The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[HanoiVillan]

22 minutes ago, Paul33 said:

I don't have the magic answer but moving the use of Pharmacists, Walk In Centres, GPs, #111 from advisory towards compulsory would be a massive move. I heard on Newsnight last week something about 95% of A&E walk-ins came from a crazy small number (can't recall exactly) of the same people.

I make use of Pharmacy diagnosis and in more worrying cases I phone 111 and act on their advice ..... I haven't walked into A&E (other than with my daughter) since my footballing days !

My point is less that there is nothing you can do at the margins, but that there is nothing you can do at the big picture level. The proportion of GDP accounted for by healthcare spending has risen in every developed country, and this is what we would expect as per Baumol's Cost Disease (which argues it is much harder to increase productivity in the service sector). This effect is exacerbated by a] an ageing population, and b] making legal immigration harder.

Re your suggested solutions, they are not *reducing* demand for healthcare, but *redistributing* it to other channels, most of which are funded primarily by the NHS out of its budget, even if they don't have the NHS logo on them. Even if more people could use GPs rather than hospitals - which is in any case difficult at the moment - it would do nothing to reduce NHS expenditure.

[Xann]

Scared of an imaginary bogeyman, whilst the real ones go about rinsing the country.

Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got
Till it's gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot (for lorries in Kent)

[Paul33]

14 hours ago, MessiWillSignForVilla said:

So the claim that every Labour government saw unemployment rise isn't true then?

"since the war" ..... or did you miss that ?!!!

[Paul33]

14 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

Even if more people could use GPs rather than hospitals - which is in any case difficult at the moment - it would do nothing to reduce NHS expenditure.

Not sure I agree with that. If I resolve my health issue via a 5 minute over the counter chat at the local Pharmacy then surely that has to cost the NHS less that a visit to A&E and taking up their time and skillsets. Maybe I'm missing something there.

If the answer really is to throw more money at the NHS then let us raise income tax significantly and pay for it. Too many of those who complain about not enough money going into the NHS are the first to protest if anybody suggests that we create that funding via a very long overdue increase in income tax. I'm ready to pay for it !

Edited December 9, 2021 by Paul33

[HanoiVillan]

24 minutes ago, Paul33 said:

Not sure I agree with that. If I resolve my health issue via a 5 minute over the counter chat at the local Pharmacy then surely that has to cost the NHS less that a visit to A&E and taking up their time and skillsets. Maybe I'm missing something there.

One obvious thing you're missing is that 'issues that can be resolved by a 5 minute over the counter chat at the local pharmacy' and 'issues that necessitate a trip to A & E' are not circles with much overlap. The boring truth is that most people who go to A & E have gone to A & E because they have a serious situation that needs fairly urgent medical attention. I'm well aware that there are some time-wasters who do not need urgent attention who attend A & E, but they are a small and insignificant proportion of the whole. A & E departments are run in ways specifically designed to discourage time wasters, by rationing care, and the way that works in practice is either a] a receptionist telling you off for time-wasting and sending you away, or b] a triage process that leads people with minor problems to have extremely long waits on uncomfortable chairs before anybody will see them. Meanwhile you obviously cannot solve strokes or falls or broken bones or stabbings or miscarriages or any of hundreds of other medical emergencies via the medium of a chat at the pharmacy.

[blandy]

32 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

One obvious thing you're missing is that 'issues that can be resolved by a 5 minute over the counter chat at the local pharmacy' and 'issues that necessitate a trip to A & E' are not circles with much overlap. The boring truth is that most people who go to A & E have gone to A & E because they have a serious situation that needs fairly urgent medical attention. I'm well aware that there are some time-wasters who do not need urgent attention who attend A & E, but they are a small and insignificant proportion of the whole.

That's how it should be, but not how it is.

Unfortunately, because access to GPs is severely limited (and not just because of the deadly fungus pandemic) people are essentially forced to go to the hospitals in the absence of any other access to medical assistance. That many of them may not be actual emergencies is a consequence of this situation, and those people having to wait for 5 hours to be seen may indeed put them off/leave them frustrated and angry, but it's not solving the fundamental problem.

[markavfc40]

Quite a remarkable poll result this. 278000 people voted and you'd imagine Martin Lewis would have followers who vote for a wide spectrum of parties.

You don't know what you had till it's gone sometimes do you and Gordon Brown was head and shoulders as PM above anyone who has since followed. 

 

[ml1dch]

All the usual "still doesn't really mean anything" caveat, but I guess the more people who don't want to vote for them, the better. However terrible their reasons.

 

 

[Davkaus]

That is good news. I found this a bit concerning though, Starmer is still losing to "none of the above". Johnson being removed with Covid failures, sleaze and Brexit stuck to him personally rather than the party will still leave Labour in trouble. It needs to be drilled in that these failures are on the government, not just Johnson.

 

[chrisp65]

I don’t really know what Starmer stands for, other than he’s not Johnson or Corbyn.

So ‘none of the above’ feels like a fair shout.

 

 

 

[a m ole]

11 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

I don’t really know what Starmer stands for, other than he’s not Johnson or Corbyn.

So ‘none of the above’ feels like a fair shout.

 

 

 

I thought that was just his nickname

[bickster]

Whilst I broadly agree on Starmer's (lack of) message, it's pointless putting "none of the above" as a poll option when the country doesn't have that option in reality. It very much should, but it doesn't

[Davkaus]

26 minutes ago, bickster said:

Whilst I broadly agree on Starmer's (lack of) message, it's pointless putting "none of the above" as a poll option when the country doesn't have that option in reality. It very much should, but it doesn't

Of course, but I think it's a useful polling device as an alternative to "strongly support, slightly support, support but only because the opponent is a criminal", to show there's a large section of the electorate that want something different

[bickster]

Just now, Davkaus said:

Of course, but I think it's a useful polling device as an alternative to "strongly support, slightly support, support but only because the opponent is a criminal", to show there's a large section of the electorate that want something different

Yep that's all generally rubbish too. If the poll doesn't represent the options available to the voter, the poll is about something else other than the intended question

If the poll actively has that as a question, it is presenting it as an option , it is pushing that option into the mindset, people are more likely to use it when it isn't a real life option, that can skew the data hugely

[Davkaus]

5 minutes ago, bickster said:

Yep that's all generally rubbish too. If the poll doesn't represent the options available to the voter, the poll is about something else other than the intended question

 

Well, yes. It's a supplementary question - there is a seperate question directly above that which is about voting intention. No voter is given the question about who should be PM, so I'm not sure why it's a problem having an answer which isn't an option to the voter on a question they'd never be asked  

[blandy]

On 08/12/2021 at 21:53, bickster said:

What has reason for attendance got to do with it? It's irrelevant

EDIT: As you find this amsuing, therefore not understanding the point, I'll explain. People are admitted to hospital because of a medical need, say they've broken their ankle but they can't be discharged because there's nowhere suitable to discharge them too because of other non-emergency, usually mental health related issues (I include older vulnerable people with Altzheimers etc in this broad category). They are medically fit to be discharged as the issue they presented with is now treated. There's nowhere to discharge them too, so they stay in hospital until there is. This is what causes the bed logjam

I see @Paul33 has done a smiley reaction to your post. This may help him understand.

Quote

The number of patients stuck in hospital in England despite being medically fit to leave nearly doubled between February and November this year. The rise is worrying health experts, who say it is more evidence that the crisis in the adult care system is creating backlogs in the NHS.

NHS England data shows that the number of times hospital trusts were unable to discharge a patient who no longer met the criteria to stay in hospital increased from 223,593 in February to 402,211 in November – a rise of almost 80%.

The data shows the extent of “stranded patients” – people who are clinically fit to leave hospital but cannot be discharged, often because of a lack of adult care or NHS community health provision. As a result, patients find themselves stuck in an environment where they pick up infections, while hospitals are unable to free up bed space for new admissions.

Today’s Observer

[blandy]

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

don’t really know what Starmer stands for, other than he’s not Johnson or Corbyn.

It’s an exceedingly good thing in itself.

[chrisp65]

40 minutes ago, blandy said:

It’s an exceedingly good thing in itself.

 

I like my politicians to be in the sweet spot between clerical administrator and populist nihilist.

The problem in my adult life time, is that when we compromise away from actual values, just to be rid of the tories, we end up with PFI initiatives and war on terror.

I don’t want a choice of hard blue or light blue.

I’m very much ‘none of the above’.

[blandy]

2 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

I like my politicians to be in the sweet spot between clerical administrator and populist nihilist.

Well, obviously. I think you're right that Starmer needs to get himself (if he can) into a position where people feel they understand what he is about and what he stands for and that he's not just an administrator (to use your term).

Unlike the Tories, Labour seems not to get rid of leaders with any haste, so I guess they're going to stay with him as their leader for the foreseeable future. FWIW it seems to me like they are starting, as a party, to get their act together a bit more in terms of public perception and effective opposition, though it would be hard to be any worse than they're been for the past 4 or 5 years really).

It also feels like Angela Rayner extremely desperately wants to be leader, and would probably be a good one, with the sort of extra "belief/credibility/image" that many people like to see.

My problem is almost the reverse of yours I na way - if you look at the recent PMs and leaders, most of them have had "personalities" people identified with and seemed to like (for a while), but they did huge damage. The two who didn't have the media friendly personas, one was terrible (May) and the other was OK (though cops loads of flack) in Brown.

I reckon if you swapped Rayner and Starmer's roles round, Labour might do better, I dunno. The one with some charisma and straightforward connection with people as leader and the one with all the "admin" skills and technical detail grip as her deputy.

Anyway, they'll all no doubt be fighting like rats in a sack again soon, instead of trying to be guvmint.

[ml1dch]

On 07/12/2021 at 21:18, HanoiVillan said:

A tenner to VT it is!

*glances at the betting odds*

Quote

Liberal Democrat 4/7
Conservative 5/4
Labour 66/1