Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » An interim government would need more than just a PM

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited September 30 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » An interim government would need more than just a PM

There has been much speculation in recent weeks about the possibility of the opposition parties and ex-Tory refuseniks coming together to oust this government and install an interim government, tasked with a very limited role of negotiating an Article 50 extension, promptly followed by a GE. (A variant of this proposal would have the interim government stay in office long enough to call a second EU referendum, but that seems vanishingly unlikely).

Read the full story here


«13456

Comments

  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,607
    First!
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 10,221
    edited September 30
    Very good header Richard, thanks.

    The GNU cabinet will be very tricky. I still wouldn't rule it out though because all the alternative options look very tricky right now.

    Edit: Oh, and second to @The_Taxman... but then the taxman always does seem to get the better of me :wink:
  • TabmanTabman Posts: 953
    Third like the current Mrs Corbyn
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 6,934
    Scott_P said:
    Too right too foreigners need to pay, they don't get it free...
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 10,221
    5th or 6th like Boris's youngest sprog.
  • po8crgpo8crg Posts: 18
    I suspect that one likely result is that if there's an (ex) Tory PM, then a bunch of Tory MPs who haven't lost the whip would be attracted to joining the government - lots of them have already been prepared to do some pretty serious torture to their principles to become ministers (e.g. Amber Rudd, Nicky Morgan) - and that could see internal authority draining away from Johnson as Leader of the Opposition.

    Forcing the Conservative Party's split into the open could be really useful for Corbyn, and he (or one of his advisers) might be smart enough to realise that accepting a bunch of Tories on a temporary basis could hand him the next election in a platter.

    This, incidentally, is why I'm convinced there won't be a Labour PM who isn't Corbyn - it would establish an alternative power centre within the Labour Party and drain power from Corbyn, and Corbyn (unlike Johnson) will have a veto over this.
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,607
    Interesting artical by Richard.

    I think you would have to maximise the payroll vote in a GNU. This might mean extending the number of ministers and spliting up current roles. All MPs who support GNU would then be tied into it to sustain a majority and give them a reason to support it. I dont think a skeleton cabinet is the way forward and i dont fear Corbyn/McDonnell as they will not have a majority for extreame socialist measures.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 54,894
    edited September 30
    Whilst it might be unlikely, you can certainly draw an extremely plausible temporary Gov't from Labour moderates & Tory remainers.

    Aside from PM simply pick those that have either held or shadowed the role previously

    Beckett PM
    Clarke Chancellor
    Cooper Home
    Benn Foreign
    Attourney General Grieve
    Lord Chancellor David Gauke

    It's slightly Labour heavy but it is mainly Labour votes that will spring this potential Gov't into action.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,253
    Pulpstar said:

    Whilst it might be unlikely, you can certainly draw an extremely plausible temporary Gov't from Labour moderates & Tory remainers.

    Aside from PM simply pick those that have either held or shadowed the role previously

    Beckett PM
    Clarke Chancellor
    Cooper Home
    Benn Foreign
    Attourney General Grieve
    Lord Chancellor David Gauke

    It's slightly Labour heavy but it is mainly Labour votes that will spring this potential Gov't into action.

    Corbyn wont agree that, no Corbynites in cabinet and he loses his position as LOTO
  • Gabs2Gabs2 Posts: 823
    Putting John McDonnell, a man that supported the IRA's bombing campaign against British civilians, as CoE, would be as bad as putting Jeremy Corbyn in as Prime Minister. Supporters of terrrorism should not be in high office and anyway that puts them there has a moral stain on themselves.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 1,343
    Government ministers stay in place until they resign or the PM replaces them.

    The new GONU PM could simply not sack any of the current ministers on the principle of National Unity, and then see who is prepared to stay and who walks. The decision could be really akward for many who would be forced between "sticking with Boris" or stay "running the country in a time of need" until after the general election.

    I'm guessing that most of the Cabinet would walk, but for the non cabinet government posts it might be a more difficult decision especially if the new PM is an ex-Conservative.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 54,894

    Pulpstar said:

    Whilst it might be unlikely, you can certainly draw an extremely plausible temporary Gov't from Labour moderates & Tory remainers.

    Aside from PM simply pick those that have either held or shadowed the role previously

    Beckett PM
    Clarke Chancellor
    Cooper Home
    Benn Foreign
    Attourney General Grieve
    Lord Chancellor David Gauke

    It's slightly Labour heavy but it is mainly Labour votes that will spring this potential Gov't into action.

    Corbyn wont agree that, no Corbynites in cabinet and he loses his position as LOTO
    One of the reasons I'm sceptical (perhaps wrongly) is that, aside seemingly from Sturgeon all the 'remain opposition' for want of a better word seems to be valuing optics and position above actually preventing a "No deal".

    If it was really going to be so bad surely everyone would pull out all the stops to prevent it.
  • I'm going to look a damned fool if there's a VONC this week and a caretaker government in place by the weekend, aren't I?
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 656

    Scott_P said:
    Too right too foreigners need to pay, they don't get it free...
    My dad works for a local CCG; it probably wouldn't surprise you to learn that it usually costs more in administration and contract fees to charge people than to not.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 10,221
    Scott_P said:
    Looks like she'd had a 'vinous lunch' before tweeting that collection of typos!
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,253
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Whilst it might be unlikely, you can certainly draw an extremely plausible temporary Gov't from Labour moderates & Tory remainers.

    Aside from PM simply pick those that have either held or shadowed the role previously

    Beckett PM
    Clarke Chancellor
    Cooper Home
    Benn Foreign
    Attourney General Grieve
    Lord Chancellor David Gauke

    It's slightly Labour heavy but it is mainly Labour votes that will spring this potential Gov't into action.

    Corbyn wont agree that, no Corbynites in cabinet and he loses his position as LOTO
    One of the reasons I'm sceptical (perhaps wrongly) is that, aside seemingly from Sturgeon all the 'remain opposition' for want of a better word seems to be valuing optics and position above actually preventing a "No deal".

    If it was really going to be so bad surely everyone would pull out all the stops to prevent it.
    Quite, nothing about the events since parliament returned in early September suggest anything other than party politicking and gaming for the coming election.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 54,894

    I'm going to look a damned fool if there's a VONC this week and a caretaker government in place by the weekend, aren't I?

    It's another one of those situations where every route out looks unlikely, but something or other simply must happen.
  • tpfkartpfkar Posts: 1,511
    Good thread, points well made throughout.

    It does seem to me though, that the key positions are set; the Benn Act comes into effect on Oct 19th, and it doesn't make sense to accelerate this as Boris is still aiming for a deal on Oct 17th. For all the bluster the Gvt have shown no good ways to work around the Benn Act, and their record so far is more Baldrick than Machievelli.

    Parliament back sitting if the Gvt do try any funny business, possibly even with a votes at 16 measure to come later this week (what larks)

    So I'm not sure all the panic of opposition groups meeting and trying to agree who should be interim PM is really needed - just patience.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 1,343


    Too right too foreigners need to pay, they don't get it free...

    Can you define what you mean by "foreigners".

    An Irish person who has been living in the UK for the last 15 years?
  • SunnyJimSunnyJim Posts: 472
    The seemingly chaotic horse trading of remainers groups in parliament is not a great look for a public already enraged at their antics.

    Just crack on and VoNC the government or wait for the deal and vote it through.

    Everything else is game playing in the hope of buying a little more time to overturn the referendum.

    It is unseemly and doing incredible damage to politics.
  • NormNorm Posts: 1,198

    I'm going to look a damned fool if there's a VONC this week and a caretaker government in place by the weekend, aren't I?

    You looking a damned fool would be the least of our worries.
  • SunnyJimSunnyJim Posts: 472
    eristdoof said:


    Too right too foreigners need to pay, they don't get it free...

    Can you define what you mean by "foreigners".

    An Irish person who has been living in the UK for the last 15 years?
    Which groups should be made to pay?
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 5,456
    Good header, right to raise the challenges.

    The coalition govt had the quad, presumably some similar arrangement for any decisions needed could be organised.

    In practice the cabinet positions would be less important I think, vs. the need to ensure all supporters of this extension govt are kept on side for the time period.

    A power sharing committee of Corbyn, Sturgeon (and I suppose) Swinson to approve all decisions.
  • TabmanTabman Posts: 953
    148grss said:

    Scott_P said:
    Too right too foreigners need to pay, they don't get it free...
    My dad works for a local CCG; it probably wouldn't surprise you to learn that it usually costs more in administration and contract fees to charge people than to not.
    I'm a pretty liberal sort of guy - but that just feels wrong. My recollection of the time I visited a GP whilst on holiday in Australia you pay upfront and then reclaim.

  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,253
    rkrkrk said:

    Good header, right to raise the challenges.

    The coalition govt had the quad, presumably some similar arrangement for any decisions needed could be organised.

    In practice the cabinet positions would be less important I think, vs. the need to ensure all supporters of this extension govt are kept on side for the time period.

    A power sharing committee of Corbyn, Sturgeon (and I suppose) Swinson to approve all decisions.

    The optics of this shadow cabal are delicious
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 8,492

    I'm going to look a damned fool if there's a VONC this week and a caretaker government in place by the weekend, aren't I?

    You will be far down the list of people looking like a fool were that to happen.
  • 148grss said:

    My dad works for a local CCG; it probably wouldn't surprise you to learn that it usually costs more in administration and contract fees to charge people than to not.

    That might simply be due to the fact that, historically, there hasn't been a concerted push to develop billing and ID-check systems.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,253
    PM Beckett what will you do next?
    I must refer to the 'committee' before telling you.
    Winner winner chicken dinner
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 656
    Tabman said:

    148grss said:

    Scott_P said:
    Too right too foreigners need to pay, they don't get it free...
    My dad works for a local CCG; it probably wouldn't surprise you to learn that it usually costs more in administration and contract fees to charge people than to not.
    I'm a pretty liberal sort of guy - but that just feels wrong. My recollection of the time I visited a GP whilst on holiday in Australia you pay upfront and then reclaim.

    I mean, the NHS isn't designed for anyone to pay up front, the idea is you walk through the door, you get seen (eventually), you go once healthy. Doctors and nurses and whatnot are not trained (rightly so imo) to question people whether they "should" be paying, nor are they trained to tell patients they need to pay up. Universal healthcare is known to be cheaper if it is just that; universal. Otherwise you need an entire extra wing of a finance department just to process payments. "Health tourism" is less than half a % of NHS costs, current estimates put it at around 0.3%. It is not an issue.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 8,492
    @edmundintokyo's idea of starting with the Select Committee chairs has a lot to recommend it. They would know the department, they would have at least some respect from fellow MPs, having been elected by other MPs into the role, and it's an arbitrary way of making the decision that cuts out the need for horse-trading.

    Then you can fill the posts that remain vacant - after Johnson loyalists reject the offer - with whatever people need to be included round the table.
  • NooNoo Posts: 1,661

    Scott_P said:
    Too right too foreigners need to pay, they don't get it free...
    Ummm, that's not the issue. Why is the NHS handing over confidential data to a private company? I don't want to Experian to know my medical history.
  • Harris_TweedHarris_Tweed Posts: 1,104
    rkrkrk said:

    Good header, right to raise the challenges.

    The coalition govt had the quad, presumably some similar arrangement for any decisions needed could be organised.

    In practice the cabinet positions would be less important I think, vs. the need to ensure all supporters of this extension govt are kept on side for the time period.

    A power sharing committee of Corbyn, Sturgeon (and I suppose) Swinson to approve all decisions.

    Indeed. Given I think most people agree with Richard that this would be an administration with three jobs (extension, call an election, mind the shop until polling day), I don't see this as insuperable. I certainly wouldn't appoint below SoS level, and I might even not bother with some of those (eg Foreign Sec can look after DFID for a month or two.. and most big decisions would be taken Quad-style).

    I shouldn't be surprised, but am a bit, that the tectonic plates haven't budged much on who might be PM. I get both sides of the argument, but with such a limited programme for government, and a HoC with a permanently twitchy finger on the VONC button, it really shouldn't matter.

  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,253

    @edmundintokyo's idea of starting with the Select Committee chairs has a lot to recommend it. They would know the department, they would have at least some respect from fellow MPs, having been elected by other MPs into the role, and it's an arbitrary way of making the decision that cuts out the need for horse-trading.

    Then you can fill the posts that remain vacant - after Johnson loyalists reject the offer - with whatever people need to be included round the table.

    Would require the immediate election to all select committee chairs in order for parliament to be able to hold the new executive to account. More delay and chaos
  • RobCRobC Posts: 364
    edited September 30
    tpfkar said:

    Good thread, points well made throughout.

    It does seem to me though, that the key positions are set; the Benn Act comes into effect on Oct 19th, and it doesn't make sense to accelerate this as Boris is still aiming for a deal on Oct 17th. For all the bluster the Gvt have shown no good ways to work around the Benn Act, and their record so far is more Baldrick than Machievelli.

    Parliament back sitting if the Gvt do try any funny business, possibly even with a votes at 16 measure to come later this week (what larks)

    So I'm not sure all the panic of opposition groups meeting and trying to agree who should be interim PM is really needed - just patience.

    Yes precipitating a GONU doesn't seem to me to be in the interests of those like me who prefer BRINO or better still no Brexit. Using the Benn Act and seeking to divide the two Brexir parties seems a much better way forward - it's working quite well already and once we get past 31/10 Johnson will be further discredited.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,253
    If a GNU is only to get an extension and call an election why bother? Just pass a law permitting Bercow to send the damn letter. Then agree the election. Done.
  • TabmanTabman Posts: 953
    148grss said:

    Tabman said:

    148grss said:

    Scott_P said:
    Too right too foreigners need to pay, they don't get it free...
    My dad works for a local CCG; it probably wouldn't surprise you to learn that it usually costs more in administration and contract fees to charge people than to not.
    I'm a pretty liberal sort of guy - but that just feels wrong. My recollection of the time I visited a GP whilst on holiday in Australia you pay upfront and then reclaim.

    I mean, the NHS isn't designed for anyone to pay up front, the idea is you walk through the door, you get seen (eventually), you go once healthy. Doctors and nurses and whatnot are not trained (rightly so imo) to question people whether they "should" be paying, nor are they trained to tell patients they need to pay up. Universal healthcare is known to be cheaper if it is just that; universal. Otherwise you need an entire extra wing of a finance department just to process payments. "Health tourism" is less than half a % of NHS costs, current estimates put it at around 0.3%. It is not an issue.
    Doesn't everyone entitled to healthcare have a NI number?

    Obviously emergency care is different, but for stuff like GPs/dentists/ongoing care you could validate this when you book/arrive.
  • Harris_TweedHarris_Tweed Posts: 1,104
    Similarly relevant to pointing out the party affiliation of the bloke who hijacked Boris in the hospital.

    (ie neither fact stopped what the person has to say being a story, but it's useful context to understand the motivations of those involved. I don't think "Cummings' wife" should be the top line of the story. But any write-through which didn't mention it would be depriving me as a reader of an important fact.)

  • NooNoo Posts: 1,661

    If a GNU is only to get an extension and call an election why bother? Just pass a law permitting Bercow to send the damn letter. Then agree the election. Done.

    Because god knows what Boris will try to get up to to frustrate parliament's wishes. He already tried to shut down parliament illegally. He needs removing.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 39,126
    Noo said:

    If a GNU is only to get an extension and call an election why bother? Just pass a law permitting Bercow to send the damn letter. Then agree the election. Done.

    Because god knows what Boris will try to get up to to frustrate parliament's wishes. He already tried to shut down parliament illegally. He needs removing.
    He wouldn’t be PM if there is a new government.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 8,862
    148grss said:

    Tabman said:

    148grss said:

    Scott_P said:
    Too right too foreigners need to pay, they don't get it free...
    My dad works for a local CCG; it probably wouldn't surprise you to learn that it usually costs more in administration and contract fees to charge people than to not.
    I'm a pretty liberal sort of guy - but that just feels wrong. My recollection of the time I visited a GP whilst on holiday in Australia you pay upfront and then reclaim.

    I mean, the NHS isn't designed for anyone to pay up front, the idea is you walk through the door, you get seen (eventually), you go once healthy. Doctors and nurses and whatnot are not trained (rightly so imo) to question people whether they "should" be paying, nor are they trained to tell patients they need to pay up. Universal healthcare is known to be cheaper if it is just that; universal. Otherwise you need an entire extra wing of a finance department just to process payments. "Health tourism" is less than half a % of NHS costs, current estimates put it at around 0.3%. It is not an issue.
    If they aren't questioning people, how are they arriving at the half a percent figure?
  • Harris_TweedHarris_Tweed Posts: 1,104
    RobC said:

    tpfkar said:

    Good thread, points well made throughout.

    It does seem to me though, that the key positions are set; the Benn Act comes into effect on Oct 19th, and it doesn't make sense to accelerate this as Boris is still aiming for a deal on Oct 17th. For all the bluster the Gvt have shown no good ways to work around the Benn Act, and their record so far is more Baldrick than Machievelli.

    Parliament back sitting if the Gvt do try any funny business, possibly even with a votes at 16 measure to come later this week (what larks)

    So I'm not sure all the panic of opposition groups meeting and trying to agree who should be interim PM is really needed - just patience.

    Yes precipitating a GONU doesn't seem to me to be in the interests of those like me who prefer BRINO or better still no Brexit. Using the Benn Act and seeking to divide the two Brexir parties seems a much better way forward - it's working quite well already and once we get past 31/10 Johnson will be further discredited.
    But in the same way Boris insists a credible threat of no-deal Brexit is the only way to get a deal, having a credible option to kick Boris out if he tries any funny business is probably the best way to stop him so trying.
  • NooNoo Posts: 1,661
    RobD said:

    Noo said:

    If a GNU is only to get an extension and call an election why bother? Just pass a law permitting Bercow to send the damn letter. Then agree the election. Done.

    Because god knows what Boris will try to get up to to frustrate parliament's wishes. He already tried to shut down parliament illegally. He needs removing.
    He wouldn’t be PM if there is a new government.
    Yes. That's exactly the point. A GNU is a way to shift Boris from Downing Street.
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 656

    148grss said:

    Tabman said:

    148grss said:

    Scott_P said:
    Too right too foreigners need to pay, they don't get it free...
    My dad works for a local CCG; it probably wouldn't surprise you to learn that it usually costs more in administration and contract fees to charge people than to not.
    I'm a pretty liberal sort of guy - but that just feels wrong. My recollection of the time I visited a GP whilst on holiday in Australia you pay upfront and then reclaim.

    I mean, the NHS isn't designed for anyone to pay up front, the idea is you walk through the door, you get seen (eventually), you go once healthy. Doctors and nurses and whatnot are not trained (rightly so imo) to question people whether they "should" be paying, nor are they trained to tell patients they need to pay up. Universal healthcare is known to be cheaper if it is just that; universal. Otherwise you need an entire extra wing of a finance department just to process payments. "Health tourism" is less than half a % of NHS costs, current estimates put it at around 0.3%. It is not an issue.
    If they aren't questioning people, how are they arriving at the half a percent figure?
    https://fullfact.org/health/health-tourism-whats-cost/
  • BromBrom Posts: 1,835
    Noo said:

    If a GNU is only to get an extension and call an election why bother? Just pass a law permitting Bercow to send the damn letter. Then agree the election. Done.

    Because god knows what Boris will try to get up to to frustrate parliament's wishes. He already tried to shut down parliament illegally. He needs removing.
    If they were that concerned about him there would have been a VONC ages ago
  • RobDRobD Posts: 39,126
    edited September 30
    Noo said:

    Scott_P said:
    Too right too foreigners need to pay, they don't get it free...
    Ummm, that's not the issue. Why is the NHS handing over confidential data to a private company? I don't want to Experian to know my medical history.
    From the article it looks a although it is your name and address. For many, that is in the public domain. Also include date of birth, but no medical information.
  • NooNoo Posts: 1,661

    148grss said:

    Tabman said:

    148grss said:

    Scott_P said:
    Too right too foreigners need to pay, they don't get it free...
    My dad works for a local CCG; it probably wouldn't surprise you to learn that it usually costs more in administration and contract fees to charge people than to not.
    I'm a pretty liberal sort of guy - but that just feels wrong. My recollection of the time I visited a GP whilst on holiday in Australia you pay upfront and then reclaim.

    I mean, the NHS isn't designed for anyone to pay up front, the idea is you walk through the door, you get seen (eventually), you go once healthy. Doctors and nurses and whatnot are not trained (rightly so imo) to question people whether they "should" be paying, nor are they trained to tell patients they need to pay up. Universal healthcare is known to be cheaper if it is just that; universal. Otherwise you need an entire extra wing of a finance department just to process payments. "Health tourism" is less than half a % of NHS costs, current estimates put it at around 0.3%. It is not an issue.
    If they aren't questioning people, how are they arriving at the half a percent figure?
    They aren't checking everyone, but by checking a sample you can get an idea of the overall figure.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 39,126
    edited September 30
    Noo said:

    RobD said:

    Noo said:

    If a GNU is only to get an extension and call an election why bother? Just pass a law permitting Bercow to send the damn letter. Then agree the election. Done.

    Because god knows what Boris will try to get up to to frustrate parliament's wishes. He already tried to shut down parliament illegally. He needs removing.
    He wouldn’t be PM if there is a new government.
    Yes. That's exactly the point. A GNU is a way to shift Boris from Downing Street.
    Sorry, I misread the comment you were replying to. Carry on!
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 10,221

    Similarly relevant to pointing out the party affiliation of the bloke who hijacked Boris in the hospital.

    (ie neither fact stopped what the person has to say being a story, but it's useful context to understand the motivations of those involved. I don't think "Cummings' wife" should be the top line of the story. But any write-through which didn't mention it would be depriving me as a reader of an important fact.)

    Just reminds me how everyone knows everyone in the establishment elite.
  • NooNoo Posts: 1,661
    Brom said:

    Noo said:

    If a GNU is only to get an extension and call an election why bother? Just pass a law permitting Bercow to send the damn letter. Then agree the election. Done.

    Because god knows what Boris will try to get up to to frustrate parliament's wishes. He already tried to shut down parliament illegally. He needs removing.
    If they were that concerned about him there would have been a VONC ages ago
    Repeat after me.
    A VONC doesn't necessarily remove the PM. It could precipitate an election, until which time the PM remains in post, only without any MPs to control him.
  • BromBrom Posts: 1,835
    Noo said:

    Brom said:

    Noo said:

    If a GNU is only to get an extension and call an election why bother? Just pass a law permitting Bercow to send the damn letter. Then agree the election. Done.

    Because god knows what Boris will try to get up to to frustrate parliament's wishes. He already tried to shut down parliament illegally. He needs removing.
    If they were that concerned about him there would have been a VONC ages ago
    Repeat after me.
    A VONC doesn't necessarily remove the PM. It could precipitate an election, until which time the PM remains in post, only without any MPs to control him.
    Far better than just moaning on twitter like the majority of Labour MPs
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 8,862
    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    Tabman said:

    148grss said:

    Scott_P said:
    Too right too foreigners need to pay, they don't get it free...
    My dad works for a local CCG; it probably wouldn't surprise you to learn that it usually costs more in administration and contract fees to charge people than to not.
    I'm a pretty liberal sort of guy - but that just feels wrong. My recollection of the time I visited a GP whilst on holiday in Australia you pay upfront and then reclaim.

    I mean, the NHS isn't designed for anyone to pay up front, the idea is you walk through the door, you get seen (eventually), you go once healthy. Doctors and nurses and whatnot are not trained (rightly so imo) to question people whether they "should" be paying, nor are they trained to tell patients they need to pay up. Universal healthcare is known to be cheaper if it is just that; universal. Otherwise you need an entire extra wing of a finance department just to process payments. "Health tourism" is less than half a % of NHS costs, current estimates put it at around 0.3%. It is not an issue.
    If they aren't questioning people, how are they arriving at the half a percent figure?
    https://fullfact.org/health/health-tourism-whats-cost/
    Assuming you've read that link? The third word is estimate, and 'rough' appears not much further down. And the 'figures' are from FY13. I have no idea how big the issue is, but your post is inherently contradictory. If we have no handle on it, we have no handle on it. We can't then claim with confidence that it's a non issue.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 39,126
    Noo said:

    Brom said:

    Noo said:

    If a GNU is only to get an extension and call an election why bother? Just pass a law permitting Bercow to send the damn letter. Then agree the election. Done.

    Because god knows what Boris will try to get up to to frustrate parliament's wishes. He already tried to shut down parliament illegally. He needs removing.
    If they were that concerned about him there would have been a VONC ages ago
    Repeat after me.
    A VONC doesn't necessarily remove the PM. It could precipitate an election, until which time the PM remains in post, only without any MPs to control him.
    But is there any other mechanism to bin him?
  • Noo said:

    Scott_P said:
    Too right too foreigners need to pay, they don't get it free...
    Ummm, that's not the issue. Why is the NHS handing over confidential data to a private company? I don't want to Experian to know my medical history.
    Are they handing over confidential data?
  • 148grss said:
    That's a figure for deliberate health 'tourism'. It doesn't include visitors who happen to fall ill or have an accident here.
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 656
    Tabman said:

    148grss said:

    Tabman said:

    148grss said:

    Scott_P said:
    Too right too foreigners need to pay, they don't get it free...
    My dad works for a local CCG; it probably wouldn't surprise you to learn that it usually costs more in administration and contract fees to charge people than to not.
    I'm a pretty liberal sort of guy - but that just feels wrong. My recollection of the time I visited a GP whilst on holiday in Australia you pay upfront and then reclaim.

    I mean, the NHS isn't designed for anyone to pay up front, the idea is you walk through the door, you get seen (eventually), you go once healthy. Doctors and nurses and whatnot are not trained (rightly so imo) to question people whether they "should" be paying, nor are they trained to tell patients they need to pay up. Universal healthcare is known to be cheaper if it is just that; universal. Otherwise you need an entire extra wing of a finance department just to process payments. "Health tourism" is less than half a % of NHS costs, current estimates put it at around 0.3%. It is not an issue.
    Doesn't everyone entitled to healthcare have a NI number?

    Obviously emergency care is different, but for stuff like GPs/dentists/ongoing care you could validate this when you book/arrive.
    The point is that it has never been considered by healthcare professionals their job to deal with that side of things. Therefore, you add a layer of administration and costs to trying to recoup costs, which on average are more than the costs of the healthcare provided anyway. The current target is £500 million a year recouped. I can't see anywhere that says that is net (so £500 mil on top of whatever they spend to collect it), so they could claim success if they spend £600 million trying to recoup £500 mil. And costs of staff, administration, advertising, training, computer systems, etc etc across all the local authorities could easily cost more than £500 million.
  • NooNoo Posts: 1,661
    RobD said:

    Noo said:

    Scott_P said:
    Too right too foreigners need to pay, they don't get it free...
    Ummm, that's not the issue. Why is the NHS handing over confidential data to a private company? I don't want to Experian to know my medical history.
    From the article it looks a although it is your name and address. For many, that is in the public domain. Also include date of birth, but no medical information.
    The very fact that you're used the health service is private information. I don't want Experian to know whether or not I've sought medical attention. It's really not much to ask, you know. Experian has no reason to know that about me.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,253

    Noo said:

    Scott_P said:
    Too right too foreigners need to pay, they don't get it free...
    Ummm, that's not the issue. Why is the NHS handing over confidential data to a private company? I don't want to Experian to know my medical history.
    Are they handing over confidential data?
    They are not. Experian are not gorging themselves on tales of undescended testicles and in growing toenails
  • Noo said:

    The very fact that you're used the health service is private information. I don't want Experian to know whether or not I've sought medical attention. It's really not much to ask, you know. Experian has no reason to know that about me.

    They already know a lot more about you than that!
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 656

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    Tabman said:

    148grss said:

    Scott_P said:
    Too right too foreigners need to pay, they don't get it free...
    My dad works for a local CCG; it probably wouldn't surprise you to learn that it usually costs more in administration and contract fees to charge people than to not.
    I'm a pretty liberal sort of guy - but that just feels wrong. My recollection of the time I visited a GP whilst on holiday in Australia you pay upfront and then reclaim.

    I mean, the NHS isn't designed for anyone to pay up front, the idea is you walk through the door, you get seen (eventually), you go once healthy. Doctors and nurses and whatnot are not trained (rightly so imo) to question people whether they "should" be paying, nor are they trained to tell patients they need to pay up. Universal healthcare is known to be cheaper if it is just that; universal. Otherwise you need an entire extra wing of a finance department just to process payments. "Health tourism" is less than half a % of NHS costs, current estimates put it at around 0.3%. It is not an issue.
    If they aren't questioning people, how are they arriving at the half a percent figure?
    https://fullfact.org/health/health-tourism-whats-cost/
    Assuming you've read that link? The third word is estimate, and 'rough' appears not much further down. And the 'figures' are from FY13. I have no idea how big the issue is, but your post is inherently contradictory. If we have no handle on it, we have no handle on it. We can't then claim with confidence that it's a non issue.
    We can make estimates on things that we don't have hard data on. I trust that those whose job it is to look into these things devise methodologies to make reasonable estimates.
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 656

    Noo said:

    The very fact that you're used the health service is private information. I don't want Experian to know whether or not I've sought medical attention. It's really not much to ask, you know. Experian has no reason to know that about me.

    They already know a lot more about you than that!
    I heard that banks were really good at predicting whether couples would divorce based on spending patterns, but I don't know if that is myth or not.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,253
    Noo said:

    RobD said:

    Noo said:

    Scott_P said:
    Too right too foreigners need to pay, they don't get it free...
    Ummm, that's not the issue. Why is the NHS handing over confidential data to a private company? I don't want to Experian to know my medical history.
    From the article it looks a although it is your name and address. For many, that is in the public domain. Also include date of birth, but no medical information.
    The very fact that you're used the health service is private information. I don't want Experian to know whether or not I've sought medical attention. It's really not much to ask, you know. Experian has no reason to know that about me.
    Tough. Experian have restrictions for what the data may be used but there is no legal reason the data cannot be shared with them.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 2,231
    Tabman said:

    148grss said:

    Tabman said:

    148grss said:

    Scott_P said:
    Too right too foreigners need to pay, they don't get it free...
    My dad works for a local CCG; it probably wouldn't surprise you to learn that it usually costs more in administration and contract fees to charge people than to not.
    I'm a pretty liberal sort of guy - but that just feels wrong. My recollection of the time I visited a GP whilst on holiday in Australia you pay upfront and then reclaim.

    I mean, the NHS isn't designed for anyone to pay up front, the idea is you walk through the door, you get seen (eventually), you go once healthy. Doctors and nurses and whatnot are not trained (rightly so imo) to question people whether they "should" be paying, nor are they trained to tell patients they need to pay up. Universal healthcare is known to be cheaper if it is just that; universal. Otherwise you need an entire extra wing of a finance department just to process payments. "Health tourism" is less than half a % of NHS costs, current estimates put it at around 0.3%. It is not an issue.
    Doesn't everyone entitled to healthcare have a NI number?

    Obviously emergency care is different, but for stuff like GPs/dentists/ongoing care you could validate this when you book/arrive.
    No. When my wife first arrived in the UK (as an Irish citizen, so with the right to settle and use the NHS) she was a full-time student and didn't have an NI number. (In fact it took some effort to get the DWP to issue her one when she needed one for work.)

    And of course the opposite applies: we both have NI numbers but are not entitled to use the NHS for free should we visit the UK as we're no longer resident there.

    Having said that, on a visit a few years ago where she did need to use (and pay for) an NHS walk-in clinic, they were quite reluctant to charge her: "You're on the system as an NHS patient, are you sure you have to pay?"
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 8,862
    Noo said:

    148grss said:

    Tabman said:

    148grss said:

    Scott_P said:
    Too right too foreigners need to pay, they don't get it free...
    My dad works for a local CCG; it probably wouldn't surprise you to learn that it usually costs more in administration and contract fees to charge people than to not.
    I'm a pretty liberal sort of guy - but that just feels wrong. My recollection of the time I visited a GP whilst on holiday in Australia you pay upfront and then reclaim.

    I mean, the NHS isn't designed for anyone to pay up front, the idea is you walk through the door, you get seen (eventually), you go once healthy. Doctors and nurses and whatnot are not trained (rightly so imo) to question people whether they "should" be paying, nor are they trained to tell patients they need to pay up. Universal healthcare is known to be cheaper if it is just that; universal. Otherwise you need an entire extra wing of a finance department just to process payments. "Health tourism" is less than half a % of NHS costs, current estimates put it at around 0.3%. It is not an issue.
    If they aren't questioning people, how are they arriving at the half a percent figure?
    They aren't checking everyone, but by checking a sample you can get an idea of the overall figure.
    Except they don't appear to have checked anyone.

    'The analysis is a top-down estimate based on data from the Census 2011, the
    International Passenger Survey 2012 and Immigration and other statistics from
    the Office of National Statistics, the Department of Health and the Home Office.
    The costs are 2012-13. These are the best available data in the public domain at
    the time of the analysis (July and August 2013).
    The visitor numbers and population estimates have been adjusted to account for
    the various durations of stay in England to derive a daily equivalent
    population ie the number of people present in England on an average day. This
    has then been analysed by age and gender to enable the populations to be
    associated with the relevant health costs.'

    It's a back of the fag packet calculation.
  • NooNoo Posts: 1,661

    Noo said:

    Scott_P said:
    Too right too foreigners need to pay, they don't get it free...
    Ummm, that's not the issue. Why is the NHS handing over confidential data to a private company? I don't want to Experian to know my medical history.
    Are they handing over confidential data?
    They are handing over data of identifiable individuals who have used some services. That's confidential.
    A plausible worry would be that they are transmitting data each time you attend. So if you are receiving regular treatment at a hospital, your data might be getting pinged to Experian each time. Experian could infer medical data from that, such as the existence of a long term illness, pregnancy, and so on.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 39,126
    Noo said:

    RobD said:

    Noo said:

    Scott_P said:
    Too right too foreigners need to pay, they don't get it free...
    Ummm, that's not the issue. Why is the NHS handing over confidential data to a private company? I don't want to Experian to know my medical history.
    From the article it looks a although it is your name and address. For many, that is in the public domain. Also include date of birth, but no medical information.
    The very fact that you're used the health service is private information. I don't want Experian to know whether or not I've sought medical attention. It's really not much to ask, you know. Experian has no reason to know that about me.
    The invasion of privacy seems minimal. What do you think they would do with that information anyway?
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 3,702
    edited September 30

    Noo said:

    The very fact that you're used the health service is private information. I don't want Experian to know whether or not I've sought medical attention. It's really not much to ask, you know. Experian has no reason to know that about me.

    They already know a lot more about you than that!
    Keeping medical history private increases the severity of medical conditions.
    Openly discussing and acknowledging medical problems can help to overcome medical issues.

    The first causes isolation, anxiety and stress
    The second causes empathy, consideration and reduces stress.

    Discuss.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 891

    Pulpstar said:

    Whilst it might be unlikely, you can certainly draw an extremely plausible temporary Gov't from Labour moderates & Tory remainers.

    Aside from PM simply pick those that have either held or shadowed the role previously

    Beckett PM
    Clarke Chancellor
    Cooper Home
    Benn Foreign
    Attourney General Grieve
    Lord Chancellor David Gauke

    It's slightly Labour heavy but it is mainly Labour votes that will spring this potential Gov't into action.

    Corbyn wont agree that, no Corbynites in cabinet and he loses his position as LOTO
    The biggest problem for everyone else with a line up anything like that is that we might decide we want to keep it.

  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 10,265

    I'm going to look a damned fool if there's a VONC this week and a caretaker government in place by the weekend, aren't I?

    Hold my beer...

    I think the most unprescient statement is a tie between (I think) @david_herdson who thought Amber Rudd was unlikely to resign, and me who thought Theresa May was unlikely to call an election. Both wrong within the week.

    The most prescient would be either @RodCrosby who predicted a Tory 2015 win in 2014, or @TheScreamingEagles who predicted Rudd's resignation as HomeSec and replacement by Sajid Javid.

  • RobDRobD Posts: 39,126
    Noo said:

    Noo said:

    Scott_P said:
    Too right too foreigners need to pay, they don't get it free...
    Ummm, that's not the issue. Why is the NHS handing over confidential data to a private company? I don't want to Experian to know my medical history.
    Are they handing over confidential data?
    They are handing over data of identifiable individuals who have used some services. That's confidential.
    A plausible worry would be that they are transmitting data each time you attend. So if you are receiving regular treatment at a hospital, your data might be getting pinged to Experian each time. Experian could infer medical data from that, such as the existence of a long term illness, pregnancy, and so on.
    If the NHS is charged by the check they might validate your right once, and not check again for a few years.
  • NooNoo Posts: 1,661

    Noo said:

    RobD said:

    Noo said:

    Scott_P said:
    Too right too foreigners need to pay, they don't get it free...
    Ummm, that's not the issue. Why is the NHS handing over confidential data to a private company? I don't want to Experian to know my medical history.
    From the article it looks a although it is your name and address. For many, that is in the public domain. Also include date of birth, but no medical information.
    The very fact that you're used the health service is private information. I don't want Experian to know whether or not I've sought medical attention. It's really not much to ask, you know. Experian has no reason to know that about me.
    Tough. Experian have restrictions for what the data may be used but there is no legal reason the data cannot be shared with them.
    That might not be true:
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 2,515
    Three "looks" in the last sentence? Tut tut.

    Endings are hard to write, as you are discovering, Mister Nabavi.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 8,862
    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    Tabman said:

    148grss said:

    Scott_P said:
    Too right too foreigners need to pay, they don't get it free...
    My dad works for a local CCG; it probably wouldn't surprise you to learn that it usually costs more in administration and contract fees to charge people than to not.
    I'm a pretty liberal sort of guy - but that just feels wrong. My recollection of the time I visited a GP whilst on holiday in Australia you pay upfront and then reclaim.

    I mean, the NHS isn't designed for anyone to pay up front, the idea is you walk through the door, you get seen (eventually), you go once healthy. Doctors and nurses and whatnot are not trained (rightly so imo) to question people whether they "should" be paying, nor are they trained to tell patients they need to pay up. Universal healthcare is known to be cheaper if it is just that; universal. Otherwise you need an entire extra wing of a finance department just to process payments. "Health tourism" is less than half a % of NHS costs, current estimates put it at around 0.3%. It is not an issue.
    If they aren't questioning people, how are they arriving at the half a percent figure?
    https://fullfact.org/health/health-tourism-whats-cost/
    Assuming you've read that link? The third word is estimate, and 'rough' appears not much further down. And the 'figures' are from FY13. I have no idea how big the issue is, but your post is inherently contradictory. If we have no handle on it, we have no handle on it. We can't then claim with confidence that it's a non issue.
    We can make estimates on things that we don't have hard data on. I trust that those whose job it is to look into these things devise methodologies to make reasonable estimates.
    I can't help doubting you would be so trusting if the verdict did not align with your existing political views.
  • Byronic said:

    Three "looks" in the last sentence? Tut tut.

    Endings are hard to write, as you are discovering, Mister Nabavi.

    Ha, good point! I did write it in rather a hurry.

    As for endings, well, quite...
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 10,265
    edited September 30
    philiph said:

    Keeping medical history private increases the severity of medical conditions. Openly discussing and acknowledging medical problems can help to overcome those issues.

    The first causes isolation, anxiety and stress
    The second causes empathy, consideration and reduces stress.

    Discuss.

    There are hundreds of thousands of lepers and goodness knows how many people with HIV on the phone wanting to talk with you. Your proposition is dangerously wrong.
  • NooNoo Posts: 1,661

    Noo said:

    The very fact that you're used the health service is private information. I don't want Experian to know whether or not I've sought medical attention. It's really not much to ask, you know. Experian has no reason to know that about me.

    They already know a lot more about you than that!
    Yes, they do! That doesn't mean we give them everything, does it?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 54,894
    algarkirk said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Whilst it might be unlikely, you can certainly draw an extremely plausible temporary Gov't from Labour moderates & Tory remainers.

    Aside from PM simply pick those that have either held or shadowed the role previously

    Beckett PM
    Clarke Chancellor
    Cooper Home
    Benn Foreign
    Attourney General Grieve
    Lord Chancellor David Gauke

    It's slightly Labour heavy but it is mainly Labour votes that will spring this potential Gov't into action.

    Corbyn wont agree that, no Corbynites in cabinet and he loses his position as LOTO
    The biggest problem for everyone else with a line up anything like that is that we might decide we want to keep it.

    We (The nation) might want to keep it, both front benches certainly will not. Neither will the Lib Dems (Shoots their "moderate" USP). So this Gov't won't last too long.
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 656

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    Tabman said:

    148grss said:

    Scott_P said:
    Too right too foreigners need to pay, they don't get it free...
    My dad works for a local CCG; it probably wouldn't surprise you to learn that it usually costs more in administration and contract fees to charge people than to not.
    I'm a pretty liberal sort of guy - but that just feels wrong. My recollection of the time I visited a GP whilst on holiday in Australia you pay upfront and then reclaim.

    I mean, the NHS isn't designed for anyone to pay up front, the idea is you walk through the door, you get seen (eventually), you go once healthy. Doctors and nurses and whatnot are not trained (rightly so imo) to question people whether they "should" be paying, nor are they trained to tell patients they need to pay up. Universal healthcare is known to be cheaper if it is just that; universal. Otherwise you need an entire extra wing of a finance department just to process payments. "Health tourism" is less than half a % of NHS costs, current estimates put it at around 0.3%. It is not an issue.
    If they aren't questioning people, how are they arriving at the half a percent figure?
    https://fullfact.org/health/health-tourism-whats-cost/
    Assuming you've read that link? The third word is estimate, and 'rough' appears not much further down. And the 'figures' are from FY13. I have no idea how big the issue is, but your post is inherently contradictory. If we have no handle on it, we have no handle on it. We can't then claim with confidence that it's a non issue.
    We can make estimates on things that we don't have hard data on. I trust that those whose job it is to look into these things devise methodologies to make reasonable estimates.
    I can't help doubting you would be so trusting if the verdict did not align with your existing political views.
    If the estimate was 50% my political views would change based on the evidence. The evidence suggests this isn't a big issue, so my political view is it isn't a big issue.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 39,126
    Noo said:

    Noo said:

    RobD said:

    Noo said:

    Scott_P said:
    Too right too foreigners need to pay, they don't get it free...
    Ummm, that's not the issue. Why is the NHS handing over confidential data to a private company? I don't want to Experian to know my medical history.
    From the article it looks a although it is your name and address. For many, that is in the public domain. Also include date of birth, but no medical information.
    The very fact that you're used the health service is private information. I don't want Experian to know whether or not I've sought medical attention. It's really not much to ask, you know. Experian has no reason to know that about me.
    Tough. Experian have restrictions for what the data may be used but there is no legal reason the data cannot be shared with them.
    That might not be true:
    Sounds like it was up to the NHS Trust to make that determination. NHS Improvement may simply be passing the buck here.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 4,757

    They are not. Experian are not gorging themselves on tales of undescended testicles and in growing toenails

    I would rather have an undescended testicle than an ingrowing toenail. But in either case that information should not be shared with a credit scoring agency without my consent. If I have indicated that they ought to be told - perhaps because it will help me get a loan for a new car - then fair enough. But otherwise, absolutely not.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 54,894
    RobD said:

    Noo said:

    RobD said:

    Noo said:

    Scott_P said:
    Too right too foreigners need to pay, they don't get it free...
    Ummm, that's not the issue. Why is the NHS handing over confidential data to a private company? I don't want to Experian to know my medical history.
    From the article it looks a although it is your name and address. For many, that is in the public domain. Also include date of birth, but no medical information.
    The very fact that you're used the health service is private information. I don't want Experian to know whether or not I've sought medical attention. It's really not much to ask, you know. Experian has no reason to know that about me.
    The invasion of privacy seems minimal. What do you think they would do with that information anyway?
    Experian ?

    If they could, share it with private health insurance providers I guess...
  • RobDRobD Posts: 39,126
    Pulpstar said:

    RobD said:

    Noo said:

    RobD said:

    Noo said:

    Scott_P said:
    Too right too foreigners need to pay, they don't get it free...
    Ummm, that's not the issue. Why is the NHS handing over confidential data to a private company? I don't want to Experian to know my medical history.
    From the article it looks a although it is your name and address. For many, that is in the public domain. Also include date of birth, but no medical information.
    The very fact that you're used the health service is private information. I don't want Experian to know whether or not I've sought medical attention. It's really not much to ask, you know. Experian has no reason to know that about me.
    The invasion of privacy seems minimal. What do you think they would do with that information anyway?
    Experian ?

    If they could, share it with private health insurance providers I guess...
    Seems like a non-issue for NHS users. :p
  • NooNoo Posts: 1,661
    RobD said:

    Noo said:

    Noo said:

    Scott_P said:
    Too right too foreigners need to pay, they don't get it free...
    Ummm, that's not the issue. Why is the NHS handing over confidential data to a private company? I don't want to Experian to know my medical history.
    Are they handing over confidential data?
    They are handing over data of identifiable individuals who have used some services. That's confidential.
    A plausible worry would be that they are transmitting data each time you attend. So if you are receiving regular treatment at a hospital, your data might be getting pinged to Experian each time. Experian could infer medical data from that, such as the existence of a long term illness, pregnancy, and so on.
    If the NHS is charged by the check they might validate your right once, and not check again for a few years.
    Yes, that's possible. But the safest way is to have systems in place that ensure Experian isn't allowed to store these data. That's perfectly a reasonable requirement. Experian do not need data about a single doctor's visit. If they're being paid to check residency, they can perform that check and then expunge the request. Perhaps that's already what they do, but we must have the right to know.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,253
    kinabalu said:

    They are not. Experian are not gorging themselves on tales of undescended testicles and in growing toenails

    I would rather have an undescended testicle than an ingrowing toenail. But in either case that information should not be shared with a credit scoring agency without my consent. If I have indicated that they ought to be told - perhaps because it will help me get a loan for a new car - then fair enough. But otherwise, absolutely not.
    That information isn't shared. The only info they have is that you have used NHS services.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 3,702
    viewcode said:

    philiph said:

    Keeping medical history private increases the severity of medical conditions. Openly discussing and acknowledging medical problems can help to overcome those issues.

    The first causes isolation, anxiety and stress
    The second causes empathy, consideration and reduces stress.

    Discuss.

    There are hundreds of thousands of lepers and goodness knows how many people with HIV on the phone wanting to talk with you. Your proposition is dangerously wrong.
    I didn't know HIV was still a big deal. I thought the treatment was able to allow a remarkably uninhibited life with virtually no chance of passing HIV on to another person.

    I'm sure there are lots of exceptions, and millions of people who for some reason think medical history reflects on them and wish to keep it secret. All I asked was to discuss the merits of secrecy as opposed to openly accepting and sharing.

    Without open acceptance by the well and sick of the content of medical records it becomes much harder for the chronically sick, disabled and mentally ill to be accepted in and by society.
  • dyingswandyingswan Posts: 181
    Thank you for such a thoughtful article. I agree that a GONU sounds impractical the more you look at it. However if we to play Fantasy Government Formation may I suggest
    Minister for Exiting EU John Bercow
    Chancellor Diane Abbott
    Northern Ireland Jerry Adams
    Ambassador to Israel Chris Williamson
  • RobDRobD Posts: 39,126
    Noo said:

    RobD said:

    Noo said:

    Noo said:

    Scott_P said:
    Too right too foreigners need to pay, they don't get it free...
    Ummm, that's not the issue. Why is the NHS handing over confidential data to a private company? I don't want to Experian to know my medical history.
    Are they handing over confidential data?
    They are handing over data of identifiable individuals who have used some services. That's confidential.
    A plausible worry would be that they are transmitting data each time you attend. So if you are receiving regular treatment at a hospital, your data might be getting pinged to Experian each time. Experian could infer medical data from that, such as the existence of a long term illness, pregnancy, and so on.
    If the NHS is charged by the check they might validate your right once, and not check again for a few years.
    Yes, that's possible. But the safest way is to have systems in place that ensure Experian isn't allowed to store these data. That's perfectly a reasonable requirement. Experian do not need data about a single doctor's visit. If they're being paid to check residency, they can perform that check and then expunge the request. Perhaps that's already what they do, but we must have the right to know.
    Sounds like a good question to ask your MP.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 7,468
    RobD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    RobD said:

    Noo said:

    RobD said:

    Noo said:

    Scott_P said:
    Too right too foreigners need to pay, they don't get it free...
    Ummm, that's not the issue. Why is the NHS handing over confidential data to a private company? I don't want to Experian to know my medical history.
    From the article it looks a although it is your name and address. For many, that is in the public domain. Also include date of birth, but no medical information.
    The very fact that you're used the health service is private information. I don't want Experian to know whether or not I've sought medical attention. It's really not much to ask, you know. Experian has no reason to know that about me.
    The invasion of privacy seems minimal. What do you think they would do with that information anyway?
    Experian ?

    If they could, share it with private health insurance providers I guess...
    Seems like a non-issue for NHS users. :p
    All (or 99.9999999999999999999999% of) private healthcare users are also nhs users.
  • felixfelix Posts: 9,084

    Similarly relevant to pointing out the party affiliation of the bloke who hijacked Boris in the hospital.

    (ie neither fact stopped what the person has to say being a story, but it's useful context to understand the motivations of those involved. I don't think "Cummings' wife" should be the top line of the story. But any write-through which didn't mention it would be depriving me as a reader of an important fact.)

    Just reminds me how everyone knows everyone in the establishment elite.
    Yup names, former schools, knees, thighs and bumps a daisy!
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 16,330
    edited September 30
    Noo said:

    Brom said:

    Noo said:

    If a GNU is only to get an extension and call an election why bother? Just pass a law permitting Bercow to send the damn letter. Then agree the election. Done.

    Because god knows what Boris will try to get up to to frustrate parliament's wishes. He already tried to shut down parliament illegally. He needs removing.
    If they were that concerned about him there would have been a VONC ages ago
    Repeat after me.
    A VONC doesn't necessarily remove the PM. It could precipitate an election, until which time the PM remains in post, only without any MPs to control him.
    Yes.

    After VONC is passed Boris has up to 14 days to wait it out in Downing St to see whether he (unlikely) or anyone else (not looking very likely at the moment) can command the confidence of the house.

    If no one can command confidence a general election is called after 14 days (but would probably be much sooner than that in practice as I imagine it'll be clear in a couple of days whether anyone can claim the confidence of the House or not)
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 3,702
    RobD said:

    Noo said:

    Noo said:

    RobD said:

    Noo said:

    Scott_P said:
    Too right too foreigners need to pay, they don't get it free...
    Ummm, that's not the issue. Why is the NHS handing over confidential data to a private company? I don't want to Experian to know my medical history.
    From the article it looks a although it is your name and address. For many, that is in the public domain. Also include date of birth, but no medical information.
    The very fact that you're used the health service is private information. I don't want Experian to know whether or not I've sought medical attention. It's really not much to ask, you know. Experian has no reason to know that about me.
    Tough. Experian have restrictions for what the data may be used but there is no legal reason the data cannot be shared with them.
    That might not be true:
    Sounds like it was up to the NHS Trust to make that determination. NHS Improvement may simply be passing the buck here.
    I think the intention was to collect the buck.....
  • algarkirk said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Whilst it might be unlikely, you can certainly draw an extremely plausible temporary Gov't from Labour moderates & Tory remainers.

    Aside from PM simply pick those that have either held or shadowed the role previously

    Beckett PM
    Clarke Chancellor
    Cooper Home
    Benn Foreign
    Attourney General Grieve
    Lord Chancellor David Gauke

    It's slightly Labour heavy but it is mainly Labour votes that will spring this potential Gov't into action.

    Corbyn wont agree that, no Corbynites in cabinet and he loses his position as LOTO
    The biggest problem for everyone else with a line up anything like that is that we might decide we want to keep it.

    The simplest solution will be an emergency cabinet made up of those who have no ambition to hold office after the defined period is over. Those can easily be found, partic. if talent from the HoL is included.
  • Byronic said:

    Three "looks" in the last sentence? Tut tut.

    Endings are hard to write, as you are discovering, Mister Nabavi.

    A male model handing out literary criticism, the cheek of it!

    Is this one of your protégés?

  • philiphphiliph Posts: 3,702
    kinabalu said:

    They are not. Experian are not gorging themselves on tales of undescended testicles and in growing toenails

    I would rather have an undescended testicle than an ingrowing toenail. But in either case that information should not be shared with a credit scoring agency without my consent. If I have indicated that they ought to be told - perhaps because it will help me get a loan for a new car - then fair enough. But otherwise, absolutely not.
    Who was suggesting your treatment was shared? Your attendance at an NHS facility, yes, but not the reason for your attendance.
  • TabmanTabman Posts: 953
    148grss said:

    Tabman said:

    148grss said:

    Tabman said:

    148grss said:

    Scott_P said:
    Too right too foreigners need to pay, they don't get it free...
    My dad works for a local CCG; it probably wouldn't surprise you to learn that it usually costs more in administration and contract fees to charge people than to not.
    I'm a pretty liberal sort of guy - but that just feels wrong. My recollection of the time I visited a GP whilst on holiday in Australia you pay upfront and then reclaim.

    I mean, the NHS isn't designed for anyone to pay up front, the idea is you walk through the door, you get seen (eventually), you go once healthy. Doctors and nurses and whatnot are not trained (rightly so imo) to question people whether they "should" be paying, nor are they trained to tell patients they need to pay up. Universal healthcare is known to be cheaper if it is just that; universal. Otherwise you need an entire extra wing of a finance department just to process payments. "Health tourism" is less than half a % of NHS costs, current estimates put it at around 0.3%. It is not an issue.
    Doesn't everyone entitled to healthcare have a NI number?

    Obviously emergency care is different, but for stuff like GPs/dentists/ongoing care you could validate this when you book/arrive.
    The point is that it has never been considered by healthcare professionals their job to deal with that side of things. Therefore, you add a layer of administration and costs to trying to recoup costs, which on average are more than the costs of the healthcare provided anyway. The current target is £500 million a year recouped. I can't see anywhere that says that is net (so £500 mil on top of whatever they spend to collect it), so they could claim success if they spend £600 million trying to recoup £500 mil. And costs of staff, administration, advertising, training, computer systems, etc etc across all the local authorities could easily cost more than £500 million.
    Every GP has a receptionist. Every hospital has a receptionist. Every dentist or optician has a receptionist who takes payments.

    "Can I see your NI card please?"
    "Yes"
    "Thank you. When would you like your appointment?"

    "No. I don't have it with me."
    "Can you tell me the number?"
    "Yes"
    "Great. Please bring your card when you come for your appointment"

    "I don't have a NI number."
    "OK. There is a charge of £25 to see the GP,"
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,252
    On topic, I agree that putting together a GNU is nowhere near as easy as it sounds. It will only happen IMO if Johnson tries to circumvent the Benn Act and refuses to seek the extension. The opposition groups have shown that they can work together very effectively under pressure, as they did in passing the Benn Act is the first place. And they have also proved adept at avoiding the elephant traps that the government is trying to set for them, as the decision not to call a VONC this week shows.

    It seems likely that Johnson will be left to stew until at least 19th October, and if he seeks the extension (as he will have to in the end I think) he will be left in place until after 1st November, just to ensure his humiliation is complete.
  • NooNoo Posts: 1,661
    RobD said:

    Noo said:

    RobD said:

    Noo said:

    Noo said:

    Scott_P said:
    Too right too foreigners need to pay, they don't get it free...
    Ummm, that's not the issue. Why is the NHS handing over confidential data to a private company? I don't want to Experian to know my medical history.
    Are they handing over confidential data?
    They are handing over data of identifiable individuals who have used some services. That's confidential.
    A plausible worry would be that they are transmitting data each time you attend. So if you are receiving regular treatment at a hospital, your data might be getting pinged to Experian each time. Experian could infer medical data from that, such as the existence of a long term illness, pregnancy, and so on.
    If the NHS is charged by the check they might validate your right once, and not check again for a few years.
    Yes, that's possible. But the safest way is to have systems in place that ensure Experian isn't allowed to store these data. That's perfectly a reasonable requirement. Experian do not need data about a single doctor's visit. If they're being paid to check residency, they can perform that check and then expunge the request. Perhaps that's already what they do, but we must have the right to know.
    Sounds like a good question to ask your MP.
    Agreed. I might get in touch with her.
    This might turn out to be nothing, but it's good to check.
  • felix said:

    Similarly relevant to pointing out the party affiliation of the bloke who hijacked Boris in the hospital.

    (ie neither fact stopped what the person has to say being a story, but it's useful context to understand the motivations of those involved. I don't think "Cummings' wife" should be the top line of the story. But any write-through which didn't mention it would be depriving me as a reader of an important fact.)

    Just reminds me how everyone knows everyone in the establishment elite.
    Yup names, former schools, knees, thighs and bumps a daisy!
    Fastest way to get banned from comment is free over on the graudian to point this out.
  • I wonder whetehr the HoC could have an indicative vote to see who might have the confidence of the house?
This discussion has been closed.