Bolitics The New Condem Government

[TheDon]

I genuinely think Ian that the problem is that some are now brain dead from wanking themselves stupid when these pratts formed a government that they can no longer see what is right in front of them and that this country is now being **** over in everyway possible by these incompetent, unelected, lieing bastards.

Ah but you see, there's always that retort of "it's only because of what labour did".

I think there's a huge amount of people that have drank the coolaid on that one and seriously think that there are no other options than pure butchery.

[avfc89]

Think if that's the level it's resorted to Mark then I'm done with the thread

It's clear the opposition have got nothing to say

Please don't leave this thread Tone, I love reading your defense of the current Government. And the analogies used by yourself to articulate Tory-ideas to us common folk

[rjw63]

Think if that's the level it's resorted to Mark then I'm done with the thread

It's clear the opposition have got nothing to say

Please don't leave this thread Tone, I love reading your defense of the current Government. And the analogies used by yourself to articulate Tory-ideas to us common folk

But he's just a fookin cockney! :-)

[snowychap]

...our safety...

Que?

[Ads]

God almighty, but would it be possible to have a politics thread without the puerile partisan nonsense like;

Liebour

Bliar

Repeated use of hypocrisy/liars/idiot

Tory Mafia

ConDems

Posh boy/Rich boy

And so on? Either that or an ignore button.

Edit: I see Risso made a similar plea a few pages back, now doubt mine will end up being just as fruitless.

considering your contributions previously - pot / kettle / black or should that be Tory / Blue / LibDem?

What contributions?

I like a nice mixture of reasoned debate and archetypal British tongue in cheek banter. I think it makes for a good message board. This thread has descended into something of a farce, with nothing worth discussing because we know what everybody is going to say before they’ve posted due to the entrenched tribalism, so why bother reading it you may ask?

And that is a very good question.

I'm sorry to point you out Mark, but I feel your last two responses about brain-dead legions wanking themselves into a frenzy and about Tory's being very sad etc just typifies what I'm saying.

[Ads]

With regards to the planned Health Reforms, I would say its surprising for everybody that these are coming about and I think at this point its unclear whether they’ll achieve what they want them to. I would agree with what Portillo said about the need for a breakup of the overarching superstructure of the NHS and break it down into a more regionalised set up, possibly on a county basis, with a hope of giving a more de-centralised and region specific type of management. Whether these reforms achieve that we don’t know, they may and they may not.

[LJRM050389]

Yes it says a lot when even Portillo thought the ideas were not needed.

Question Time is fast becoming extremely painful to the weekly Tory/ Lib Dem

[meregreen]

With regards to the planned Health Reforms, I would say its surprising for everybody that these are coming about and I think at this point its unclear whether they’ll achieve what they want them to. I would agree with what Portillo said about the need for a breakup of the overarching superstructure of the NHS and break it down into a more regionalised set up, possibly on a county basis, with a hope of giving a more de-centralised and region specific type of management. Whether these reforms achieve that we don’t know, they may and they may not.

So in one region your particular treatment or drugs will be given priority and in another area they will not. A post code lottery for treatment. Exactly what we need to avoid. Treatment should be universally available regardless of where you live. The true reason for fragmenting the service is to make it easier to privatize the NHS by stealth. The Tories opposed the birth of the NHS venemously, they will see its slow dismantling as a long term objective.

[Ads]

No not at all.

A more decentralised management would allow you to address more regionally specific issues. You may have an abundance of hospitals, doctors, drugs in one region or specifically high rates of certain illnesses, so you focus your management on those specific requirements. There is currently something of a post code lottery already in existence, particularly in North Staffs and the availability of cancer drugs.

Will these reforms achieve a better form of management remains to be seen. As I said, perhaps they will, perhaps they won’t.

[TrentVilla]

With regards to the planned Health Reforms, I would say its surprising for everybody that these are coming about and I think at this point its unclear whether they’ll achieve what they want them to. I would agree with what Portillo said about the need for a breakup of the overarching superstructure of the NHS and break it down into a more regionalised set up, possibly on a county basis, with a hope of giving a more de-centralised and region specific type of management. Whether these reforms achieve that we don’t know, they may and they may not.

I'm far from an expect on this sector but I would have thought that by breaking the NHS down into regional bodies on a county basis would result in a duplication of job roles.

This would I would have thought push the cost of the NHS up not reduce it which is essentially what the government is trying to achieve.

[Ads]

If you’re getting more de-centralised management, then you’d hope to cut costs by being able to deliver specific services required, rather than a blanket approach. But I'm no expert either.

While you have to think that every penny that goes towards a non-doctor et al in a PCT, is a penny that’s not being spent on doctors, nurses, drugs, equipment and buildings.

Obviously clerical staff are necessary, but its worth seeing if there’s not a more effective way of organising the NHS, as its not clear whether we've got the vo9lume right at the moment.

[TrentVilla]

It is probably me but I'm not really getting the logic. What is wrong with the blanket approach? What are the specific services that are required in certain areas? Do not areas need the same health care services and facilities scaled to the population of a given area?

[briny_ear]

In the short time they have been in power they have attempted to change the way that the country is run to suppress dissenting voices in Parliament, it seems that their supporters on this message board want to follow the same rules.

A gvmt which basically has little mandate for the appalling measures they are inflicting on this country - no mandate because they were never voted in as a joint party nor are they following any of their manifesto pledges, is worthy of comment. The media are doing it every day so why can't we?

I genuinely think Ian that the problem is that some are now brain dead from wanking themselves stupid when these pratts formed a government that they can no longer see what is right in front of them and that this country is now being **** over in everyway possible by these incompetent, unelected, lieing bastards.

I've only just stumbled across this thread. and I am going to exit very quickly, because it seems at the moment it is reserved for disgruntled people who, on the Kübler-Ross model of dealing with grief and tragedy (Anger/denial/bargaining/depression/acceptance) are only just struggling from anger about the election result to denial. Not much chance here of a reasonable discussion of what is happening in UK politics at present.

However, before scooting off, I did just want to query this:

unelected, lieing bastards

I don't really understand how the current Government are "unelected". There was an election on 6 May when they were, err.. elected.

Suppose the other possible outcome had happened - a Labour coalition with LibDems, SNP, Plaid Cymru, DUP support, providing a minority Government or at best a very slim majority. Would this have been judged in some way to be "elected" and more legitimate?

If the answer to this is "yes", this is a classic symptom of denial, I reckon. If "no", then we have a problem because in that case the election didn't produce any possible legitimate Govt and we clearly need to have one of some sort.

[Risso]

now being **** over in everyway possible by these incompetent, unelected, lieing bastards.

As opposed to being **** over by that incompetent, unelected, lying bastard Gordon Brown?

[TrentVilla]

Well technically Brown was elected, he just ended up doing a different job but was still an elected MP.

As for the current government they too were all elected and once elected and under the coalition were invited to form a government.

So both claims are a bit silly really.

[snowychap]

It is probably me but I'm not really getting the logic. What is wrong with the blanket approach? What are the specific services that are required in certain areas? Do not areas need the same health care services and facilities scaled to the population of a given area?

Well, isn't some NHS spending targetted at prevention as opposed to cure? If so then it is likely, I'd have thought, that some areas require more of this preventative spending than others if one views, for example, that wealth/affluence/poverty have more than a loose correlation with health outcomes and life expectancy.

I'm certainly not arguing the coalition case but I do think there is a lot of room for much more direct imput from those 'at the coal face' (i.e. doctors and nurses) about how to improve the service offered.

On the previous point about increase of costs and duplication of jobs then, even if one subscribes fully to a conventional economies of scale view (whether that ever really applies to a service is arguable I believe), there is likely to be an argument that an organization the size of the NHS has likely got itself into a diseconomies of scale position.

[TrentVilla]

Well, isn't some NHS spending targetted at prevention as opposed to cure? If so then it is likely, I'd have thought, that some areas require more of this preventative spending than others if one views, for example, that wealth/affluence/poverty have more than a loose correlation with health outcomes and life expectancy.

No doubt but I would have thought that a regional approach is already taken to such matters. Isn't it?

On the previous point about increase of costs and duplication of jobs then, even if one subscribes fully to a conventional economies of scale view (whether that ever really applies to a service is arguable I believe), there is likely to be an argument that an organization the size of the NHS has likely got itself into a diseconomies of scale position.

Perhaps but if this is the case I still fail to see the benefit of effectively breaking the NHS up into regional organisations.

[snowychap]

No doubt but I would have thought that a regional approach is already taken to such matters. Isn't it?

I don't know, I'm afraid. I'm no expert, either.

I'd have guessed that there was an approach at a PCT level. Isn't the point about this policy is that this (an approach by PCT) is not bottom up enough?

Again, I'm not arguing for or against anything.

Perhaps but if this is the case I still fail to see the benefit of effectively breaking the NHS up into regional organisations.

Well, if one subscribes to the whole economies/diseconomies of scale/LAC curve idea then reducing the size (by making into a number of organizations) ought to move things to the left along the curve.

Like I said before, whether these things actually apply to the NHS might well be arguable. I'm just trying to think through possible arguments for doing this.

[Ads]

It is probably me but I'm not really getting the logic. What is wrong with the blanket approach? What are the specific services that are required in certain areas? Do not areas need the same health care services and facilities scaled to the population of a given area?

I think certain areas are affected more by varying illnesses. For example, I recall an article stating that the West Midlands is the area most affected by heart disease and obesity in England. Compare it to for example, Cornwall and you’re going to get different patient needs and at different volumes.

[TrentVilla]

It is probably me but I'm not really getting the logic. What is wrong with the blanket approach? What are the specific services that are required in certain areas? Do not areas need the same health care services and facilities scaled to the population of a given area?

I think certain areas are affected more by varying illnesses. For example, I recall an article stating that the West Midlands is the area most affected by heart disease and obesity in England. Compare it to for example, Cornwall and you’re going to get different patient needs and at different volumes.

There will without question be regional variations, one such example I'm aware of is in dental practise. In Sheffield the condition of teeth is far worse than in the West Midlands due to the make up of the water so treatment costs and practise is different.

Personally though I would have thought that the NHS already works in a way that meets the demands of an area both in terms prevention and treatment.

I don't know for certain, I just find it hard to believe that they wouldn't.