Politics

[Norbert Colon 0]

For what its worth I left school during the pomp of the last tory regime when there were no apprenticeships and no jobs other than yts and other pointless schemes, however, I managed to gain work eventually and buy a house, in true tory tradition, the missus got pregnant and stopped work whilst the tories introduced the poll tax (which quadrupled the cost of rates) and the 15% mortgage base rate.

It was all good fun having to work three shit jobs, miss my kid growing up and eventually become estranged from the missus thanks maggie , thanks john, fuck off you tory scum and your elitist , chinless, old school tie shitbag bumchums.

Stand by for the sequel.

Coming soon to the North East.

 

Aye your right but what the hell, its not the chinless bastards that are affected, anyhow give it 8 - 10 years, the mandatory foreign conflict to keep the country onside for the election and every fucker in tears cos they have fucked every public service worker, heavy industry company and low to mid income family then maybe these daft cunts thinking the tories are some sort of saviour will get the scent of the morning coffee but, hey, what do I know, apart from knowing I was a damn sight better off under labour than under the tories

[Monkeys Fist 38836]

Tories targetting public sector for major cuts.

North East's main source of employment -public sector.

Coincidence?

[manc-mag 1]

Now we know why the liberals are so keen on electoral reform....

 

What with this and the gay liberal these liberals are a right bunch of sleazemeisters

 

 

 

In a statement given to the newspaper the MP said: "I am in a serious relationship with Carina Trimingham and I am separating from my wife."

 

Mr Huhne was married to his wife for 26 years and has three children and two stepchildren.

 

Ms Trimingham is believed to work for the Electoral Reform Society.

 

More follows...

 

Politics to one side, I cannot fucking stand Chris Huhne.

[Guest alex]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/politics/10357852.stm

 

Government spends £17,500 on wine

[ewerk 26479]

Now we know why the liberals are so keen on electoral reform....

 

What with this and the gay liberal these liberals are a right bunch of sleazemeisters

 

 

 

In a statement given to the newspaper the MP said: "I am in a serious relationship with Carina Trimingham and I am separating from my wife."

 

Mr Huhne was married to his wife for 26 years and has three children and two stepchildren.

 

Ms Trimingham is believed to work for the Electoral Reform Society.

 

More follows...

 

Politics to one side, I cannot fucking stand Chris Huhne.

 

Breaking up his marriage for this!

 

[spongebob toonpants 3606]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/ju...money-from-poor

The government was today accused of draining money from schemes aimed at the poorest children to fund their flagship policy of Swedish-style "free" schools.

 

Headteachers said the coalition's plan to introduce hundreds of the free schools risked depriving money from existing primary and secondaries amid suggestions that Michael Gove, the education secretary, considered taking money from the free school meal programme to fund the schools. On Tuesday Gove is expected to announce the terms of a review of Labour's £55bn Building Schools for the Future programme, with a review group made up of schools, local authorities and construction experts which will report before the comprehensive spending review in the autumn.

 

A Whitehall source with knowledge of the programme said the review was likely to focus on removing Labour's preconditions for new school buildings, which emphasised that schools in poorer, academically struggling areas received funding ahead of thriving schools, even if their buildings were less decrepit.

 

Tonight it emerged that ministers considered taking millions from a budget that gives free school meals to the country's poorest children, to pay parents to set up their own schools. It was reported by Channel Four news tonight that a memo written by one of Gove's leading officials last week recommended that £35m be taken from funds for free school meals and redirected into the policy of free schools.

 

Gove appears to endorse the idea in the memo, which was leaked to Channel Four. Tonight the Department for Education would not deny the memo existed, but said it planned to use £50m from a pot that helped schools choose the right computer equipment to fund the new schools and to argue for more money from the Treasury in the spending review. The Department for Education said no money was coming from free school meals to fund the schools.

 

 

Cutting the money to the poorest to help the richest set up their own schools. Its not taking long for the evil cunts to show their true colours

[Renton 17828]

I cannot get my head around the torie's educational policies. It's just utterly wrong.

[Norbert Colon 0]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/ju...money-from-poor

The government was today accused of draining money from schemes aimed at the poorest children to fund their flagship policy of Swedish-style "free" schools.

 

Headteachers said the coalition's plan to introduce hundreds of the free schools risked depriving money from existing primary and secondaries amid suggestions that Michael Gove, the education secretary, considered taking money from the free school meal programme to fund the schools. On Tuesday Gove is expected to announce the terms of a review of Labour's £55bn Building Schools for the Future programme, with a review group made up of schools, local authorities and construction experts which will report before the comprehensive spending review in the autumn.

 

A Whitehall source with knowledge of the programme said the review was likely to focus on removing Labour's preconditions for new school buildings, which emphasised that schools in poorer, academically struggling areas received funding ahead of thriving schools, even if their buildings were less decrepit.

 

Tonight it emerged that ministers considered taking millions from a budget that gives free school meals to the country's poorest children, to pay parents to set up their own schools. It was reported by Channel Four news tonight that a memo written by one of Gove's leading officials last week recommended that £35m be taken from funds for free school meals and redirected into the policy of free schools.

 

Gove appears to endorse the idea in the memo, which was leaked to Channel Four. Tonight the Department for Education would not deny the memo existed, but said it planned to use £50m from a pot that helped schools choose the right computer equipment to fund the new schools and to argue for more money from the Treasury in the spending review. The Department for Education said no money was coming from free school meals to fund the schools.

 

 

Cutting the money to the poorest to help the richest set up their own schools. Its not taking long for the evil cunts to show their true colours

 

They always have and always will be horrible bastards - that wanker osbourne will be sitting on a bike outside no.10 telling us to get on ours next - honestly, they might as well be telling the normal working man to fuck off while they piss themselves laughing - this isn't going to end well

[Matt 0]

While the UK simply isn't ready for the 'Free School' concept it looks like we're getting it.

 

There is an element of truth that the worst schools had a disproportionate amount of money lobbed at them and think Labour's approach to education favoured remedial action for the worst cases rather than setting out a target of excellence and helping schools and pupils attain that.

 

Hundreds of thousands (probably millions tbh) was spent on places like Westgate and Blakelaw but the dregs who attended the old schools were the same dregs who turned up at the next ones. Didn't one of them go back to their 'old branding' after a year and went through about 4 headteachers in as many terms?

 

For me the concept will massively help kids who are unucky enough to live in shit areas and have their education and prospects ruined as the one-size-fits-all education system drags everyone down to the lowest common denominator. However at the same time it offers virtually no hope to those unlucky enough to be born to scumbag parents who couldn't give a toss where their kid goes to school as long as it keeps them out of the house.

 

Education should be without doubt the tightest ringfence of all budgets. It is what will ultimately decide the fate of the country's future. However the mooted 'voucher system' (dressed-up privatisation), higher university tuition fees and commercial interest on student loans indicate that it's going to become a rich boy's closed shop again.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

Its madness in this country that so many kids go on to do degrees, particularly at the tax payers expense.

 

Some of the stupid fucking subjects they now do degrees in make no sense. Much better ploughing that same money into apprenticeships.

[Matt 0]

Its madness in this country that so many kids go on to do degrees, particularly at the tax payers expense.

 

They'll be paying tax for the 50-odd years after the 3 spent at university, you know.

 

The Tories have it in them to ensure top universities become enjoyed only by the wealthy. Increase tuition fees, commercial rates of loans, present 18 year olds with a nice mountain of debt if they want to go to uni. That's right pleb, know your place and get yourself down to the production line.*

 

Hope they prove me wrong.

 

*Have to point out that Labour very nearly did exactly the same thing about 7 years ago.

[Monkeys Fist 38836]

Now we know why the liberals are so keen on electoral reform....

 

What with this and the gay liberal these liberals are a right bunch of sleazemeisters

 

 

 

In a statement given to the newspaper the MP said: "I am in a serious relationship with Carina Trimingham and I am separating from my wife."

 

Mr Huhne was married to his wife for 26 years and has three children and two stepchildren.

 

Ms Trimingham is believed to work for the Electoral Reform Society.

 

More follows...

 

Politics to one side, I cannot fucking stand Chris Huhne.

 

Breaking up his marriage for this!

 

I did not know Noel Gallagher was gay.

[Dr Kenneth Noisewater 0]

I did not know Noel Gallagher was gay.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

Its madness in this country that so many kids go on to do degrees, particularly at the tax payers expense.

 

They'll be paying tax for the 50-odd years after the 3 spent at university, you know.

 

The Tories have it in them to ensure top universities become enjoyed only by the wealthy. Increase tuition fees, commercial rates of loans, present 18 year olds with a nice mountain of debt if they want to go to uni. That's right pleb, know your place and get yourself down to the production line.*

 

Hope they prove me wrong.

 

*Have to point out that Labour very nearly did exactly the same thing about 7 years ago.

 

Universities and degrees imo, should be there for the brightest in the land regardless of wealth. Recently it seems to have been decided that everyone should get a degree.

 

Fair enough if your going to be a teacher, lawyer, engineer etc. But so many just going to do jewelry making, media studies, and various tosh that really wont stand them well for the jobs that are available after uni.

 

We do need our bin men, asda workers, window cleaners, call centre staff, factory workers etc.

 

Millions gets wasted every year trying to shoe horn some of these kids through the college / a level route when there is just no point.

 

Let degrees go back to actually meaning something so the brightest in the land rise run our companies and make the nation better equipped to compete.

[NJS 3986]

Hate to tell you CT, Brightest <> Richest.

 

Why shouldn't someone as thick as Prince Harry be a binman?

 

You may say the brightest poor kids will get there anyway - that's the usual excuse but the "quite bright but not top notch" poor kid will lose out to the rich kid of similar ability every time and that's what's wrong.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

Hate to tell you CT, Brightest <> Richest.

 

Why shouldn't someone as thick as Prince Harry be a binman?

 

You may say the brightest poor kids will get there anyway - that's the usual excuse but the "quite bright but not top notch" poor kid will lose out to the rich kid of similar ability every time and that's what's wrong.

 

 

Its about balance and currently the balance is far too much to the wrong end of the scale.

[NJS 3986]

Hate to tell you CT, Brightest <> Richest.

 

Why shouldn't someone as thick as Prince Harry be a binman?

 

You may say the brightest poor kids will get there anyway - that's the usual excuse but the "quite bright but not top notch" poor kid will lose out to the rich kid of similar ability every time and that's what's wrong.

 

 

Its about balance and currently the balance is far too much to the wrong end of the scale.

 

I don't dispute the fact that there may be too many graduates - the point is that as Matt said the way they want to re-balance that is class warfare driven.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

NHS Targets on their way out.

 

First ones on their way seem to be the requirement for GPs to see people within 48 hours, the four-hour A&E target and the 18-week waiting target.

 

They form part of a drive to save money on management costs across the health service and reflect a major shift from how the NHS operated under Labour.

 

But in the lead up to the election the Tories claimed it was time to move away from the target culture and instead focus more on the quality of treatment.

 

Mr Lansley said: "I want to free the NHS from bureaucracy and targets that have no clinical justification and move to an NHS which measures its performance on patient outcomes.

 

"Doctors will be free to focus on the outcomes that matter - providing quality patient care."

 

Whats the word inside the NHS Renton about the general target culture?

Edited June 21, 2010 by Christmas Tree

[Renton 17828]

NHS Targets on their way out.

 

First ones on their way seem to be the requirement for GPs to see people within 48 hours, the four-hour A&E target and the 18-week waiting target.

 

They form part of a drive to save money on management costs across the health service and reflect a major shift from how the NHS operated under Labour.

 

But in the lead up to the election the Tories claimed it was time to move away from the target culture and instead focus more on the quality of treatment.

 

Mr Lansley said: "I want to free the NHS from bureaucracy and targets that have no clinical justification and move to an NHS which measures its performance on patient outcomes.

 

"Doctors will be free to focus on the outcomes that matter - providing quality patient care."

 

Whats the word inside the NHS Renton about the general target culture?

 

It's not really my concern but I fail to see how you can improve quality of care without having objective targets. The NHS is certain to decline under this government.

 

Of more interest to me from a personal point of view is what happens to NICE. Rumours are afoot big changes are coming, none of which will be good imo.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

NHS Targets on their way out.

 

First ones on their way seem to be the requirement for GPs to see people within 48 hours, the four-hour A&E target and the 18-week waiting target.

 

They form part of a drive to save money on management costs across the health service and reflect a major shift from how the NHS operated under Labour.

 

But in the lead up to the election the Tories claimed it was time to move away from the target culture and instead focus more on the quality of treatment.

 

Mr Lansley said: "I want to free the NHS from bureaucracy and targets that have no clinical justification and move to an NHS which measures its performance on patient outcomes.

 

"Doctors will be free to focus on the outcomes that matter - providing quality patient care."

 

Whats the word inside the NHS Renton about the general target culture?

 

It's not really my concern but I fail to see how you can improve quality of care without having objective targets. The NHS is certain to decline under this government.

 

Of more interest to me from a personal point of view is what happens to NICE. Rumours are afoot big changes are coming, none of which will be good imo.

 

 

Fair enough I was mainly asking from an insiders point of view as to how the targets culture over the last few years had gone down. Thought it may have been the sort of stuff you discussed with the nurses and doctors in the canteen over lunch.

[ChezGiven 0]

Targets are absolutely utterly essential in any public service. This is why:

 

When you are an investor with capital looking at a range of alternative choice of where to put your money (a new factory, a new machine, a new company, a stock etc), you perform a return on investment calculation.

 

Just like the virtually unlimited choices faced by the private investor, a public investor (ie. a public service) is also faced with a range of choices. For example the Dept of Transport has a number of alternative choices regarding new motorway investments. The decision over which to take (we cant do them all) will be based on a cost-benefit appraisal looking to maximise economic benefits from a given level of investment (the term used is technical efficiency). How do you measure the benefits of the new motorway? Well, probably a lot easier than you think as most of the benefits can be measure using economic variables and indicators.

 

Now apply the same desire to use money in an efficient way to healthcare spending. What metrics are you going to use to determine how well money is being spent? If you have a choice between building a hospital or investing in 3 new outpatient clinics, which one would you choose and why? (this question was the first i was asked when i was interviewed by the head of the Govt economic service)

 

The question was first posed by Archie Cochrane and Alan Williams when they were both seconded to the DoH in the 60s. They proposed that decisions taken in the DoH should be consistent with those taken in the Dept of Transport. That public expenditure should be formally related to its benefits. The intractable problem in healthcare is measuring benefits (and for the purposes of investment putting them into the same currency so that alternatives could be compared). Targets are one way of ensuring that money spent is related to what the healthcare system is trying to acheive, ie better health.

 

Therefore, a healthcare system that does not measure its activity and relate that activity to its cost base is one that is run by retards who should not be in charge of spending our taxes. In short, there is no debate (in the DoH anyway) on whether to use them but only on which ones to use and how.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

NHS Targets on their way out.

 

First ones on their way seem to be the requirement for GPs to see people within 48 hours, the four-hour A&E target and the 18-week waiting target.

 

They form part of a drive to save money on management costs across the health service and reflect a major shift from how the NHS operated under Labour.

 

But in the lead up to the election the Tories claimed it was time to move away from the target culture and instead focus more on the quality of treatment.

 

Mr Lansley said: "I want to free the NHS from bureaucracy and targets that have no clinical justification and move to an NHS which measures its performance on patient outcomes.

 

"Doctors will be free to focus on the outcomes that matter - providing quality patient care."

 

Whats the word inside the NHS Renton about the general target culture?

 

It's not really my concern but I fail to see how you can improve quality of care without having objective targets. The NHS is certain to decline under this government.

 

Of more interest to me from a personal point of view is what happens to NICE. Rumours are afoot big changes are coming, none of which will be good imo.

 

 

I guess that depends on its true value with regard to taxpayers money. (Not that I know anything about nice).

 

Sometimes these organisations start out as a very good idea and well intentioned and then over time, department building takes place, and before you know it you have hundreds / thousands of managers suddenly trying to come up with new ideas to justify their department / wage.

 

I suppose when theres no money left and a government is trying not to reduce front line services, it is this sort of organisation that looks easy prey.

 

Im sure that it does do lots of good stuff though. good luck.

[Renton 17828]

NHS Targets on their way out.

 

First ones on their way seem to be the requirement for GPs to see people within 48 hours, the four-hour A&E target and the 18-week waiting target.

 

They form part of a drive to save money on management costs across the health service and reflect a major shift from how the NHS operated under Labour.

 

But in the lead up to the election the Tories claimed it was time to move away from the target culture and instead focus more on the quality of treatment.

 

Mr Lansley said: "I want to free the NHS from bureaucracy and targets that have no clinical justification and move to an NHS which measures its performance on patient outcomes.

 

"Doctors will be free to focus on the outcomes that matter - providing quality patient care."

 

Whats the word inside the NHS Renton about the general target culture?

 

It's not really my concern but I fail to see how you can improve quality of care without having objective targets. The NHS is certain to decline under this government.

 

Of more interest to me from a personal point of view is what happens to NICE. Rumours are afoot big changes are coming, none of which will be good imo.

 

 

Fair enough I was mainly asking from an insiders point of view as to how the targets culture over the last few years had gone down. Thought it may have been the sort of stuff you discussed with the nurses and doctors in the canteen over lunch.

 

Naah, I'm quite detached from the clinical realities of the NHS really. I'm more involved with clinical effectivenss of interventions, and more recently cost effectiveness.

 

Seriously though, I'm not being partisan here when I say this government doesn't seem to have a clue what its doing regarding healthcare. For instance, before the election, Cameron promised a chest of money for the provision of cancer treatments. This just sounds like popularist bullshit to me. Early days still, we'll see soon enough.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

Targets are absolutely utterly essential in any public service. This is why:

 

When you are an investor with capital looking at a range of alternative choice of where to put your money (a new factory, a new machine, a new company, a stock etc), you perform a return on investment calculation.

 

Just like the virtually unlimited choices faced by the private investor, a public investor (ie. a public service) is also faced with a range of choices. For example the Dept of Transport has a number of alternative choices regarding new motorway investments. The decision over which to take (we cant do them all) will be based on a cost-benefit appraisal looking to maximise economic benefits from a given level of investment (the term used is technical efficiency). How do you measure the benefits of the new motorway? Well, probably a lot easier than you think as most of the benefits can be measure using economic variables and indicators.

 

Now apply the same desire to use money in an efficient way to healthcare spending. What metrics are you going to use to determine how well money is being spent? If you have a choice between building a hospital or investing in 3 new outpatient clinics, which one would you choose and why? (this question was the first i was asked when i was interviewed by the head of the Govt economic service)

 

The question was first posed by Archie Cochrane and Alan Williams when they were both seconded to the DoH in the 60s. They proposed that decisions taken in the DoH should be consistent with those taken in the Dept of Transport. That public expenditure should be formally related to its benefits. The intractable problem in healthcare is measuring benefits (and for the purposes of investment putting them into the same currency so that alternatives could be compared). Targets are one way of ensuring that money spent is related to what the healthcare system is trying to acheive, ie better health.

 

Therefore, a healthcare system that does not measure its activity and relate that activity to its cost base is one that is run by retards who should not be in charge of spending our taxes. In short, there is no debate (in the DoH anyway) on whether to use them but only on which ones to use and how.

 

 

Coming from a business background Im all too familiar with being able to "measure" as much as possible, be it sales persons performance, product performance or ruturn on advertising spend etc etc.

 

But...

 

We there are some truths that need adding in to your logical argument.

 

1. There is no money left.

 

Somethings going to have to give. Frontline or backroom?

 

 

2. As in all walks of life there will be good targets and stupid targets.

 

Anyone who has worked for a company will know all about departmental empire builders. Just look at your average Personnel department over the last 15 years or so. Staffing laws, health and safety, risk assesment, training.....an endless list that increases year on year as "managers" think up something else we should be "measuring".

 

 

3. The cost to taxpayer / patients and health workers time on meeting those targets.

 

I would never have taken by best salesperson off the shop floor to stand at the door and count the number of customers coming in or walking by...It used to happen. Similarly how much of a health workers time is taken up filling out targets, monitoring timespans etc. The same is very often mentioned by police officers.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

NHS Targets on their way out.

 

First ones on their way seem to be the requirement for GPs to see people within 48 hours, the four-hour A&E target and the 18-week waiting target.

 

They form part of a drive to save money on management costs across the health service and reflect a major shift from how the NHS operated under Labour.

 

But in the lead up to the election the Tories claimed it was time to move away from the target culture and instead focus more on the quality of treatment.

 

Mr Lansley said: "I want to free the NHS from bureaucracy and targets that have no clinical justification and move to an NHS which measures its performance on patient outcomes.

 

"Doctors will be free to focus on the outcomes that matter - providing quality patient care."

 

Whats the word inside the NHS Renton about the general target culture?

 

It's not really my concern but I fail to see how you can improve quality of care without having objective targets. The NHS is certain to decline under this government.

 

Of more interest to me from a personal point of view is what happens to NICE. Rumours are afoot big changes are coming, none of which will be good imo.

 

 

Fair enough I was mainly asking from an insiders point of view as to how the targets culture over the last few years had gone down. Thought it may have been the sort of stuff you discussed with the nurses and doctors in the canteen over lunch.

 

Naah, I'm quite detached from the clinical realities of the NHS really. I'm more involved with clinical effectivenss of interventions, and more recently cost effectiveness.

 

Seriously though, I'm not being partisan here when I say this government doesn't seem to have a clue what its doing regarding healthcare. For instance, before the election, Cameron promised a chest of money for the provision of cancer treatments. This just sounds like popularist bullshit to me. Early days still, we'll see soon enough.

 

 

If your not been partisan then you'll agree their decisions have being reduced somewhat by the state of the countries finances.

 

Have you also noted that Asda is to start selling all Cancer drugs at cost.