Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » SNP hold on to Aberdeen Donside with reduced majority – Fa

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited June 2013 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » SNP hold on to Aberdeen Donside with reduced majority – Farage’s Scottish venture ends with lost deposit

Party shares in Aberdeen Donside by-election
SNP 42
Lab 33.3
LD 8.3
Con 7.7
UKIP 4.8
Greens 1.7
National Front 1
Christians 0.9
SDA 0.14

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • JamesKellyJamesKelly Posts: 1,348
    "They put a lot in but came away with just 4.8% of the vote."

    But they left us with so many happy memories. Mostly false memories of things that never actually happened. Like the epochal "Stirling by-election", and that time Alex Salmond was thrown out of the Labour Party for being too left-wing -

    http://news.stv.tv/politics/230185-ukips-christopher-monckton-in-alex-salmond-expelled-from-labour-gaffe/
  • JamesKellyJamesKelly Posts: 1,348
    "Labours share is up on 2007 and 2011 in this safe SNP seat and I'd expect them to hold both Aberdeen seats at a Westminster election."

    The fact that the equivalent Westminster seat is safe Labour territory speaks volumes about just how poor a result this is for the party. With the SNP deep into mid-term Labour really should have been looking to win this seat.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    edited June 2013

    that time Alex Salmond was thrown out of the Labour Party for being too left-wing

    that time Alex Salmond was thrown out of the Labour Party
    SNP for being too left-wing.


    I'm sure he's delighted people are reminded - the follies of youth eh?

    Good result for SNP - not bad job by Labour - and neither coalition party can take any comfort from whether they were either (a very distant) third or fourth. UKIP continue to demonstrate their election winning prowess...

    Meanwhile good digging by the Mirror on Farage's Off Shore play:

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nigel-farage-set-up-offshore-1972988

    Ah, the heady days of New Labour and the booming tax avoidance industry!

  • JamesKellyJamesKelly Posts: 1,348
    "I'm sure he's delighted people are reminded - the follies of youth eh?"

    Actually he mentions it quite a lot, probably because it causes problems for anyone peddling the line that he's some kind of neoliberal. Strictly speaking he wasn't expelled for being left-wing - all internal groups regardless of ideology were proscribed by Gordon Wilson, who feared that the SNP risked breaking in two. Those who refused to comply with the demand to give up membership of the 79 Group were automatically expelled.

    I suppose we could give UKIP's Scottish leader Lord Monckton (are they insane?) the benefit of the doubt and assume that he simply got his parties mixed up, but somehow I doubt it.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    I wonder what PB's own Scottish aristocrat, JackW, makes of the performance of UKIP’s Scottish leader, Viscount Monckton, who claimed on TV overnight that Alex Salmond was expelled from the Labour Party for being too left wing.

    http://m.stv.tv/news/politics/230185-ukips-christopher-monckton-in-alex-salmond-expelled-from-labour-gaffe/
  • old_labourold_labour Posts: 3,238
    It won't be long until the nights are drawing in for us in the northern hemisphere.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    Brave:

    "The shadow Health Secretary Andy Burnham told The Independent: “This is a cover-up that happened on this government's watch. It has got serious questions to answer.”

    http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/nhs-baby-deaths-scandal-former-watchdog-chief-cynthia-bower-and-deputy-implicated-in-suppressing-cqc-report-8666173.html

    To which the answer is "the report published yesterday"

    Just like you did at Mid Staffs, Andy.....
  • JamesKellyJamesKelly Posts: 1,348
    ITV News ‏@itvnews 2h
    Alex Salmond "delighted that UKIP failed to retain their deposit" in the by-election. http://itv.co/11QcuaV
  • redcliffe62redcliffe62 Posts: 342
    edited June 2013
    I note that labour did not fight much on local issues in Donside as they are the incumbent in the council, you know, the ACTUAL elections being fought, and said a vote for labour was a vote against separation in their correspondence.
    Pathetic line, negativity all the way, after all the locals have sod all to do with indy, although it held their vote up I guess.
    This is a safe seat at Westminster for labour and they get 33%, not a good omen really against a mid term government that has been in for 6 years.
    Tories at 8% and LD at 7% or so shows Scotland is a Two party system, just not the Tory/LD coalition.
    I can see Labour saying vote for us (even if we are crap) to stop the SNP as we are the only option used as an election mantra.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    Pretty flat YouGov - Lab +8

    Latest YouGov / The Sun results 20th June - CON 31%, LAB 39%, LD 11%, UKIP 14%

    http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/bkzpns9f2h/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-200613.pdf

  • redcliffe62redcliffe62 Posts: 342

    I wonder what PB's own Scottish aristocrat, JackW, makes of the performance of UKIP’s Scottish leader, Viscount Monckton, who claimed on TV overnight that Alex Salmond was expelled from the Labour Party for being too left wing.

    http://m.stv.tv/news/politics/230185-ukips-christopher-monckton-in-alex-salmond-expelled-from-labour-gaffe/

    The lack of knowledge on basics about even Salmond is breathtaking. Dangerous in charge of a mouthpiece.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    This CQC story gets murkier & murkier:

    29 JANUARY, 2009

    "The Care Quality Commission has appointed the wife of its transition director to a board level position as director of engagement.

    Jill Finney is married to David Lane, who has been overseeing the merger between the Healthcare Commission, Commission for Social Care Inspection and the Mental Health Act Commission. Ms Finney, who is strategic marketing and communications director at the British Library, starts her new role next month."

    http://www.hsj.co.uk/news/wife-of-cqc-man-joins-its-board/1975188.article
  • MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    edited June 2013
    Salmond's 1979 faction fell apart when its links to Sinn Féin were revealed. The faction members then returned to the SNP.

    http://www.scotsman.com/news/snp-fall-out-that-saw-salmond-expelled-but-put-party-on-new-path-1-1030419
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    Something we never heard from Andy Burnham:

    "In a speech at University College Hospital, London, arranged before the scandal of watchdogs hiding baby deaths broke, Mr Hunt will say nearly 500,000 patients were harmed unnecessarily and 3,000 died last year."

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2345522/NHS-blunders-cause-deaths-day-Jeremy-Hunt-speak-silent-scandal.html#ixzz2WpHATsjm
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540

    Salmond's 1979 faction fell apart when its links to Sinn Féin were revealed. The faction members then returned to the SNP.

    http://www.scotsman.com/news/snp-fall-out-that-saw-salmond-expelled-but-put-party-on-new-path-1-1030419

    History repeating itself in 2014 in the event of another loss?
    On the Saturday following the referendum "defeat", Margo MacDonald, effectively the deputy leader, made an influential speech at a meeting of the party's national council. Her analysis was simple: while working-class Scots had voted "yes" in the referendum, Scotland's middle class had voted "no". The SNP, therefore, should look to the former to build support.

    This meant, instead of maintaining its "all things to all men" approach, the party had to become more political, and therefore more left-wing.
  • MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    Carlotta , Margo's views are no longer acceptable to the SNP ;

    " In a newspaper article, Ms MacDonald said the French National Front leader ( Jean Marie Le Pen ) was "intellectually robust" while his "logic was difficult to fault". "
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    Split between the Attorney General & the Lord Chancellor?

    http://jackofkent.com/2013/06/grayling-grieve-legal-aid/
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    tim said:

    Something we never heard from Andy Burnham:

    "In a speech at University College Hospital, London, arranged before the scandal of watchdogs hiding baby deaths broke, Mr Hunt will say nearly 500,000 patients were harmed unnecessarily and 3,000 died last year."

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2345522/NHS-blunders-cause-deaths-day-Jeremy-Hunt-speak-silent-scandal.html#ixzz2WpHATsjm

    Quite an attack on Lansley's stewardship of the NHS there.
    If you think anyone is going to buy 'NHS problems started with the coalition' - you haven't been watching the news much, have you?

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    edited June 2013
    tim said:

    tim said:

    Something we never heard from Andy Burnham:

    "In a speech at University College Hospital, London, arranged before the scandal of watchdogs hiding baby deaths broke, Mr Hunt will say nearly 500,000 patients were harmed unnecessarily and 3,000 died last year."

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2345522/NHS-blunders-cause-deaths-day-Jeremy-Hunt-speak-silent-scandal.html#ixzz2WpHATsjm

    Quite an attack on Lansley's stewardship of the NHS there.
    If you think anyone is going to buy 'NHS problems started with the coalition' - you haven't been watching the news much, have you?

    I don't.
    But reading that you have to wonder what on earth Cameron was doing letting Lansley's insanity go ahead don't you?
    "But pointing to scandals in Mid Staffs and Morecambe Bay, Mr Hunt will say a ‘grim fatalism’ blunts ‘the anger we should feel about every single individual we let down’.

    Never something we heard from Andy Burnham - how many requests for an inquiry into Mid Staffs did Andy Burnham turn down, was it 81 or 82?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540

    Carlotta , Margo's views are no longer acceptable to the SNP

    But her analysis may still be pertinent - 'all things to all men' didn't work in 1979 - it may not work 35 years on either....

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879
    So the NHS actually does better than health systems in the US, France, Germany, Seeden and Norway in terms of patient care. I thought they were all supposed to have systems that are far superior in every way.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,780
    Very good result for the SNP, especially mid term. If I have one doubt about the outcome of the referendum it is the moribund shape of Scottish Labour.

    The last few months have been quite rocky for the SNP administration with many of their hostages to fortune coming home to roost. Salmond has looked a lot less comfortable and has been caught out several times. There have been repeated stories in the media about people having to go to England to get cancer drugs (a consequence of abolishing prescription charges) and a lot of unhappiness about the availability of university places for Scottish students (a consequence of the no fees policy).

    Despite this Labour get nowhere. As a tory this would normally give me some satisfaction (despite yet another terrible tory result). As a unionist it is a worry.

    It is undoubtely true that after 79 the SNP went more left wing. One of the mysteries of Scottish politics is that despite doing so they held onto their tory gains in places like Angus and Perthshire with some considerable comfort. It is a remarkable achievement.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540

    So the NHS actually does better than health systems in the US, France, Germany, Seeden and Norway in terms of patient care.

    Complacent, much?
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Another great night for Labour ?

    Ah well 23 months to go.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,547
    tim said:

    tim said:

    Something we never heard from Andy Burnham:

    "In a speech at University College Hospital, London, arranged before the scandal of watchdogs hiding baby deaths broke, Mr Hunt will say nearly 500,000 patients were harmed unnecessarily and 3,000 died last year."

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2345522/NHS-blunders-cause-deaths-day-Jeremy-Hunt-speak-silent-scandal.html#ixzz2WpHATsjm

    Quite an attack on Lansley's stewardship of the NHS there.
    If you think anyone is going to buy 'NHS problems started with the coalition' - you haven't been watching the news much, have you?


    I don't.
    But reading that you have to wonder what on earth Cameron was doing letting Lansley's insanity go ahead don't you?
    Look: Rabbit!

    The insanity was all Labour's. Allowing whistleblowers to be paid off rather than getting to the truth of what was going on in certain hospitals was not going to do patients much good, was it?

    Who set up the inquiry that got to the bottom of what happened at Stafford? It sure wasn't Labour; their inquiry was criticised for its narrow remit by the chairman. And why was the remit so narrow?

    But we all know that Labour are more interested in the NHS as an organisation than the welfare of patients.

    BenM shows well the fingers-in-ears attitude of many (although thankfully not all) in Labour circles: 'possibly one death' at Stafford, and a relative trying to get to the truth is branded a 'loudmouth'.

    But I daresay you'd prefer the NHS to go on as it was before June 2010 with no changes; covering up unnecessary deaths and lying to the public.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    I wonder what PB's own Scottish aristocrat, JackW, makes of the performance of UKIP’s Scottish leader, Viscount Monckton, who claimed on TV overnight that Alex Salmond was expelled from the Labour Party for being too left wing.

    http://m.stv.tv/news/politics/230185-ukips-christopher-monckton-in-alex-salmond-expelled-from-labour-gaffe/

    Gibberish Mike, much like the thread headline.

    This Monckton fellow is a curious old cove. The sort of British eccentric that is an admirable fit in Ukip. Indeed I'm warming to Ukip and feel they should be officially nominated for national treasure status much like fine pies, bread and butter pudding, traditional nannies and Joanna Lumley in tight leather trousers and .......

    Nurse !!!!!!

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879
    DavidL said:

    Very good result for the SNP, especially mid term. If I have one doubt about the outcome of the referendum it is the moribund shape of Scottish Labour.

    The last few months have been quite rocky for the SNP administration with many of their hostages to fortune coming home to roost. Salmond has looked a lot less comfortable and has been caught out several times. There have been repeated stories in the media about people having to go to England to get cancer drugs (a consequence of abolishing prescription charges) and a lot of unhappiness about the availability of university places for Scottish students (a consequence of the no fees policy).

    Despite this Labour get nowhere. As a tory this would normally give me some satisfaction (despite yet another terrible tory result). As a unionist it is a worry.

    It is undoubtely true that after 79 the SNP went more left wing. One of the mysteries of Scottish politics is that despite doing so they held onto their tory gains in places like Angus and Perthshire with some considerable comfort. It is a remarkable achievement.

    Isn't quite a bit of it about the SNP being the anti-Labour Party in Scotland? Labour is the establishment north of the border, much as the Tories are to the south. What seems pretty clear is that a vote for the SNP - certainly in non-Westminster ballots - does not equate to active support for independence. As a centre-left unionist, I find that rather comforting.

  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    tim said:

    tim said:

    Something we never heard from Andy Burnham:

    "In a speech at University College Hospital, London, arranged before the scandal of watchdogs hiding baby deaths broke, Mr Hunt will say nearly 500,000 patients were harmed unnecessarily and 3,000 died last year."

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2345522/NHS-blunders-cause-deaths-day-Jeremy-Hunt-speak-silent-scandal.html#ixzz2WpHATsjm

    Quite an attack on Lansley's stewardship of the NHS there.
    If you think anyone is going to buy 'NHS problems started with the coalition' - you haven't been watching the news much, have you?


    I don't.
    But reading that you have to wonder what on earth Cameron was doing letting Lansley's insanity go ahead don't you?
    Look: Rabbit!

    The insanity was all Labour's. Allowing whistleblowers to be paid off rather than getting to the truth of what was going on in certain hospitals was not going to do patients much good, was it?

    Who set up the inquiry that got to the bottom of what happened at Stafford? It sure wasn't Labour; their inquiry was criticised for its narrow remit by the chairman. And why was the remit so narrow?

    But we all know that Labour are more interested in the NHS as an organisation than the welfare of patients.

    BenM shows well the fingers-in-ears attitude of many (although thankfully not all) in Labour circles: 'possibly one death' at Stafford, and a relative trying to get to the truth is branded a 'loudmouth'.

    But I daresay you'd prefer the NHS to go on as it was before June 2010 with no changes; covering up unnecessary deaths and lying to the public.
    The target culture is still rampant, and NHS management prioritises targets over everything.

    As a consequence everything without a target attached gets neglected. If you want to see whats wrong then look at these areas. Things such as follow up appiintments being timely, etc.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,780
    What we seem to be seeing in the Health Service in England is a determination to address the real issues of patchy performance and the lack of accountability. Instead of having a body like the CQC whose sole function was to give everyone gold stars there is a determination to address poor practice.

    The interview of the current chairman of the CQC yesterday was incredible. At the time of the baby scandal "inspections" of hospitals were being carried out by people who had no relevant experience or knowledge. Many had previously worked in social care.

    It is hard not to think that there are political imperatives behind this from both sides. Labour was determined that the most popular vestige of socialist Britain was not going to be criticised in any way and was more than happy to rely on what must now be regarded as highly dubious surveys of satisfaction. The tories are determined to show that the NHS needed the reforms that they have introduced and that much needs to be done to improve accountability and performance.

    Of course in Scotland, in our socialist paradise, everything is wonderful and we have inspection systems and accountability that would have put the Labour CQC to shame. Still, it keeps the lawyers busy.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879

    So the NHS actually does better than health systems in the US, France, Germany, Seeden and Norway in terms of patient care.

    Complacent, much?

    No, just pleased to provide a little context. There are clearly major cultural problems inside the NHS and these need to be tackled. And where mistakes are overlooked and/or covered up those responsible should be identified, punished and removed. However, it seems as if despite recent scandals the NHS actually performs better than the systems employed in countries that we are routinely told on here are vastly superior.

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Times cover say the families want an investigation into how the cqc troughers got their jobs - interesting. ......
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,780

    DavidL said:

    Very good result for the SNP, especially mid term. If I have one doubt about the outcome of the referendum it is the moribund shape of Scottish Labour.

    The last few months have been quite rocky for the SNP administration with many of their hostages to fortune coming home to roost. Salmond has looked a lot less comfortable and has been caught out several times. There have been repeated stories in the media about people having to go to England to get cancer drugs (a consequence of abolishing prescription charges) and a lot of unhappiness about the availability of university places for Scottish students (a consequence of the no fees policy).

    Despite this Labour get nowhere. As a tory this would normally give me some satisfaction (despite yet another terrible tory result). As a unionist it is a worry.

    It is undoubtely true that after 79 the SNP went more left wing. One of the mysteries of Scottish politics is that despite doing so they held onto their tory gains in places like Angus and Perthshire with some considerable comfort. It is a remarkable achievement.

    Isn't quite a bit of it about the SNP being the anti-Labour Party in Scotland? Labour is the establishment north of the border, much as the Tories are to the south. What seems pretty clear is that a vote for the SNP - certainly in non-Westminster ballots - does not equate to active support for independence. As a centre-left unionist, I find that rather comforting.

    Some of that is true but increasingly the SNP are the establishment in Scotland. Unfortunately they share many of the same traits as Labour did in England up to 2010 being captive to producer interests, bureaucratic and unwilling to challenge the status quo. The choice in Scotland for people like me is not a great one but that's democracy I suppose.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724

    tim said:

    tim said:

    Something we never heard from Andy Burnham:

    "In a speech at University College Hospital, London, arranged before the scandal of watchdogs hiding baby deaths broke, Mr Hunt will say nearly 500,000 patients were harmed unnecessarily and 3,000 died last year."

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2345522/NHS-blunders-cause-deaths-day-Jeremy-Hunt-speak-silent-scandal.html#ixzz2WpHATsjm

    Quite an attack on Lansley's stewardship of the NHS there.
    If you think anyone is going to buy 'NHS problems started with the coalition' - you haven't been watching the news much, have you?


    I don't.
    But reading that you have to wonder what on earth Cameron was doing letting Lansley's insanity go ahead don't you?
    Look: Rabbit!

    The insanity was all Labour's. Allowing whistleblowers to be paid off rather than getting to the truth of what was going on in certain hospitals was not going to do patients much good, was it?

    Who set up the inquiry that got to the bottom of what happened at Stafford? It sure wasn't Labour; their inquiry was criticised for its narrow remit by the chairman. And why was the remit so narrow?

    But we all know that Labour are more interested in the NHS as an organisation than the welfare of patients.

    BenM shows well the fingers-in-ears attitude of many (although thankfully not all) in Labour circles: 'possibly one death' at Stafford, and a relative trying to get to the truth is branded a 'loudmouth'.

    But I daresay you'd prefer the NHS to go on as it was before June 2010 with no changes; covering up unnecessary deaths and lying to the public.
    The target culture is still rampant, and NHS management prioritises targets over everything.

    As a consequence everything without a target attached gets neglected. If you want to see whats wrong then look at these areas. Things such as follow up appiintments being timely, etc.
    The old maxim - 'what gets measured, gets managed' and 'what's easy to count gets measured' are never more true than in the NHS it appears.

    I'm sure many PBers have worked in organisations where outcomes aren't measured or valued because they're harder to assess/more complex to understand than time-and-motion et al/failing to do a good job would be exposed by them.

    It's the sort of management style that is often associated with 'bean-counters' - the worst boss I ever had was an accountant by trade who really did know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,547

    So the NHS actually does better than health systems in the US, France, Germany, Seeden and Norway in terms of patient care. I thought they were all supposed to have systems that are far superior in every way.

    Do you trust the figures after the fiddling we saw at Stafford and elsewhere, and the recent cover-up at the CQC?

    Just in case you want to know more:
    http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n07/paul-taylor/rigging-the-death-rate

    There are many issues that need addressing; this includes honesty from staff within the NHS and also some sane reporting in the media. We all want the best NHS we can get; it appears that the culture within parts of the NHS was not allowing us to get that.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,684

    Salmond's 1979 faction fell apart when its links to Sinn Féin were revealed. The faction members then returned to the SNP.

    http://www.scotsman.com/news/snp-fall-out-that-saw-salmond-expelled-but-put-party-on-new-path-1-1030419

    LOL, the old ones are the best ones, what a comedienne
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,780
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879

    tim said:

    tim said:

    Something we never heard from Andy Burnham:

    "In a speech at University College Hospital, London, arranged before the scandal of watchdogs hiding baby deaths broke, Mr Hunt will say nearly 500,000 patients were harmed unnecessarily and 3,000 died last year."

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2345522/NHS-blunders-cause-deaths-day-Jeremy-Hunt-speak-silent-scandal.html#ixzz2WpHATsjm

    Quite an attack on Lansley's stewardship of the NHS there.
    If you think anyone is going to buy 'NHS problems started with the coalition' - you haven't been watching the news much, have you?


    I don't.
    But reading that you have to wonder what on earth Cameron was doing letting Lansley's insanity go ahead don't you?
    Look: Rabbit!

    The insanity was all Labour's. Allowing whistleblowers to be paid off rather than getting to the truth of what was going on in certain hospitals was not going to do patients much good, was it?

    Who set up the inquiry that got to the bottom of what happened at Stafford? It sure wasn't Labour; their inquiry was criticised for its narrow remit by the chairman. And why was the remit so narrow?

    But we all know that Labour are more interested in the NHS as an organisation than the welfare of patients.

    BenM shows well the fingers-in-ears attitude of many (although thankfully not all) in Labour circles: 'possibly one death' at Stafford, and a relative trying to get to the truth is branded a 'loudmouth'.

    But I daresay you'd prefer the NHS to go on as it was before June 2010 with no changes; covering up unnecessary deaths and lying to the public.
    The target culture is still rampant, and NHS management prioritises targets over everything.

    As a consequence everything without a target attached gets neglected. If you want to see whats wrong then look at these areas. Things such as follow up appiintments being timely, etc.

    Indeed. Politicians of all kinds love targets. They may choose different ones, but each time one is met it's a good news story to trumpet to the world. But if you set a target managers will prioritise hitting it as they know that's how they will be judged. It's the same in the public and private sectors, and it can be really damaging - as we see year in and year out.

  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    edited June 2013
    Good Morning to all.

    I'm not surprised that UKIP didn't do well in Scotland, but starting in fresh pastures is always fraught with perils.

    The good news is that south of Hadrian's Wall UKIP are picking up good percentages of votes and people are still moving to us.

    And to tap it off Global Warming is officially dead, according to the Economist (see below)
    -------------

    @BoltonFMNews
    NEWS: Labour have won the Horwich by-election. With 322 votes; UKIP with 224; Lib Dem with 103; and Con with 74.
    -----------------------
    Salford
    Lab 785 UKIP 401 Con 260 Green 80 BNP 74 Ind 64 LD 58 Ind 15
    -------------------------
    @RogerHelmerMEP
    Roll out the welcome mat. Three Rutland Councillors join UKIP. http://is.gd/zyZbHa . Well done gentlemen. Good call.
    -----------------------------
    http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/06/climate-change?fsrc=scn/tw_ec/a_cooling_consensus
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    TGOHF said:

    Times cover say the families want an investigation into how the cqc troughers got their jobs - interesting. ......

    Eyebrows were raised in 2009........and Lansley criticised the appointment of Bower given her involvement at Mid Staffs and the then Labour government's (81 or 82?) rejections of an inquiry....

    http://www.hsj.co.uk/news/wife-of-cqc-man-joins-its-board/1975188.article
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    It's the cover-up that's almost always worse...

    "The woman accused of ordering a cover-up of the NHS watchdog’s failure to investigate baby deaths was a PR expert whose husband was helping to set up the regulator when she joined. Families and MPs demanded last night an investigation into how Jill Finney and Cynthia Bower — the two top officials at the Care Quality Commission — got their jobs, after an independent review concluded that they sanctioned the destruction of a critical internal report.

    In March last year Ms Finney, the former deputy chief executive, ordered a subordinate to “delete” a report that criticised the watchdog’s failure to act over the University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay Trust, where mothers and babies died. Ms Bower, the former chief executive who had previously run the health trust responsible for the scandal-hit Stafford Hospital, was in the room when the order was given and supported that decision, a review by the consultants Grant Thornton found...

    A spokesman for the CQC said that Mr Lane played no part in the decision to hire his wife, who was sacked by her new employer yesterday as a result of the controversy. She could not be reached for comment. Ms Bower, who resigned last night from her latest post as a non-executive trustee of the Skills for Health quango, said that she had “no note or recollection” of any order to delete the report and insisted: “Had I heard any such instruction I would have countermanded it”. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/health/news/article3796802.ece
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879

    So the NHS actually does better than health systems in the US, France, Germany, Seeden and Norway in terms of patient care. I thought they were all supposed to have systems that are far superior in every way.

    Do you trust the figures after the fiddling we saw at Stafford and elsewhere, and the recent cover-up at the CQC?

    Just in case you want to know more:
    http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n07/paul-taylor/rigging-the-death-rate

    There are many issues that need addressing; this includes honesty from staff within the NHS and also some sane reporting in the media. We all want the best NHS we can get; it appears that the culture within parts of the NHS was not allowing us to get that.

    There is clearly room for NHS improvement. No-one can seriously dispute that. But it seems as if quite a bit is already being done right and that if changes are made in the right areas what will actually happen is that a system which already compares favourably to those in the US, France, Germany, Sweden and Norway will improve even further. With regards to the stats, it's quite possible that those for the other countries may also be unreliable. The same incentives to fib and cover up exist in every health system.

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Very good result for the SNP, especially mid term. If I have one doubt about the outcome of the referendum it is the moribund shape of Scottish Labour.

    The last few months have been quite rocky for the SNP administration with many of their hostages to fortune coming home to roost. Salmond has looked a lot less comfortable and has been caught out several times. There have been repeated stories in the media about people having to go to England to get cancer drugs (a consequence of abolishing prescription charges) and a lot of unhappiness about the availability of university places for Scottish students (a consequence of the no fees policy).

    Despite this Labour get nowhere. As a tory this would normally give me some satisfaction (despite yet another terrible tory result). As a unionist it is a worry.

    It is undoubtely true that after 79 the SNP went more left wing. One of the mysteries of Scottish politics is that despite doing so they held onto their tory gains in places like Angus and Perthshire with some considerable comfort. It is a remarkable achievement.

    Isn't quite a bit of it about the SNP being the anti-Labour Party in Scotland? Labour is the establishment north of the border, much as the Tories are to the south. What seems pretty clear is that a vote for the SNP - certainly in non-Westminster ballots - does not equate to active support for independence. As a centre-left unionist, I find that rather comforting.

    Some of that is true but increasingly the SNP are the establishment in Scotland. Unfortunately they share many of the same traits as Labour did in England up to 2010 being captive to producer interests, bureaucratic and unwilling to challenge the status quo. The choice in Scotland for people like me is not a great one but that's democracy I suppose.

    The Tories have not won an election outright for over 20 years, but are still seen as the establishment party in England.

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,547

    tim said:

    tim said:

    Something we never heard from Andy Burnham:

    "In a speech at University College Hospital, London, arranged before the scandal of watchdogs hiding baby deaths broke, Mr Hunt will say nearly 500,000 patients were harmed unnecessarily and 3,000 died last year."

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2345522/NHS-blunders-cause-deaths-day-Jeremy-Hunt-speak-silent-scandal.html#ixzz2WpHATsjm

    Quite an attack on Lansley's stewardship of the NHS there.
    If you think anyone is going to buy 'NHS problems started with the coalition' - you haven't been watching the news much, have you?


    I don't.
    But reading that you have to wonder what on earth Cameron was doing letting Lansley's insanity go ahead don't you?
    Look: Rabbit!

    The insanity was all Labour's. Allowing whistleblowers to be paid off rather than getting to the truth of what was going on in certain hospitals was not going to do patients much good, was it?

    Who set up the inquiry that got to the bottom of what happened at Stafford? It sure wasn't Labour; their inquiry was criticised for its narrow remit by the chairman. And why was the remit so narrow?

    But we all know that Labour are more interested in the NHS as an organisation than the welfare of patients.

    BenM shows well the fingers-in-ears attitude of many (although thankfully not all) in Labour circles: 'possibly one death' at Stafford, and a relative trying to get to the truth is branded a 'loudmouth'.

    But I daresay you'd prefer the NHS to go on as it was before June 2010 with no changes; covering up unnecessary deaths and lying to the public.
    The target culture is still rampant, and NHS management prioritises targets over everything.

    As a consequence everything without a target attached gets neglected. If you want to see whats wrong then look at these areas. Things such as follow up appiintments being timely, etc.
    If the target culture is the disease, what is the cure?
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724

    TGOHF said:

    Times cover say the families want an investigation into how the cqc troughers got their jobs - interesting. ......

    Eyebrows were raised in 2009........and Lansley criticised the appointment of Bower given her involvement at Mid Staffs and the then Labour government's (81 or 82?) rejections of an inquiry....

    http://www.hsj.co.uk/news/wife-of-cqc-man-joins-its-board/1975188.article
    And IIRC Sir David Nicholson also managed a stint involved with Mid-Staffs, what a remarkable old stomping ground to share with someone from the CQC. What a puddle of a recruitment talent.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879
    @DavidL

    I'd also add that seeing the Tories as "the establishment" is very unfair. The reality is that there is an establishment class that exists independent of a specific political party, though the leaderships of all our major parties are part of the establishment.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    @tim - which is getting more headlines, the NHS reorganisation, or dead babies and cover up by Labour era appointees in Gordon Brown's quango the CQC, now exposed by the current government? Like Mid Staffs....
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,547
    tim said:

    @Josias

    You do realise that whatever you think about the NHS Cameron blew the Tories apart on the issue when he broke his word on the reorganisation don't you.
    You appear not to realise.

    Think of Clegg and student fees if you want to know why.

    That's your opinion, and the spin line that Labour will try to run.

    Surely you are intelligent enough to see that there is another counter spin-line that the coalition parties can use against Labour? That the NHS under Labour was fundamentally broken from the CQC down, and needed to be fixed? That a structure and organisation that let such things go on was not fit for purpose?

    And that leads nicely into Stafford, Furness and the other places where deaths have occurred under the previous administration.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401
    On topic, it's not that bad a share of the vote for UKIP, who are about 10 years behind there where they are in England. Even so, not that long ago they were at best seventh north of the border, behind the four established parties, the Greens and the SSP. Even in the Euro-elections in 2009, they were only sixth, and that's after the SSP collapsed. Two years ago, at the Scottish parliament election, UKIP were eighth, behind the Scottish Senior Citizens' Party and with less than 1% of the vote.

    So to finish a comfortable fifth in a by-election, within striking distance of third and within a few dozen votes of holding their deposit is no mean achievement. UKIP have no significant history in Scotland and the party can be easily perceived to have something of an English feel to it. All in all, it's probably been a useful learning experience for Farage and team. I would not back against UKIP improving their Scottish Euro-election performance by five places next year.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Morland has managed to combine two stories in today's cartoon

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multimedia/archive/00424/Morland_21_424571c.jpg
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    "The former chair of the CQC, Baroness Young, has made very serious allegations that ministers 'leaned on' her to 'tone down' criticism of NHS organisations. She claims that "there was huge government pressure, because the government hated the idea that a regulator would criticise it". Damningly, she revealed that this political pressure peaked under current shadow health secretary's Andy Burnham's tenure as secretary of state. This is why Labour turned down 81 separate requests for a public inquiry into the Mid Staffs scandal."

    http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2013/06/20/comment-andy-burnham-s-responsibility-for-secrecy
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,547

    So the NHS actually does better than health systems in the US, France, Germany, Seeden and Norway in terms of patient care. I thought they were all supposed to have systems that are far superior in every way.

    Do you trust the figures after the fiddling we saw at Stafford and elsewhere, and the recent cover-up at the CQC?

    Just in case you want to know more:
    http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n07/paul-taylor/rigging-the-death-rate

    There are many issues that need addressing; this includes honesty from staff within the NHS and also some sane reporting in the media. We all want the best NHS we can get; it appears that the culture within parts of the NHS was not allowing us to get that.

    There is clearly room for NHS improvement. No-one can seriously dispute that. But it seems as if quite a bit is already being done right and that if changes are made in the right areas what will actually happen is that a system which already compares favourably to those in the US, France, Germany, Sweden and Norway will improve even further. With regards to the stats, it's quite possible that those for the other countries may also be unreliable. The same incentives to fib and cover up exist in every health system.
    But we know that some trusts have been fiddling the figures to meet targets. How can you say with absolute certainty that we compare favourably to those countries when there is that sort of abuse going on?

    And saying 'other countries may be doing the same' is an absolutely ridiculous argument.
  • O/T if @TSE is around.
    This from Popbitch may amuse.
    "Derek Jacobi has been complaining that he
    received more fanmail after playing the
    Master for three minutes in Doctor Who,
    than for all of his other work."
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,547
    tim said:

    @JosiasJessop

    That's your opinion

    No, that's the polling, your anecdotes are meaningless.

    Just like the anecdotes of the relatives of the dead were the words of 'loudmouths', eh?

    Or there was 'possibly one death' at Stafford? (on an obscure blog by someone who misrepresents both statistics and the words of the expert).

    When figures are being fiddled and whistleblowers paid off as they were (and probably are) in the NHS, then anecdotes matter. Because they can signal the truth that is being covered up.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724

    So the NHS actually does better than health systems in the US, France, Germany, Seeden and Norway in terms of patient care. I thought they were all supposed to have systems that are far superior in every way.

    Do you trust the figures after the fiddling we saw at Stafford and elsewhere, and the recent cover-up at the CQC?

    Just in case you want to know more:
    http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n07/paul-taylor/rigging-the-death-rate

    There are many issues that need addressing; this includes honesty from staff within the NHS and also some sane reporting in the media. We all want the best NHS we can get; it appears that the culture within parts of the NHS was not allowing us to get that.

    There is clearly room for NHS improvement. No-one can seriously dispute that. But it seems as if quite a bit is already being done right and that if changes are made in the right areas what will actually happen is that a system which already compares favourably to those in the US, France, Germany, Sweden and Norway will improve even further. With regards to the stats, it's quite possible that those for the other countries may also be unreliable. The same incentives to fib and cover up exist in every health system.
    But we know that some trusts have been fiddling the figures to meet targets. How can you say with absolute certainty that we compare favourably to those countries when there is that sort of abuse going on?

    And saying 'other countries may be doing the same' is an absolutely ridiculous argument.
    Prof Jarman of Doctor Foster [who has no dog in the delivery of services fight] has been scathing about how data has been collected/categorised et al.

    IIRC at least one whistleblower has come forward to say they were pressured into marking 'the wrong sort of deaths' as another to hide poor performance. And their boss had previously used this form of massaging in her previous role. It was also alleged that this 'bright idea' had spread across several hospitals once others caught on too.

    Not quite the form of practice sharing that we expect in the NHS. Using the argument that lots of people are at it really doesn't hold any water - LIBOR traders were doing it in another line of business and one is in the doc this week - but no one died as a result.
  • FluffyThoughtsFluffyThoughts Posts: 2,420
    So:

    UKIP represent just shy of one-in-twenty Scots (based upon last nights results): Ergo their leader should be expelled from Caledonia.

    SNP struggle to reach the giddy-hieghts of 2% of the UK electorate: Ergo the interweb pixel-queens (albeit somewhat "challenged") demand that the "Fat-One" must - I emphasise must - take part in a Prime-Ministerial debate.

    Where is smukesh to explain this...?
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,265
    Seems a reasonable result for both SNP (well down but a win is a win) and Labour (share held despite all the competition) and not great for anyone else. Scotland is the one area where I expect least Labour progress in 2015 since Gordon clearly was strongest there, but the referendum will shake everything up so it's hard to predict. And Scotland isn't where the Tory majority is based.

    On the NHS, it's very noticeable that Tories seize on every item of bad news to try not only to pin it on Labour but to suggest that the system itself needs to be replaced. It's a dangerous habit since rightly or wrongly the polls are quite unambiguous: people like the system and trust Labour more over it - and that IMO is because they rightly suspect that many Tories would like to get rid of it and are only just restraining themselves from saying so. I do take the point about target cultures, but "just leave it to the professionals" doesn't always work well either, as we see now with A&E waiting times. My personal preference would be something like the BoE's inflation targeting - you're allowed to break the target, but you have to explain the reasons each time.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    So the NHS actually does better than health systems in the US, France, Germany, Seeden and Norway in terms of patient care. I thought they were all supposed to have systems that are far superior in every way.

    Link?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    Jeremy Hunt on R4 - want CQC to run like OFSTED (set up 1992) - report without fear or favour - to restore public trust in the NHS - not only to find the (small minority) of failing hospitals, but also the (vast majority) of great ones. John Major vs Gordon Brown in a nutshell.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,968
    Responding to Avery from two threads back:

    "I agree with much of this, ar. The communications of the Coalition Government's economic policies have been sub par.

    Much of that (and you will have to agree not to let Mr. Brooke know I have said this) is due to an incoming Chancellor not knowing what to do when running the Treasury. All the preparation of policies in opposition and all his or her economic training or achievements will not prepare for office. Walk across the threshold of No 11 and the Treasury mandarins take over, at least for the first half of any parliamentary term.

    This is both good and bad. The good is that it enables a PR Officer of the Cairngorms to perform superlatively as Chief Secretary and, conversely, it would clip the wings of any qualified or eminent economist as Chancellor.

    The bad is that the politicians who find themselves behind the door probably don't know what it is they are really doing until it happens. And then they are asked to communicate to the public what is happening and where we are going. A task made more difficult by external events and influences beyond control of the office. That is why most chancellors are rated on their performance on the economy rather than their ability to sell policy..

    Osborne's strengths are his ability to simplify policy and stubbornly stick to key goals. He is not so good at selling policies and performance to the electorate except in a partisan and adversarial context. Ironically the best economic evangelist in the Coalition is Vince Cable but he would never have matched the brutal simplicity of Osborne's policy implementation.

    So we all live and learn. And Osborne has matured in office. His star is on the rise in conjunction with the economy.

    If I disagree with anything in your post it is your advocacy of extreme medication. Economies are almost organic and properly nurtured are generally self-healing. Gradualism is all. It is just getting sustained policy direction right over long cycles that is difficult to achieve. Give Osborne ten years and he will get much closer to where you want to be than any substitute. It is not his innate skills that will count though: it will be his experience, which is fast becoming worth the weight of all the gold sold by Gordon."

    I think you're wrong on this 'self-healing' and 'gradualism' line.

    Britain's problems are too fundamental and the way the world is changing is too extreme.

    Five years ago I first asked this question at PB - We're now competing against counties which are as intelligent and educated as we are but who are willing to work harder for less money and with fewer regulations. How will we maintain the higher living standards than they have?

    I've never received an answer and I can't see one myself.

    It is this effect of globalisation which is driving the economic stagnation, increasing debt and growing inequality in western countries.

    And as each year passes and our debt increases and we become more addicted to our current levels of wealth consumption the harder it becomes to face the changes which at some point will be forced upon us.This is why accepting a plateau in retail spending is so dangerous - in 2008 we had had a single year of 'peak' retail spending, now we have had six years and what was in 2008 a bubble induced peak has become an 'austerity' period minimum.

    As the saying goes 'tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat' and a strategy is what we lack to deal with a changing world. All we have is endless tactics, whether from the policial class playing their narrow games or, with respect, their fanclubs with their 'the news keeps on geting better and better' cheering and sneering.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    Seems a reasonable result for both SNP (well down but a win is a win) and Labour (share held despite all the competition) and not great for anyone else. Scotland is the one area where I expect least Labour progress in 2015 since Gordon clearly was strongest there, but the referendum will shake everything up so it's hard to predict. And Scotland isn't where the Tory majority is based.

    On the NHS, it's very noticeable that Tories seize on every item of bad news to try not only to pin it on Labour but to suggest that the system itself needs to be replaced. It's a dangerous habit since rightly or wrongly the polls are quite unambiguous: people like the system and trust Labour more over it - and that IMO is because they rightly suspect that many Tories would like to get rid of it and are only just restraining themselves from saying so. I do take the point about target cultures, but "just leave it to the professionals" doesn't always work well either, as we see now with A&E waiting times. My personal preference would be something like the BoE's inflation targeting - you're allowed to break the target, but you have to explain the reasons each time.

    Labour have only themselves to blame for the NHS farrago, when you stuff the auditors full of placemen and party hacks people stop believing what they're told.

    Quis custodiet custodios ipsos ?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    Charles said:

    So the NHS actually does better than health systems in the US, France, Germany, Seeden and Norway in terms of patient care. I thought they were all supposed to have systems that are far superior in every way.

    Link?
    Daily Mail article on Hunt speech:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2345522/NHS-blunders-cause-deaths-day-Jeremy-Hunt-speak-silent-scandal.html#ixzz2WpHATsjm
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    tim said:

    tim said:

    Something we never heard from Andy Burnham:

    "In a speech at University College Hospital, London, arranged before the scandal of watchdogs hiding baby deaths broke, Mr Hunt will say nearly 500,000 patients were harmed unnecessarily and 3,000 died last year."

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2345522/NHS-blunders-cause-deaths-day-Jeremy-Hunt-speak-silent-scandal.html#ixzz2WpHATsjm

    Quite an attack on Lansley's stewardship of the NHS there.
    If you think anyone is going to buy 'NHS problems started with the coalition' - you haven't been watching the news much, have you?


    I don't.
    But reading that you have to wonder what on earth Cameron was doing letting Lansley's insanity go ahead don't you?
    Look: Rabbit!

    The insanity was all Labour's. Allowing whistleblowers to be paid off rather than getting to the truth of what was going on in certain hospitals was not going to do patients much good, was it?

    Who set up the inquiry that got to the bottom of what happened at Stafford? It sure wasn't Labour; their inquiry was criticised for its narrow remit by the chairman. And why was the remit so narrow?

    But we all know that Labour are more interested in the NHS as an organisation than the welfare of patients.

    BenM shows well the fingers-in-ears attitude of many (although thankfully not all) in Labour circles: 'possibly one death' at Stafford, and a relative trying to get to the truth is branded a 'loudmouth'.

    But I daresay you'd prefer the NHS to go on as it was before June 2010 with no changes; covering up unnecessary deaths and lying to the public.
    The target culture is still rampant, and NHS management prioritises targets over everything.

    As a consequence everything without a target attached gets neglected. If you want to see whats wrong then look at these areas. Things such as follow up appiintments being timely, etc.
    If the target culture is the disease, what is the cure?
    There are some specific targets - such as HAI (hospital acquired infection) or readmission rates - which should monitored very closely and for which hospitals should be heavily penalised if they break.

    "4 weeks to do X" is usually a bad target because it leads to diversion of resources.

    I'd rather see a general measure of patient outcomes (of course the devil is in the detail) rather than time based targets
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Surely, ipsos custodes*, Mr. Brooke?

    Good morning, everyone.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    So the NHS actually does better than health systems in the US, France, Germany, Seeden and Norway in terms of patient care. I thought they were all supposed to have systems that are far superior in every way.

    Link?
    Daily Mail article on Hunt speech:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2345522/NHS-blunders-cause-deaths-day-Jeremy-Hunt-speak-silent-scandal.html#ixzz2WpHATsjm
    So, suddenly, Jeremy's word is gospel. Interesting that.

    (SO: just to be clear 'suffering harm' and 'patient death' are important measures but they are *not* the same as 'patient outcomes' which has a very specific meaning in the industry')
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,756
    Good result for SNP, they threw the kitchen sink at it but so did Labour. Tbf Labour's candidate was dire, so it might have been more interesting if they'd found someone half decent. However there just isn't that calibre available to them which going forward should be just as much a worry to SLAB as last night's numbers.

    Good to see UKIP find their level. I think Iain Martin (who's capable of just about any sort of tittishness on Scottish politics) said that Farage's Royal Mile stushie was worth 3 points to UKIP, so let's assume 1.8% is the 'adjusted' figure.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    Surely, ipsos custodes*, Mr. Brooke?

    Good morning, everyone.

    I'll have to get my Latin primer out again Mr D :-(
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,547
    tim said:

    @JosiaSJessop

    You don't realise how ridiculous your attempt to airbrush Lansley and the last three years out of the picture is do you.

    Yesterday we had the bizarre spectacle of the PB Tories wanting to expose the politicians in charge when the CQC cover up happened, only to realise that it was on Lansleys watch.
    So now the penny has finally dropped the tactic shifts to pretending 2010-13 never happened.

    I'm not trying to airbrush Lansley out at all. But a bit of honesty and humble-pie eating would not be out of order from you, Tim.

    As for the CQC debacle: let us not lose sight of the most important thing. The dead children. Which occurred under a Labour government.

    As for the CQC: who set it up, who initiated the culture, who appointed most of the people?

    Labour's lies on the NHS have been discovered.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    edited June 2013
    tim said:

    So now the penny has finally dropped the tactic shifts to pretending 2010-13 never happened.

    Not at all.

    On Lansley's watch two Labour era placemen at the CQC were replaced, and the new regime commissioned then published, in under a year, the report into the CQC failings yesterday.

    How very different from Andy "81 times no inquiry into Mid Staffs" Burnham.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    A good result particularly the foul smelling Farage Party getting their comeuppance
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Brooke, probably a bit unfair of me. My own Latin is appalling, but I remember that phrase from the Yes, Minister book.

    F1: the Tribunal of Terror reports today. Could have significant implications.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    edited June 2013

    tim said:

    @JosiaSJessop

    You don't realise how ridiculous your attempt to airbrush Lansley and the last three years out of the picture is do you.

    Yesterday we had the bizarre spectacle of the PB Tories wanting to expose the politicians in charge when the CQC cover up happened, only to realise that it was on Lansleys watch.
    So now the penny has finally dropped the tactic shifts to pretending 2010-13 never happened.

    I'm not trying to airbrush Lansley out at all. But a bit of honesty and humble-pie eating would not be out of order from you, Tim.

    As for the CQC debacle: let us not lose sight of the most important thing. The dead children. Which occurred under a Labour government.

    As for the CQC: who set it up, who initiated the culture, who appointed most of the people?

    Labour's lies on the NHS have been discovered.
    It's a huge blow for Labour. Their belief that the NHS is safe (only) in Labour hands has been exposed. It all went wrong. It wasn't rotten but it was pretty bad and in places despicable. Perhaps this is why Cam went for the reorganisation after all.

    It doesn't take a conspiracy theorist to see that, just like the absence of money left, the Iraq war lies, the spending plans, that the degree to which Labour was in denial and duplicitous was far far greater than even avowed political opponents could ever have imagined.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Wow - I didn't realise we've had 4 orgs supposedly charged with hospital inspections/patient feedback. FOUR in TEN YEARS.

    What on Earth were Labour doing? There's barely anytime for the staff to do anything in between scrapping one body and starting another.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401
    tim said:

    @JosiaSJessop

    You don't realise how ridiculous your attempt to airbrush Lansley and the last three years out of the picture is do you.


    Yesterday we had the bizarre spectacle of the PB Tories wanting to expose the politicians in charge when the CQC cover up happened, only to realise that it was on Lansleys watch.
    So now the penny has finally dropped the tactic shifts to pretending 2010-13 never happened.

    The CQC was Labour's body staffed by Labour's place(wo)men and was by habit doing the Labour government's bidding, even if that government had lost office by then.

    It is events like this and Stafford and Morecambe which are proving ever more the need for fundamental reform. Far from airbrushing out Lansley, it is vindicating what he wanted to do. As for the polls, well, they can shift in response to events and to persuasion.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    Mr. Brooke, probably a bit unfair of me. My own Latin is appalling, but I remember that phrase from the Yes, Minister book.

    F1: the Tribunal of Terror reports today. Could have significant implications.

    think nothing of it Mr D, I'm just lucky Llamaman isn't on thread. Any idea what he's up to ?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,756
    MikeK said:

    Good Morning to all.
    I'm not surprised that UKIP didn't do well in Scotland, but starting in fresh pastures is always fraught with perils.

    Err, UKIP have been putting up candidates in Scotland for almost as long as in England. We're obviously slow learners.

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    So the NHS actually does better than health systems in the US, France, Germany, Seeden and Norway in terms of patient care. I thought they were all supposed to have systems that are far superior in every way.

    Link?
    Daily Mail article on Hunt speech:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2345522/NHS-blunders-cause-deaths-day-Jeremy-Hunt-speak-silent-scandal.html#ixzz2WpHATsjm
    So, suddenly, Jeremy's word is gospel. Interesting that.
    "joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth".... Hunt was quite impressive in R4 this morning. "So CQC is not up to the job?" "No......."
  • BenMBenM Posts: 1,795

    tim said:

    @JosiasJessop

    That's your opinion

    No, that's the polling, your anecdotes are meaningless.

    Just like the anecdotes of the relatives of the dead were the words of 'loudmouths', eh?

    Or there was 'possibly one death' at Stafford? (on an obscure blog by someone who misrepresents both statistics and the words of the expert).

    When figures are being fiddled and whistleblowers paid off as they were (and probably are) in the NHS, then anecdotes matter. Because they can signal the truth that is being covered up.
    So called "Cure the NHS" are loudmouths who are in danger of massively overreaching.

    The blog you try to dismiss as "obscure" was subject to media interest (from Private Eye and others) which suddenly waned when the analysis Mr Walker did (ie. there was not "1200 deaths" at Stafford) was supported by the facts.

    Stafford is shocking enough without indulging in myths. As is the current alleged CQC cover up scandal.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Brooke, I've seen him occasionally on Twitter. It's a shame he doesn't come on here as often as he did.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited June 2013
    @JosiasJessop @David_Herdson

    There certainly is a meme of the NHS being 'safe in Labour's hands' - well, I think their last period in office has managed to hole that one below the water line.

    That the regulator was hiding the issues, and filled with the likes of Ms Bower/the culture of cover-ups and Nicholson/gagging clauses...

    It'd be hard to make up a worse set of scandals - unflattering reports into the deaths of mothers and their babies deleted on the order of MODERATED The horrors of Stafford and several other trusts?

    One wonders what else is about to come out of the woodwork. All the CQC's reports must be reviewed in light of this - and all the inquiries they conducted and never published...
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Miss Plato, I disagree entirely.

    Whilst that deserves to be the case the public still trust Labour more than the Conservatives on the NHS. Whether that's due to a partial media, a disinterested/entrenched public, good PR/spin from Labour or bad PR/spin from the Coalition/Conservatives can be debated.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    http://news.sky.com/story/1106421/hunt-nhs-errors-cost-3000-lives-last-year sounds very sensible to me.

    "...In a speech at University College London Hospitals, Mr Hunt will also reveal that 325 "never events" were recorded last year - incidents so unacceptable that they should never happen.

    He is expected to say the UK has become "so numbed to the inevitability of patient harm that we accept the unacceptable" and call for a more open culture where errors are constantly revealed and reduced.

    "The facts are clear," Mr Hunt will say.

    "Last year there were nearly half a million incidents that led to patients being harmed, and 3,000 people lost their lives while in the care of the NHS.

    "It is time for a major rethink - a different kind of culture and leadership, where staff are supported to do what their instincts and commitment to patients tell them.

    "We must make sure that patients know where the buck stops and who is ultimately responsible for their care.

    "And above all, we must listen more to NHS staff, so we can design systems that encourage them to act safely whatever pressures they face."
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,547
    BenM said:

    tim said:

    @JosiasJessop

    That's your opinion

    No, that's the polling, your anecdotes are meaningless.

    Just like the anecdotes of the relatives of the dead were the words of 'loudmouths', eh?

    Or there was 'possibly one death' at Stafford? (on an obscure blog by someone who misrepresents both statistics and the words of the expert).

    When figures are being fiddled and whistleblowers paid off as they were (and probably are) in the NHS, then anecdotes matter. Because they can signal the truth that is being covered up.
    So called "Cure the NHS" are loudmouths who are in danger of massively overreaching.

    The blog you try to dismiss as "obscure" was subject to media interest (from Private Eye and others) which suddenly waned when the analysis Mr Walker did (ie. there was not "1200 deaths" at Stafford) was supported by the facts.

    Stafford is shocking enough without indulging in myths. As is the current alleged CQC cover up scandal.
    The blog is wrong, for the reasons I have told you before. Worse, it is mendacious. It claims the expert says something he does not, and misuses the statistics.

    Your attempts to blacken the name of the relatives of the Stafford dead are duly noted. It must be very inconvenient for you that some relatives had the temerity to question whether their loved ones should have died.

    How dare they!

    You are the one trying to peddle myths, such as 'perhaps one death'. Your inability to realise that is false is quite alarming.

    By the way, how are your plans to get the unemployed digging canals with shovels coming along?
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    Plato said:

    @JosiasJessop @David_Herdson

    There certainly is a meme of the NHS being 'safe in Labour's hands' - well, I think their last period in office has managed to hole that one below the water line.

    That the regulator was hiding the issues, and filled with the likes of Ms Bower/the culture of cover-ups and Nicholson/gagging clauses...

    It'd be hard to make up a worse set of scandals - unflattering reports into the deaths of mothers and their babies deleted on the order of the Ch Ex? The horrors of Stafford and several other trusts?

    One wonders what else is about to come out of the woodwork. All the CQC's reports must be reviewed in light of this - and all the inquiries they conducted and never published...

    I can't quite see how Labour are holed below the water line.

    The structural advantage Labour have on the NHS is their monopoly of its employees whom they always place first before patient concerns. This allows them to run scares when unions and doctors claim the world will come to an end if 2pence is cut from the NHS budget. Parties looking to break this hold have to either get a chunk of NHS employees onside to enable a sensible debate or establish clear blue water between being on the side of patients versus NHS employees.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    @another_richard

    "Five years ago I first asked this question at PB - We're now competing against counties which are as intelligent and educated as we are but who are willing to work harder for less money and with fewer regulations. How will we maintain the higher living standards than they have?"

    Five years ago the only answer was innovation and technology. Now that may no longer be true. The UK's education system has declined against the global standards and we struggle to find properly qualified and experienced employees from the UK nationals. At the same time the UK has a quickly growing army of unemployed and unemployable due to them being ill-educated.

    We have to cut our costs and incomes dramatically and do more with less people. This includes all child benefits, public sector pensions (private sector is already in tatters) and only allow self-supporting immigrants. This policy will not attract votes.

    At the same time there has to be a vast leap in education standards and in public sector efficiency if we have any hope to drag ourselves out of this self-imposed mire.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    The NHS is Labour's last fortress - they are fighting an ugly rearguard campaign.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,349
    Targets are not in themselves bad things if they were used to assess progress or indicate where there might be a need for more resources. But human nature being what it is, there are two insurmountable problems.

    Firstly the figures are nearly always meaningless. they are usually met by whatever means are necessary so don't represent anything. And secondly when introduced by politicians, thEy can be guaranteed to be used purely for political ends, so accuracy is irrelevant anyway.

    Targets pervert good practice in the name of headline figures. How can that ever be useful?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    tim said:

    Miss Plato, I disagree entirely.

    Whilst that deserves to be the case the public still trust Labour more than the Conservatives on the NHS. Whether that's due to a partial media, a disinterested/entrenched public, good PR/spin from Labour or bad PR/spin from the Coalition/Conservatives can be debated.

    Try "Cameron used his family and lied" and you'll see that it's backed up by the polling.
    Link?
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,265

    tim said:

    @JosiaSJessop

    You don't realise how ridiculous your attempt to airbrush Lansley and the last three years out of the picture is do you.


    Yesterday we had the bizarre spectacle of the PB Tories wanting to expose the politicians in charge when the CQC cover up happened, only to realise that it was on Lansleys watch.
    So now the penny has finally dropped the tactic shifts to pretending 2010-13 never happened.

    The CQC was Labour's body staffed by Labour's place(wo)men and was by habit doing the Labour government's bidding, even if that government had lost office by then.

    It is events like this and Stafford and Morecambe which are proving ever more the need for fundamental reform. Far from airbrushing out Lansley, it is vindicating what he wanted to do. As for the polls, well, they can shift in response to events and to persuasion.
    That post is a really good example of what I mean. David is by no means an extremist - he seems to me pretty manistream Conservative. But his reaction to what I agree is a shocking story is to (a) claim it's Labour's fault and (b) demand fundamental change in the NHS. "As for the polls, well, they can shift in response to events and to persuasion" is exactly the nonchalant line that my far-left friends take over their pet projects, and a problem is that it doesn't usually work.

    It's possible to argue the "fault" issue either way (set up under Labour/if the CQC was that bad, how come the Coalition didn't change it?), but that's not really the point. There is actually a fundamental divide here: Labour and most of the population think the NHS works generally well, albeit with occasional disasters that need to be addressed, the Tories think it's basically unfit for purpose, illustrated by occasional disasters. It's an unhealthy position for them in political terms, but one that they seem to feel so strongly that they can't resist.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    edited June 2013
    Jeremy Hunt has an unfortunate face that looks like he's been flashed by the paparazzi exiting a Soho Bar. A rabbit caught in headlights

    Whoever was in charge when the NHS scandals took place the Tories are going to carry the can......

    1. No one trusts them with the NHS (particularly the staff) and

    2. Because they have a Minister of Health who has GUILTY written all over him (for the reasons stated above)
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,688
    So It seems that the current government is to blame for failing to realise that Labour had put useless people in charge and ousting them immediately - that right?

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540

    the Tories think it's basically unfit for purpose.

    Which I guess is why Jeremy Hunt makes this point:

    "The NHS sees nearly three million people a week. About 0.4 per cent suffer harm and 0.003 per cent die – better rates than France, Germany, Sweden, Norway and the US."

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2345522/NHS-blunders-cause-deaths-day-Jeremy-Hunt-speak-silent-scandal.html#ixzz2WptluJm3

    Would the CQC cover up have been exposed under Andy Burnham?
  • PolruanPolruan Posts: 2,083

    Plato said:

    @JosiasJessop @David_Herdson

    There certainly is a meme of the NHS being 'safe in Labour's hands' - well, I think their last period in office has managed to hole that one below the water line.

    That the regulator was hiding the issues, and filled with the likes of Ms Bower/the culture of cover-ups and Nicholson/gagging clauses...

    It'd be hard to make up a worse set of scandals - unflattering reports into the deaths of mothers and their babies deleted on the order of the Ch Ex? The horrors of Stafford and several other trusts?

    One wonders what else is about to come out of the woodwork. All the CQC's reports must be reviewed in light of this - and all the inquiries they conducted and never published...

    I can't quite see how Labour are holed below the water line.

    The structural advantage Labour have on the NHS is their monopoly of its employees whom they always place first before patient concerns. This allows them to run scares when unions and doctors claim the world will come to an end if 2pence is cut from the NHS budget. Parties looking to break this hold have to either get a chunk of NHS employees onside to enable a sensible debate or establish clear blue water between being on the side of patients versus NHS employees.
    Surely this "structural advantage" has equal impact on any party that seeks to cut the NHS? The Tories aren't compelled to do that, it's just a choice they frequently make.

    Of course there are some hardcore Labour loyalists in the particularly unionised parts of the NHS but most of them are so far to the left of the post-John Smith Labour party that they were as aggressively opposed to the changes of the 1997-2010 Labour government as they are to those of the Coalition. I don't think that there's a co-ordinated, choreographed NHS staff programme of opposing the Tories when in government and supporting Labour when in government. Neither the People's Front of Judea, nor the Judean People's Front are that organised. The strongest thing you can say is that most NHS staff are not-particularly-well-off British citizens, and as NickPalmer points out, most of them are stubbornly enthusiastic about an NHS that runs on roughly the model that has applied for the last few decades. To the extent that's a vested interest it's a consumer interest, not a producer interest.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    @tim - so assertion, but no link. There is no specific polling on Cameron and the NHS, is there?
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    edited June 2013
    "Jeremy Hunt has an unfortunate face that always looks like he's been flashed by the paparazzi exiting a Soho Gay Bar"

    I must admit Roger, I'd have a look of surprise if the assembled paparazzi flashed me leaving the Post Office let alone a gay bar.

    Why can't they just stick to taking photos ?
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Mr Starmer gives new guidance on social media - hopefully it will stop at least some of the silly drunken stuff that is currently being prosecuted now.

    "People should not be taken to court just because a tweet or online message is “bad taste, controversial or unpopular”, according to the guidelines from Keir Starmer, the Director of Public Prosecutions. Nor should they be prosecuted just because an online comment is unpopular or unfashionable or may cause offence to specific communities or individuals.

    Prosecutors should proceed with “considerable caution”, and only when comments are grossly offensive and where it would be in the public interest to bring about a prosecution. Mr Starmer said that messages online would have to pass a “high threshold” before those posting them were prosecuted...

    A distinction was made between communications that are likely to be prosecuted — those that amount to a credible threat of violence, a targeted campaign of harassment against an individual or which breach court orders — and those that may be considered offensive, indecent, obsecene or false. In addition, prosecutors must recognise the right to “freedom of expression” and only proceed with a prosecution when a communication is “more than offensive, shocking or disturbing, even if distasteful or painful to those subjected to it”. As a general rule, threats that are not credible should not be prosecuted, unless they are part of a campaign of harassment specifically targeting an individual. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/law/article3796819.ece
  • FluffyThoughtsFluffyThoughts Posts: 2,420

    The CQC was Labour's body staffed by Labour's place(wo)men and was by habit doing the Labour government's bidding, even if that government had lost office by then.

    And "Ole 'Arriet 'Ardbint (Duchess of Peckham)" wants to do the same to the FSTE100 Board-of-Directors. If there was ever a case to ban "progressive" discrimination CQC was it....

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,547
    edited June 2013

    tim said:

    @JosiaSJessop

    You don't realise how ridiculous your attempt to airbrush Lansley and the last three years out of the picture is do you.


    Yesterday we had the bizarre spectacle of the PB Tories wanting to expose the politicians in charge when the CQC cover up happened, only to realise that it was on Lansleys watch.
    So now the penny has finally dropped the tactic shifts to pretending 2010-13 never happened.

    The CQC was Labour's body staffed by Labour's place(wo)men and was by habit doing the Labour government's bidding, even if that government had lost office by then.

    It is events like this and Stafford and Morecambe which are proving ever more the need for fundamental reform. Far from airbrushing out Lansley, it is vindicating what he wanted to do. As for the polls, well, they can shift in response to events and to persuasion.
    That post is a really good example of what I mean. David is by no means an extremist - he seems to me pretty manistream Conservative. But his reaction to what I agree is a shocking story is to (a) claim it's Labour's fault and (b) demand fundamental change in the NHS. "As for the polls, well, they can shift in response to events and to persuasion" is exactly the nonchalant line that my far-left friends take over their pet projects, and a problem is that it doesn't usually work.

    It's possible to argue the "fault" issue either way (set up under Labour/if the CQC was that bad, how come the Coalition didn't change it?), but that's not really the point. There is actually a fundamental divide here: Labour and most of the population think the NHS works generally well, albeit with occasional disasters that need to be addressed, the Tories think it's basically unfit for purpose, illustrated by occasional disasters. It's an unhealthy position for them in political terms, but one that they seem to feel so strongly that they can't resist.
    But we do not get to know about the disasters because they are covered up, and people who try to get to the truth are sickeningly branded 'loudmouths'.

    Worse, whistleblowers have been paid off.

    This shows that we do not know what is going on in the NHS. I cannot say whether it is fit or unfit for purpose, but the signs are not good if the CQC was so incompetent and/or criminal.

    Whatever, it is a far cry from what Labour were and have been claiming.

    I have some sympathy with hospitals on this. The human body is an exceptionally complex machine, and diagnosing - yet alone fixing - problems can be very hard. Mistakes will happen even with the best care. However, if mistakes occur then they need to be investigated and lessons learnt.

    Trends of performance are key: hospitals, doctors, nurses or surgeons who show patterns of poor care. Instead it looks as though the culture in some parts of the NHS is totally against uncovering such patterns and prefers instead to look after their own.

    If transparency is the key, then the lock is the media and people analysing the transparent data properly.

    (Edit: loom=look)
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    edited June 2013
    Roger said:

    Jeremy Hunt has an unfortunate face that looks like he's been flashed by the paparazzi exiting a Soho Bar. A rabbit caught in headlights

    Whoever was in charge when the NHS scandals took place the Tories are going to carry the can......

    1. No one trusts them with the NHS (particularly the staff) and

    2. Because they have a Minister of Health who has GUILTY written all over him (for the reasons stated above)

    Roger what would someone exiting a Soho Bar be GUILTY of?
This discussion has been closed.