it have been?

From the Guardian live blog:

"In the current febrile climate, Isis needs Donald Trump and Donald Trump need Isis."

That is why he should not be allowed to come to this country, he says.

Imagine what would happen if he came to Birmingham or Glasgow and preached his message of hate, Dromey says.

He says having Trump in this country would undermine the safety of our communities. “That is not a risk I am prepared to take,” he says, adding that Trump should not be allowed within 1,000 miles of our shores.

"Donald Trump is free to be a fool. But he is not free to be a dangerous fool in Britain."

Good lord. It's early days but if you come back in 84 years that will still be a contender for Most Idiotic Speech of the Century.

Mrs. Abernathy called the roomful of eleven-year-olds to order and told them to open their math books to page thirty-one. Her eyes scanned the class and came to rest on a stocky boy beneath a dome of golden hair, who was making grotesque faces at a girl in leg braces.

“Donald! What is the square root of a hundred and forty-four?”

The boy turned his attention to the teacher with sleepy-eyed indifference.

“I’m sorry, what did you say?”

“What is the square root of a hundred and forty-four?”

“Do I know the square root of a hundred and forty-four? Is that what you’re asking me? Of course I do. It’s absurd that you would even ask me that.”

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/lil-donald?intcid=mod-most-popular

HYUFD said:

david_herdson said:

justin124 said:

david_herdson said:

justin124 said:

felix said:

justin124 said:

Wanderer said:

It's a lot worse than Ed was doing at this stage of the Parliament.

But a lot better than the Tories were doing at this stage of the 2001 Parliament.

Lol but the Tories were doing so much better in 1867! spinning right round right round right round....

Referring you to facts which you might find unpalatable is not spinning in any sense - but you appear determined to reveal the extent of your own ignorance.

Indeed. And the fact was that in 2001, the Conservatives elected IDS, who was never going lead the Tories to a general election win. This showed up in the opinion polls. Do you see the parallel?

No David. From memory IDS was not elected until Autumn 2001 . From the polling data there is no indication that Labour's lead surged following his election - Labour simply remained miles out in front by a margin far bigger than the Tories are presently enjoying! In the second half of 2002 Labour's lead did narrow - so IDS did ,perhaps, begin to make a positive impact.

Correct. IDS was elected in September 2001. And yes, he did narrow Labour's lead (which shot out after Blair's second landslide). But despite all that, IDS would never have won an election against Blair - his personal ratings and leadership failings were there for all to see. The MPs did see that and acted accordingly. Obviously, it was too late to win but Howard turned the tide at a point when the Lib Dems were seriously threatening to overtake the Tories in the polls.

Corbyn may well poll ok at the moment and may gain leads at some point. But when push comes to electoral shove, he'll lose. Very badly.

IDS actually polled very close to the 32% Howard got in 2005 when he was ousted if not a fraction more, it was more the MPs mood and party unity which was boosted under the experienced Howard than any big poll boost

That's true but it's also not accounting for the swingback to Labour that undoubtedly would have taken place had IDS remained in situ.

You're right about the MP and party mood of unity that Howard brought but that of itself fed through to Con-waverer voters.

Pulpstar said:

Philip Davies !

He's an odd one.

He's filling up my twitter feed at the moment.

Philip_Thompson said:

Chris_A said:

I know Hunt and Cameron have no science background but disappointing that now Cameron is lying about stroke deaths at weekends. They must be rattled.

It just ain't true.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/tomchivers/jeremy-hunt-says-nhs-weekend-rotas-are-killing-people-is-he#.xawMMBWy

That article as much as it wants to fudge around and obfuscate; it can't and doesn't even try to hide the fact that the "weekend effect is real". This is utterly unacceptable in the 21st century, by the end of these reforms the notion that Saturdays are "out of hours" should be confined to the dustbin of history.

It's not just medics though, is it. Not nowadays. Lots of health professions, including my own should be looking at "normal" 7 days.

And before I retired, yes I did. Worked weekends on a rota. Could have done with more support though.

Cutting the pay of those who are changing is an incredibly bad idea, though!

OldKingCole said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Chris_A said:

I know Hunt and Cameron have no science background but disappointing that now Cameron is lying about stroke deaths at weekends. They must be rattled.

It just ain't true.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/tomchivers/jeremy-hunt-says-nhs-weekend-rotas-are-killing-people-is-he#.xawMMBWy

That article as much as it wants to fudge around and obfuscate; it can't and doesn't even try to hide the fact that the "weekend effect is real". This is utterly unacceptable in the 21st century, by the end of these reforms the notion that Saturdays are "out of hours" should be confined to the dustbin of history.

It's not just medics though, is it. Not nowadays. Lots of health professions, including my own should be looking at "normal" 7 days.

And before I retired, yes I did. Worked weekends on a rota. Could have done with more support though.

Cutting the pay of those who are changing is an incredibly bad idea, though!

I agree that people shouldn't be worse off (but nor necessarily should they be better off) through this change, but it is the principle of a truly seven day service that some like Chris_A seem to really object to.

Its absurd that the concept of "out of hours" still exists in healthcare on Saturday daytimes when in almost any other public-facing industry that is history. Though I'd go further than the government and make Sunday's a normal day too, but then Sunday trading rules etc still exist so it isn't completely inconsistent unlike Saturdays which are a perfectly normal working day.

Chris_A said:

I know Hunt and Cameron have no science background but disappointing that now Cameron is lying about stroke deaths at weekends. They must be rattled.

It just ain't true.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/tomchivers/jeremy-hunt-says-nhs-weekend-rotas-are-killing-people-is-he#.xawMMBWy

You're getting as bad as the Kippers, throwing around unfounded accusations of lying. Still, the Kippers don't usually provide a link to an article which admits that the statement they're complaining about is probably true.

George Eaton ✔ @georgeeaton

Labour MP says PLP "unanimous" on removing Corbyn's PPS from the NEC apart from speech by Andy McDonald.

BBC update - "it is being widely reported that Labour MP Steve Rotheram is set to be voted off the party's National Executive Committee after becoming a ministerial aide to Jeremy Corbyn. It is being interpreted as another skirmish between the Labour leader and MPs concerned about the direction of the party."

Philip_Thompson said:

As it is this time. I wasn't aware of that, the sub-committee should have done its job if that is the case.

There is also meant to be screening before the petitions go online with many polls rejected as not within Parliament's review. This ought to have been one of them rejected as it isn't Parliament's job to ban one unique individual - they are meant to set laws determining what categories of people are banned (eg those who have been convicted of crimes for inciting violence, unlike Trump).

Various procedural misunderstandings here, I think:

(1) The petition was started as a fairly casual response to Trump proposing a ban on the entry of Muslims. It doesn't say more than "The signatories believe Donald J Trump should be banned from UK entry". There is no request for a debate - the signatories are merely expressing an opinion. Why shouldn't they? Free country, etc.
(2) It does satisfy the conditions for a petition and petitions are ALWAYS allowed if tis is the case (see https://petition.parliament.uk/help). The subject must be within the power of either Government or Parliament. The Government could ban Trump if it wanted to, so it passes the test.
(3) The relevant Committee (which has a Conservative majority, by the way) decided that as half a million people had signed it, they'd have a non-binding discussion about it without a vote (an "Adjournment debate"). There are several of these most days on all kinds of things.
It is not a significant move.

Because Trump's colourful and the whole bans debate is provocative, it's all very media-friendly. But it should be regarded as a minor event and people who get worked up about it are taking it too seriously. Trump, of course, is enjoying it, which is one reason why it's silly.

Pong said:

Mrs. Abernathy called the roomful of eleven-year-olds to order and told them to open their math books to page thirty-one. Her eyes scanned the class and came to rest on a stocky boy beneath a dome of golden hair, who was making grotesque faces at a girl in leg braces.

“Donald! What is the square root of a hundred and forty-four?”

The boy turned his attention to the teacher with sleepy-eyed indifference.

“I’m sorry, what did you say?”

“What is the square root of a hundred and forty-four?”

“Do I know the square root of a hundred and forty-four? Is that what you’re asking me? Of course I do. It’s absurd that you would even ask me that.”

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/lil-donald?intcid=mod-most-popular

That was pretty funny

ThreeQuidder said:

Chris_A said:

I know Hunt and Cameron have no science background but disappointing that now Cameron is lying about stroke deaths at weekends. They must be rattled.

It just ain't true.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/tomchivers/jeremy-hunt-says-nhs-weekend-rotas-are-killing-people-is-he#.xawMMBWy

Mr A, how many of your 338 posts have been on topics other than moaning about the government's management of the NHS?

The BBC Radio ran through this on Friday and broadly said it was a justified claim.

flightpath01 said:

ThreeQuidder said:

Chris_A said:

I know Hunt and Cameron have no science background but disappointing that now Cameron is lying about stroke deaths at weekends. They must be rattled.

It just ain't true.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/tomchivers/jeremy-hunt-says-nhs-weekend-rotas-are-killing-people-is-he#.xawMMBWy

Mr A, how many of your 338 posts have been on topics other than moaning about the government's management of the NHS?

The BBC Radio ran through this on Friday and broadly said it was a justified claim.

Gosh support for the BBC, that's unusual on here. Actually I think my posts on here are now probably approaching 10,000.

matt said:

Philip_Thompson said:

OldKingCole said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Chris_A said:

I know Hunt and Cameron have no science background but disappointing that now Cameron is lying about stroke deaths at weekends. They must be rattled.

It just ain't true.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/tomchivers/jeremy-hunt-says-nhs-weekend-rotas-are-killing-people-is-he#.xawMMBWy

That article as much as it wants to fudge around and obfuscate; it can't and doesn't even try to hide the fact that the "weekend effect is real". This is utterly unacceptable in the 21st century, by the end of these reforms the notion that Saturdays are "out of hours" should be confined to the dustbin of history.

It's not just medics though, is it. Not nowadays. Lots of health professions, including my own should be looking at "normal" 7 days.

And before I retired, yes I did. Worked weekends on a rota. Could have done with more support though.

Cutting the pay of those who are changing is an incredibly bad idea, though!

I agree that people shouldn't be worse off (but nor necessarily should they be better off) through this change, but it is the principle of a truly seven day service that some like Chris_A seem to really object to.

Its absurd that the concept of "out of hours" still exists in healthcare on Saturday daytimes when in almost any other public-facing industry that is history. Though I'd go further than the government and make Sunday's a normal day too, but then Sunday trading rules etc still exist so it isn't completely inconsistent unlike Saturdays which are a perfectly normal working day.

For better or worse, if you work for the state ultimately you are subject to political imperatives. Until recently medicine has maintained the rewards of the private sector with the mental patterns of the public sector. Ken Clarke failed to break the former. Jeremy Hunt is trying to do it now. It's not quite a who governs Britain, Heath or the miners moment but it comes from a similar mismatch.

Wrong, I wholeheartedly agree with a 7 day service but first let the government set out what they mean by this soundbite - I don't think they have a clue, does anyone? And secondly tell us honestly how they are going to pay for it. You cannot get it by spreading out the existing staff more thinly over 7 days.

Are we sending Trump an invoice for all this publicity?

Richard_Nabavi said:

Chris_A said:

I know Hunt and Cameron have no science background but disappointing that now Cameron is lying about stroke deaths at weekends. They must be rattled.

It just ain't true.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/tomchivers/jeremy-hunt-says-nhs-weekend-rotas-are-killing-people-is-he#.xawMMBWy

You're getting as bad as the Kippers, throwing around unfounded accusations of lying. Still, the Kippers don't usually provide a link to an article which admits that the statement they're complaining about is probably true.

No it states that we cannot know the reasons why a weekend effect exists - or what it's magnitude is. If Cameron and Hunt do not know this then they are not fit to govern. They probably do know, however, and are spinning for all they're worth.

Philip_Thompson said:

Chris_A said:

I know Hunt and Cameron have no science background but disappointing that now Cameron is lying about stroke deaths at weekends. They must be rattled.

It just ain't true.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/tomchivers/jeremy-hunt-says-nhs-weekend-rotas-are-killing-people-is-he#.xawMMBWy

That article as much as it wants to fudge around and obfuscate; it can't and doesn't even try to hide the fact that the "weekend effect is real". This is utterly unacceptable in the 21st century, by the end of these reforms the notion that Saturdays are "out of hours" should be confined to the dustbin of history.

The fact that stroke related admissions are less frequent at the weekend, but have a slightly higher mortality at weekends is a curious one. It is hard to explain easily, with a likely explanation that people who have minor strokes hang on until the Monday. Hunts claim of 20% increase in mortality also predates the recent NHS drive on better stroke management, which has significantly improved outcomes.

In Leicester, if you present with a stroke, you will be started on treatment immediately, seen by a stroke specialist within 24 hours, have investigations including MRI headscan and carotid doppler scan at that visit. If a carotid endartectomy is needed it will be done within 48 hours by vascular surgeons who have a complication rate 20 times better than international reported figures. All free at the point of treatment. In Nuneaton, Northampton, Kettering, Lincoln or Boston you will not.

To provide our top of the range stroke service we need the entirety of the team avaliable 24 hours a day, including interventional radiology and vascular surgery. The other hospitals simply are not big enough to staff such a rota. (Note that junior doctors are not a requirement!). It is very important to choose where as well as when to have your stroke.

In London the vast improvement in stroke mortality is due to concentrating services such as Leicester's in 4 units. Such services need to be on the basis of serving a population of several million.

http://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g4757

The same probably applies to heart attacks, major trauma,spinal injuries, head injuries etc. One part of 7 day services will surely have to be the downgrading of smaller hospitals A and E departments, with all high risk patients being diverted to super-sized hospitals.

The trade off of such services is against patient convenience. Patients do not like their local units being downgraded.

Mr. Llama, me and Meg had a conversation two days ago which lasted about five minutes and consisted of us whining quizzically at one another.

Kai rarely made any noise. Two very different beasts. She's a lot more boisterous but less than half his weight.

kle4 said:

Scott_P said:

@michaelsavage: RT @britainelects
Westminster voting intention:
CON: 40% (+1)
LAB: 35% (+1)
UKIP: 10% (-)
LDEM: 6% (-1)
GRN: 3% (-)
(via ICM / 15 - 18 Jan)

Even if it is an overstatement of the Lab share, as was suggested on the previous thread, presumably that would place them more likely in the low 30s, no worse than the GE.

Now that is not good, I hasten to add. They should be neck and neck or more likely leading at this point, but polls like this, even if overstatement, will convince Corbyn supporters they are at the worse doing no worse than Ed M. And for some reason they are fine with that (either from not caring about losing, or assuming no worse than Ed M vs Osborne would be enough)

Yes. ICM does adjust more than it used to, but aren't sure they're adjusting enough. There's a well-known pattern of people who now support X "remembering" that they supported X before when they didn't, because they're embarrassed or merely forgetful - we all overestimate how little politics loom in most minds. I could tell you how I voted decades ago, but I couldn't tell you what I had for breakfast yesterday (because I don't really care). Many people are more interested in breakfast than politics.

What we can do is compare polls with polls. ICM has adjusted towards the Tories to some unstated extent, and are still showing them only 5 points ahead; a reasonable conclusion is that things haven't changed much since the election when ICM showed the parties close. Whether that's an awful result (no Corbyn honeymoon and Tory cockups not registering) or an amazing result (all that negative coverage and no effect at all) is a matter of opinion. Personally I think it's not bad, considering, and if Corbyn's party critics would pipe down for a bit we might see some progress for the May election. If they don't, they rather than Corbyn risk being blamed for any setbacks by most members.

Dr Fox,
We have seen adverts urging prompt action on strokes, so surely there should be a desire to see proper treatment at weekends.
Also the trend towards major trauma units with the top people on hand has been around a long time, so again surely it is not rocket science to take sufferers there where they would get the best treatment.

I stand to be corrected but the 7 day business is not about regular admissions is it, but improved emergeny treatments and outpatient appointments. I took my sister to a Sunday outpatients a while back so it can be done.

Wanderer said:

NickPalmer said:

Various procedural misunderstandings here, I think:

(1) The petition was started as a fairly casual response to Trump proposing a ban on the entry of Muslims. It doesn't say more than "The signatories believe Donald J Trump should be banned from UK entry". There is no request for a debate - the signatories are merely expressing an opinion. Why shouldn't they? Free country, etc.
(2) It does satisfy the conditions for a petition and petitions are ALWAYS allowed if tis is the case (see https://petition.parliament.uk/help). The subject must be within the power of either Government or Parliament. The Government could ban Trump if it wanted to, so it passes the test.
(3) The relevant Committee (which has a Conservative majority, by the way) decided that as half a million people had signed it, they'd have a non-binding discussion about it without a vote (an "Adjournment debate"). There are several of these most days on all kinds of things.
It is not a significant move.

Because Trump's colourful and the whole bans debate is provocative, it's all very media-friendly. But it should be regarded as a minor event and people who get worked up about it are taking it too seriously. Trump, of course, is enjoying it, which is one reason why it's silly.

Hmm. Everyone involved must have known that it would get huge media attention. Also, to 99.9% of people a debate is a debate. They won't be saying, "Well it's just an adjournment debate." I agree we shouldn't take it seriously but, by holding the debate, Parliament has given the impression that it does.

Some of the contributions were dire too.

And despite Mr Palmers assertion I do not see that this qualifies as a relevant debate. He is right to say Trump will be lapping it up, but that is pretty obvious.

NickPalmer said:

Many people are more interested in breakfast than politics.

Definitely a case for both-and not either-or.

flightpath01 said:

Dr Fox,
We have seen adverts urging prompt action on strokes, so surely there should be a desire to see proper treatment at weekends.
Also the trend towards major trauma units with the top people on hand has been around a long time, so again surely it is not rocket science to take sufferers there where they would get the best treatment.

I stand to be corrected but the 7 day business is not about regular admissions is it, but improved emergeny treatments and outpatient appointments. I took my sister to a Sunday outpatients a while back so it can be done.

There is indeed a need to be seen soon with strokes (though with resolved symptoms such as a TIA the patient will be seen in the stroke clinic next day).

The implications of such services though are the downgrading of A/E departments at other sites. People are very attached to their local hospitals - see Wyre Forest for example.

A 7 day NHS needs to be defined and debated before it can be implemented. It requires major restructuring of services.

There are a lot of Tory MPs out there in the 'shires who won't be happy that their hospital becomes just an outpatient satelite of some nearby Labour voting metropolis.

flightpath01 said:

Dr Fox,
We have seen adverts urging prompt action on strokes, so surely there should be a desire to see proper treatment at weekends.
Also the trend towards major trauma units with the top people on hand has been around a long time, so again surely it is not rocket science to take sufferers there where they would get the best treatment.

I stand to be corrected but the 7 day business is not about regular admissions is it, but improved emergeny treatments and outpatient appointments. I took my sister to a Sunday outpatients a while back so it can be done.

Thanks. That's what I had presumed too but can any Tories confirm it? Emergency treatment, leading to admission does of course exist now. And is outpatient appointments throughout the week and efficient use of NHS resources? Is the government going to provide any evidence?

justin124 said:

NickPalmer said:

kle4 said:

Scott_P said:

@michaelsavage: RT @britainelects
Westminster voting intention:
CON: 40% (+1)
LAB: 35% (+1)
UKIP: 10% (-)
LDEM: 6% (-1)
GRN: 3% (-)
(via ICM / 15 - 18 Jan)

Even if it is an overstatement of the Lab share, as was suggested on the previous thread, presumably that would place them more likely in the low 30s, no worse than the GE.

Now that is not good, I hasten to add. They should be neck and neck or more likely leading at this point, but polls like this, even if overstatement, will convince Corbyn supporters they are at the worse doing no worse than Ed M. And for some reason they are fine with that (either from not caring about losing, or assuming no worse than Ed M vs Osborne would be enough)

Yes. ICM does adjust more than it used to, but aren't sure they're adjusting enough. There's a well-known pattern of people who now support X "remembering" that they supported X before when they didn't, because they're embarrassed or merely forgetful - we all overestimate how little politics loom in most minds. I could tell you how I voted decades ago, but I couldn't tell you what I had for breakfast yesterday (because I don't really care). Many people are more interested in breakfast than politics.

What we can do is compare polls with polls. ICM has adjusted towards the Tories to some unstated extent, and are still showing them only 5 points ahead; a reasonable conclusion is that things haven't changed much since the election when ICM showed the parties close. Whether that's an awful result (no Corbyn honeymoon and Tory cockups not registering) or an amazing result (all that negative coverage and no effect at all) is a matter of opinion. Personally I think it's not bad, considering, and if Corbyn's party critics would pipe down for a bit we might see some progress for the May election. If they don't, they rather than Corbyn risk being blamed for any setbacks by most members.

Pretty much my own view too!

If May is a disaster, even if the anti-Cobynites have been slinging mud they will claim vindication. If it's good or just not bad, Corbyn could easily claim a united Labour would have done much better and the rebels dragged him down.

HurstLlama said:

foxinsoxuk said:

flightpath01 said:

Dr Fox,
We have seen adverts urging prompt action on strokes, so surely there should be a desire to see proper treatment at weekends.
Also the trend towards major trauma units with the top people on hand has been around a long time, so again surely it is not rocket science to take sufferers there where they would get the best treatment.

I stand to be corrected but the 7 day business is not about regular admissions is it, but improved emergeny treatments and outpatient appointments. I took my sister to a Sunday outpatients a while back so it can be done.

There is indeed a need to be seen soon with strokes (though with resolved symptoms such as a TIA the patient will be seen in the stroke clinic next day).

The implications of such services though are the downgrading of A/E departments at other sites. People are very attached to their local hospitals - see Wyre Forest for example.

A 7 day NHS needs to be defined and debated before it can be implemented. It requires major restructuring of services.

There are a lot of Tory MPs out there in the 'shires who won't be happy that their hospital becomes just an outpatient satelite of some nearby Labour voting metropolis.

I'd be one of those, Doc, and it has sod all to do with party political affiliation of the place where the proposed centre is located. They tried this on us a few years ago, all A&E was to be concentrated at the RSCH in Brighton. It would provide better service they said.

The RSCH A&E is massively over-subscribed and cannot cope with its current workload (and to be honest I have been in third world hospitals that were better organised). No additional facilities were included in the plan, not even additional ambulances to make up for the extra travelling distance. How that equated to being a better service, they never said.

So might I suggest your 'Shire versus City line is complete bollocks.

Clearly resources need to follow any such concentration of patients with high risk conditions. The governments plans for 7 day services are not even at the back of an envelope stage as far as the costs and implications go.

You do confirm my point though. Patients do value convenience of access (and car parking!) ahead of many other features of health care.

I cannot find a more up to date table on the web (Leicester now has a SHMI of 99 rather than 106) but in 2011 you were 10% more likely to die if admitted to East Sussex Hospitals than Brighton. These figures are adjusted for casemix. Don't even think about having your major illness on the Isle of Wight. It puts the "weekend effect" into perspective does it not?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-15897345

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Chris_A said:

I know Hunt and Cameron have no science background but disappointing that now Cameron is lying about stroke deaths at weekends. They must be rattled.

It just ain't true.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/tomchivers/jeremy-hunt-says-nhs-weekend-rotas-are-killing-people-is-he#.xawMMBWy

My sister who recently died of cancer and was previously in poor health over several years spent many weekends in hospital and it was a fact that I witnessed myself that the hospital geared down on Friday afternoon and there was only limited staff on at weekends and certainly she was never able to have any tests or investigations at weekends. Also it was a recognised fact, and still is, that you do not want to be admitted to hospital at the weekend due to the lack of medical services. You are so bitter about Jeremy Hunt, and while he may not be perfect, he is not the demon you make him out to be and he is on the patients side fighting against vested interest who want to resist change against the better good

Sorry for your loss but as you say she was lacking "tests or investigations" at weekend. Those are the things which are missing the most. There would have been plenty of medical cover. Jeremy Hunt should know this and picking a fight with junior doctors is not going to change this one iota.

Hunt is not demonic but if he lost the spin and concentrated on what he wants, how he's going to get there, and how it will be paid for he would be an excellent health secretary. Unfortunately there's no evidence he will, so better he goes sooner rather than later before he does even more damage. Contrary to what you think change isn't resisted in health but rather the medical professions are very keen to change practice when there is evidence to support the change. There was no evidence that Lansley's reforms would make things better and they haven't. Hunt is now in a similar evidence-free zone.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Chris_A said:

I know Hunt and Cameron have no science background but disappointing that now Cameron is lying about stroke deaths at weekends. They must be rattled.

It just ain't true.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/tomchivers/jeremy-hunt-says-nhs-weekend-rotas-are-killing-people-is-he#.xawMMBWy

My sister who recently died of cancer and was previously in poor health over several years spent many weekends in hospital and it was a fact that I witnessed myself that the hospital geared down on Friday afternoon and there was only limited staff on at weekends and certainly she was never able to have any tests or investigations at weekends. Also it was a recognised fact, and still is, that you do not want to be admitted to hospital at the weekend due to the lack of medical services. You are so bitter about Jeremy Hunt, and while he may not be perfect, he is not the demon you make him out to be and he is on the patients side fighting against vested interest who want to resist change against the better good

Yes but when it comes to tests this is nothing to do with doctor coverage. When you get, say, blood tests done the lab tech who is putting the blood in the centrifuge isn't a doctor.

We haven't heard anything about their contracts and we are not talking about well paid people at this point so giving them a real terms pay cut to acheive this as yet undefined 7-day NHS is a bit of a nuts kicker for them.

watford30 said:

OldKingCole said:

watford30 said:

I see the NHS cultist are out again this evening, ranting about the demon Hunt.

You mean the people who know what they are talkiing about, as opposed to those who assume because a Tory government has suggested something it must be the best possible idea ever.

No, the loons who look on the NHS as a religion, and churn out fanciful stories about it. Ever seen The Whicker Man? They'll be burning giant effigies next. Giant straw models of nurses with the Health Secretary tied up inside them.

'I want to see my doctor on a Saturday'

'STONE THE HERETIC!'

Do you want to see "your" doctor on a Saturday or "a" doctor?

Serious question.

OldKingCole said:

watford30 said:

OldKingCole said:

watford30 said:

I see the NHS cultist are out again this evening, ranting about the demon Hunt.

You mean the people who know what they are talkiing about, as opposed to those who assume because a Tory government has suggested something it must be the best possible idea ever.

No, the loons who look on the NHS as a religion, and churn out fanciful stories about it. Ever seen The Whicker Man? They'll be burning giant effigies next. Giant straw models of nurses with the Health Secretary tied up inside them.

'I want to see my doctor on a Saturday'

'STONE THE HERETIC!'

Do you want to see "your" doctor on a Saturday or "a" doctor?

Serious question.

And a very good question it is too, Mr. Cole. I was on here heaping praise on my GP Practice for its innovations and efforts to meet the demands of patients for our weekend /evening appointments etc.. However, all that good stuff comes at cost.

One of those is that if I want to see my "named GP" then I'll probably have a two week wait. However, if I am ill then I can get to see one of the quacks normally the same day, certainly the next day, Monday to Saturday inclusive. That strikes me as a fair deal, my routine stuff - monitoring chronic - illness can be booked in and done slow time with the same bloke, but if I really ain't well then I don't care who I see I just need a doctor and I can get one.

As I said last night the GP bit of the NHS is, in my neck of the woods at least, working pretty damn well. God help us though if you need a doctor in the evening on Sundays, or during the night - you won't get one and you are best advised to get off down to A&E. When you get to hospital, depending on the time of day/day of the week, your problems may really start.