Politics

[Renton 18038]

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.

 

Just chatting about this at lunch. The clinicians are all agreed that the targets are being removed as a prelude to reducing the quality of service. Makes perfect sense if you think about it.

 

Btw CT, Cameron had promised the NHS would not be affected by his cuts. Looks like that was a lie then.

 

Cough, Cough

 

What on Earth are you talking about? This budget was never going to be about funding to the NHS, that will come later, no doubt when they've checked the books again and they're strangely in a worse state than anticipated - again!

 

I'll remind you though of what Cameron said before the election, which was basically that doctor's will be able to prescribe any anticancer drug they want regardless of whether NICE has deemed it cost effective or not. Now, that is either the most blatent example of electioneering I have ever heard - because that promise is clearly undeliverable at the best of times let alone now - or it means Cameron hasn't got a clue about the economics of the health service. So which is it in your opinion?

 

As for this budget, really its quite underwhelming isn't it? It's been built up to be something it's not, probably deliberately. However, as the COnservatives are fixing it so that they will have 5 years of power, even though they are a minority government, they have plenty of time to screw us over.

 

Amazing stuff, even by your standards

 

Care to elaborate what you mean?

 

 

Was it a lie... yes or no...Simples

 

Was what a lie? The departmental budget hasn't been anounced yet. But considering they are removing targets in readiness to decrease service provision, I am fairly sure frontline cuts must be coming.

 

What about Cameron's promise to fund all cancer drugs regardless of cost effectiveness? Do you believe that?

[Renton 18038]

Are there any Liberal Democrat voters on here? If so I would like to hear what they think of the party and Clegg after this budget.

 

I voted for the cunts but I always have done, (Sort of in the family,Nan was a good friend of David Steele)

 

Osborne has made Thatcher look like a benevolent defender of the poorest members of society this afternoon...I hope Clegg and the rest of the bandwagon jumpers can look the grass roots in the face at the next party conference..

 

 

What a load of drivel

 

Wheres your vitriol for the fuckers who got us into this mess.

 

Labour fucked up big time, but they improved a lot of things in this country and what they did in comparison with certain bankers was fuckin childs play....no city fuck up= little or no current recession in my book. Then no need for Brown to be blamed for everything from the 10p tax rate to the crucifiction of christ and perhaps we'd still have a government that for the most part (and despite their many and glaring faults) actually wanted to make life better for ordinary people.This lot don't and never will.

 

But they didn't. The Labour government was the worst case of Orwell's animal farm syndrome ever. In the 13 years they were in power the gap between the richest and poorest rose. The amount of children in poverty grew and we decided to back the most right wing government in America in centuries. Added on top of that the absolute fuck up over bank regulation which gets despicable when you see that the head of RBS was whispering in Browns ear plus the corruption in Labour counvcils which I have proof of. The last 13 years saw the most un Labour Labour party in history.

 

 

Spot on and very sad for genuine Labour supporters who now have to bear the shame.

 

Relative poverty might be unchanged (or may be worse, I'd like to see some independent figures), but absolute poverty has certainly declined. Anyone with eyes and a brain should know that. Labour embraced free market capitalism, yes. There was really little option though as traditional socialism had been rejected four elections on the trot. They went for what worked, and for the large part, it did work.

 

Besides, if Labour has drifted to the right then that should appease the likes of you, shouldn't it?

[Phil 6]

One thing that needs to be done is to sack 90% of the staff in jobcentreplus and to just sort out the whole unemployment system. It seems to be a never ending maze of unhelpful people, rules that exclude those who are seeking jobs, and inefficiency. From my experiences, it is all so convoluted and poorly run that those who seek jobs are penalised, yet those who 'play the game' find it easier to get some money for fags and Sky TV.

 

 

Totally agree with this.

 

Pretty much always been the case though.

 

 

I honestly thought people went to the job center to sign-on, not to look for jobs.

 

Until the governemt bring in a law to say all jobs must go through the job centre, it should really be renamed the dole centre.

[NJS 4002]

I honestly thought people went to the job center to sign-on, not to look for jobs.

 

Until the governemt bring in a law to say all jobs must go through the job centre, it should really be renamed the dole centre.

 

I read something about this the other week - they've tied in a contracted out agency type service with forcing people to prove they are looking for jobs. It does seem that anecdotally, the staff are not the best.

[Phil 6]

I honestly thought people went to the job center to sign-on, not to look for jobs.

 

Until the governemt bring in a law to say all jobs must go through the job centre, it should really be renamed the dole centre.

 

I read something about this the other week - they've tied in a contracted out agency type service with forcing people to prove they are looking for jobs. It does seem that anecdotally, the staff are not the best.

 

I can't see how an external agency can do it better than the internal one.

 

The employment issue stems from the lack of good jobs. So the key is to reward low income workers so there's a financial incentive to take a sh*t job.

[Tom 13915]

Like pay of more than £45 a week?

[Billy Castell 0]

I honestly thought people went to the job center to sign-on, not to look for jobs.

 

Until the governemt bring in a law to say all jobs must go through the job centre, it should really be renamed the dole centre.

 

I read something about this the other week - they've tied in a contracted out agency type service with forcing people to prove they are looking for jobs. It does seem that anecdotally, the staff are not the best.

 

The staff are normally shit. I'll be honest and say that I'm looking for a job after moving to Coventry, and the staff couldn't give a crap whether I get any money, actually bother to look for a job etc. The whole atmosphere about the Jobcentre thing seems geared to confounding those who need a bit of money to help them during a bad period, and just help those who want to make a 'career' of signing on. They offer nothing if you want to have funding for a course such as an AAT or finding an apprenticeship, and the answer to every other enquiry is to fob you off and make you ring some scouser you'll never meet. And that is usually an 0845 number you have to ring for an hour to get through to anyone.

 

Its like no-one really gives a shit about those who actually want to work, and deliberately make things difficult because they think everyone who doesn't have a job is not worth the steam off their piss. Put it this way, I might have well not bothered to apply for the 30 or 40 jobs I have done, as the computer says no, and the staff don't care.

 

P.S. They're withdrawing my brother-in-law's disability benefits as he isn't disabled. He has no eyes in his head, but he isn't disabled.

Edited June 23, 2010 by Billy Castell

[The Fish 9216]

I honestly thought people went to the job center to sign-on, not to look for jobs.

 

Until the governemt bring in a law to say all jobs must go through the job centre, it should really be renamed the dole centre.

 

I read something about this the other week - they've tied in a contracted out agency type service with forcing people to prove they are looking for jobs. It does seem that anecdotally, the staff are not the best.

 

The staff are normally shit. I'll be honest and say that I'm looking for a job after moving to Coventry, and the staff couldn't give a crap whether I get any money, actually bother to look for a job etc. The whole atmosphere about the Jobcentre thing seems geared to confounding those who need a bit of money to help them during a bad period, and just help those who want to make a 'career' of signing on. They offer nothing if you want to have funding for a course such as an AAT or finding an apprenticeship, and the answer to every other enquiry is to fob you off and make you ring some scouser you'll never meet. And that is usually an 0845 number you have to ring for an hour to get through to anyone.

 

Its like no-one really gives a shit about those who actually want to work, and deliberately make things difficult because they think everyone who doesn't have a job is not worth the steam off their piss. Put it this way, I might have well not bothered to apply for the 30 or 40 jobs I have done, as the computer says no, and the staff don't care.

 

P.S. They're withdrawing my brother-in-law's disability benefits as he isn't disabled. He has no eyes in his head, but he isn't disabled.

 

You're right, the fact that a growing proportion of claimants are not interested in finding work shouldn't excuse the disdain they show for everyone who visits a Job Centre.

 

p.s. is your brother-in-law DareDevil?

[Billy Castell 0]

Apparently he is Daredevil . Well, he's trying out for the paralympics Judo team, despite his missus whining about him not being there to look after their daughter, and telling him not to do it.

 

As for the job centre, and the whole system, I can understand why some people think "stuff this, I'm getting a spaz chariot and pretend I'm a cripple" after the complete lack of help from those who are supposed to help through difficult times. By the way, I'm not costing tax payers anything as they're not giving me a penny.

[Christmas Tree 4003]

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.

 

Just chatting about this at lunch. The clinicians are all agreed that the targets are being removed as a prelude to reducing the quality of service. Makes perfect sense if you think about it.

 

Btw CT, Cameron had promised the NHS would not be affected by his cuts. Looks like that was a lie then.

 

Cough, Cough

 

What on Earth are you talking about? This budget was never going to be about funding to the NHS, that will come later, no doubt when they've checked the books again and they're strangely in a worse state than anticipated - again!

 

I'll remind you though of what Cameron said before the election, which was basically that doctor's will be able to prescribe any anticancer drug they want regardless of whether NICE has deemed it cost effective or not. Now, that is either the most blatent example of electioneering I have ever heard - because that promise is clearly undeliverable at the best of times let alone now - or it means Cameron hasn't got a clue about the economics of the health service. So which is it in your opinion?

 

As for this budget, really its quite underwhelming isn't it? It's been built up to be something it's not, probably deliberately. However, as the COnservatives are fixing it so that they will have 5 years of power, even though they are a minority government, they have plenty of time to screw us over.

 

Amazing stuff, even by your standards

 

Care to elaborate what you mean?

 

 

Was it a lie... yes or no...Simples

 

Was what a lie?

 

You said Cameron lied about not cutting the NHS budget. They have said very clearly....They are not cutting the NHS budget.

 

 

they are removing targets in readiness to decrease service provision, I am fairly sure frontline cuts must be coming.

 

They are removing some targets because they think some targets are shit. The money saved will be re-spent within the NHS. Once again they have said there will be no cuts.

 

[Christmas Tree 4003]

Are there any Liberal Democrat voters on here? If so I would like to hear what they think of the party and Clegg after this budget.

 

I voted for the cunts but I always have done, (Sort of in the family,Nan was a good friend of David Steele)

 

Osborne has made Thatcher look like a benevolent defender of the poorest members of society this afternoon...I hope Clegg and the rest of the bandwagon jumpers can look the grass roots in the face at the next party conference..

 

 

What a load of drivel

 

Wheres your vitriol for the fuckers who got us into this mess.

 

Labour fucked up big time, but they improved a lot of things in this country and what they did in comparison with certain bankers was fuckin childs play....no city fuck up= little or no current recession in my book. Then no need for Brown to be blamed for everything from the 10p tax rate to the crucifiction of christ and perhaps we'd still have a government that for the most part (and despite their many and glaring faults) actually wanted to make life better for ordinary people.This lot don't and never will.

 

But they didn't. The Labour government was the worst case of Orwell's animal farm syndrome ever. In the 13 years they were in power the gap between the richest and poorest rose. The amount of children in poverty grew and we decided to back the most right wing government in America in centuries. Added on top of that the absolute fuck up over bank regulation which gets despicable when you see that the head of RBS was whispering in Browns ear plus the corruption in Labour counvcils which I have proof of. The last 13 years saw the most un Labour Labour party in history.

 

 

Spot on and very sad for genuine Labour supporters who now have to bear the shame.

 

Relative poverty might be unchanged (or may be worse, I'd like to see some independent figures), but absolute poverty has certainly declined. Anyone with eyes and a brain should know that. Labour embraced free market capitalism, yes. There was really little option though as traditional socialism had been rejected four elections on the trot. They went for what worked, and for the large part, it did work.

 

Besides, if Labour has drifted to the right then that should appease the likes of you, shouldn't it?

 

Child poverty went up by 100,000 under Labour since 2004....(Labours own figures)

[LeazesMag 0]

Are there any Liberal Democrat voters on here? If so I would like to hear what they think of the party and Clegg after this budget.

 

I voted for the cunts but I always have done, (Sort of in the family,Nan was a good friend of David Steele)

 

Osborne has made Thatcher look like a benevolent defender of the poorest members of society this afternoon...I hope Clegg and the rest of the bandwagon jumpers can look the grass roots in the face at the next party conference..

 

 

What a load of drivel

 

Wheres your vitriol for the fuckers who got us into this mess.

 

Labour fucked up big time, but they improved a lot of things in this country and what they did in comparison with certain bankers was fuckin childs play....no city fuck up= little or no current recession in my book. Then no need for Brown to be blamed for everything from the 10p tax rate to the crucifiction of christ and perhaps we'd still have a government that for the most part (and despite their many and glaring faults) actually wanted to make life better for ordinary people.This lot don't and never will.

 

But they didn't. The Labour government was the worst case of Orwell's animal farm syndrome ever. In the 13 years they were in power the gap between the richest and poorest rose. The amount of children in poverty grew and we decided to back the most right wing government in America in centuries. Added on top of that the absolute fuck up over bank regulation which gets despicable when you see that the head of RBS was whispering in Browns ear plus the corruption in Labour counvcils which I have proof of. The last 13 years saw the most un Labour Labour party in history.

 

 

Spot on and very sad for genuine Labour supporters who now have to bear the shame.

 

Relative poverty might be unchanged (or may be worse, I'd like to see some independent figures), but absolute poverty has certainly declined. Anyone with eyes and a brain should know that. Labour embraced free market capitalism, yes. There was really little option though as traditional socialism had been rejected four elections on the trot. They went for what worked, and for the large part, it did work.

 

Besides, if Labour has drifted to the right then that should appease the likes of you, shouldn't it?

 

Child poverty went up by 100,000 under Labour since 2004....(Labours own figures)

 

didn't your hero say they wouldn't raise VAT in his election "promises"

[Renton 18038]

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.

 

Just chatting about this at lunch. The clinicians are all agreed that the targets are being removed as a prelude to reducing the quality of service. Makes perfect sense if you think about it.

 

Btw CT, Cameron had promised the NHS would not be affected by his cuts. Looks like that was a lie then.

 

Cough, Cough

 

What on Earth are you talking about? This budget was never going to be about funding to the NHS, that will come later, no doubt when they've checked the books again and they're strangely in a worse state than anticipated - again!

 

I'll remind you though of what Cameron said before the election, which was basically that doctor's will be able to prescribe any anticancer drug they want regardless of whether NICE has deemed it cost effective or not. Now, that is either the most blatent example of electioneering I have ever heard - because that promise is clearly undeliverable at the best of times let alone now - or it means Cameron hasn't got a clue about the economics of the health service. So which is it in your opinion?

 

As for this budget, really its quite underwhelming isn't it? It's been built up to be something it's not, probably deliberately. However, as the COnservatives are fixing it so that they will have 5 years of power, even though they are a minority government, they have plenty of time to screw us over.

 

Amazing stuff, even by your standards

 

Care to elaborate what you mean?

 

 

Was it a lie... yes or no...Simples

 

Was what a lie?

 

You said Cameron lied about not cutting the NHS budget. They have said very clearly....They are not cutting the NHS budget.

 

 

they are removing targets in readiness to decrease service provision, I am fairly sure frontline cuts must be coming.

 

They are removing some targets because they think some targets are shit. The money saved will be re-spent within the NHS. Once again they have said there will be no cuts.

 

 

I know what's been promised but that doesn't mean he will keep his promises over the course of a parliament does it? I don't know anyone working in the NHS who believes there will be no cuts. We'll have to wait and see, but I stand by my comment that the reason for removing targets in the NHS is likely to be because services are going to be adversely affected. They also anounced this week that the new Stockton hospital was being cancelled - is that not a cut in your world?

 

Now, a question for you, do you think the 18 week target was 'shit'? If so, why? Removing it paves the way back for two year waiting lists - is this acceptable to you?

[Christmas Tree 4003]

Are there any Liberal Democrat voters on here? If so I would like to hear what they think of the party and Clegg after this budget.

 

I voted for the cunts but I always have done, (Sort of in the family,Nan was a good friend of David Steele)

 

Osborne has made Thatcher look like a benevolent defender of the poorest members of society this afternoon...I hope Clegg and the rest of the bandwagon jumpers can look the grass roots in the face at the next party conference..

 

 

What a load of drivel

 

Wheres your vitriol for the fuckers who got us into this mess.

 

Labour fucked up big time, but they improved a lot of things in this country and what they did in comparison with certain bankers was fuckin childs play....no city fuck up= little or no current recession in my book. Then no need for Brown to be blamed for everything from the 10p tax rate to the crucifiction of christ and perhaps we'd still have a government that for the most part (and despite their many and glaring faults) actually wanted to make life better for ordinary people.This lot don't and never will.

 

But they didn't. The Labour government was the worst case of Orwell's animal farm syndrome ever. In the 13 years they were in power the gap between the richest and poorest rose. The amount of children in poverty grew and we decided to back the most right wing government in America in centuries. Added on top of that the absolute fuck up over bank regulation which gets despicable when you see that the head of RBS was whispering in Browns ear plus the corruption in Labour counvcils which I have proof of. The last 13 years saw the most un Labour Labour party in history.

 

 

Spot on and very sad for genuine Labour supporters who now have to bear the shame.

 

Relative poverty might be unchanged (or may be worse, I'd like to see some independent figures), but absolute poverty has certainly declined. Anyone with eyes and a brain should know that. Labour embraced free market capitalism, yes. There was really little option though as traditional socialism had been rejected four elections on the trot. They went for what worked, and for the large part, it did work.

 

Besides, if Labour has drifted to the right then that should appease the likes of you, shouldn't it?

 

Child poverty went up by 100,000 under Labour since 2004....(Labours own figures)

 

didn't your hero say they wouldn't raise VAT in his election "promises"

 

 

No

[LeazesMag 0]

Are there any Liberal Democrat voters on here? If so I would like to hear what they think of the party and Clegg after this budget.

 

I voted for the cunts but I always have done, (Sort of in the family,Nan was a good friend of David Steele)

 

Osborne has made Thatcher look like a benevolent defender of the poorest members of society this afternoon...I hope Clegg and the rest of the bandwagon jumpers can look the grass roots in the face at the next party conference..

 

 

What a load of drivel

 

Wheres your vitriol for the fuckers who got us into this mess.

 

Labour fucked up big time, but they improved a lot of things in this country and what they did in comparison with certain bankers was fuckin childs play....no city fuck up= little or no current recession in my book. Then no need for Brown to be blamed for everything from the 10p tax rate to the crucifiction of christ and perhaps we'd still have a government that for the most part (and despite their many and glaring faults) actually wanted to make life better for ordinary people.This lot don't and never will.

 

But they didn't. The Labour government was the worst case of Orwell's animal farm syndrome ever. In the 13 years they were in power the gap between the richest and poorest rose. The amount of children in poverty grew and we decided to back the most right wing government in America in centuries. Added on top of that the absolute fuck up over bank regulation which gets despicable when you see that the head of RBS was whispering in Browns ear plus the corruption in Labour counvcils which I have proof of. The last 13 years saw the most un Labour Labour party in history.

 

 

Spot on and very sad for genuine Labour supporters who now have to bear the shame.

 

Relative poverty might be unchanged (or may be worse, I'd like to see some independent figures), but absolute poverty has certainly declined. Anyone with eyes and a brain should know that. Labour embraced free market capitalism, yes. There was really little option though as traditional socialism had been rejected four elections on the trot. They went for what worked, and for the large part, it did work.

 

Besides, if Labour has drifted to the right then that should appease the likes of you, shouldn't it?

 

Child poverty went up by 100,000 under Labour since 2004....(Labours own figures)

 

didn't your hero say they wouldn't raise VAT in his election "promises"

 

 

No

 

 

he did

 

and from the Daily Mail too

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12...x-increase.html

 

Hardly got started and he's lied already

 

And just for good measure.........

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2...put-up-VAT.html

 

"We have absolutely no plans to raise VAT. Our first budget is all about recognising we need to get spending under control rather than putting up tax."

Edited June 23, 2010 by LeazesMag

[Renton 18038]

Are there any Liberal Democrat voters on here? If so I would like to hear what they think of the party and Clegg after this budget.

 

I voted for the cunts but I always have done, (Sort of in the family,Nan was a good friend of David Steele)

 

Osborne has made Thatcher look like a benevolent defender of the poorest members of society this afternoon...I hope Clegg and the rest of the bandwagon jumpers can look the grass roots in the face at the next party conference..

 

 

What a load of drivel

 

Wheres your vitriol for the fuckers who got us into this mess.

 

Labour fucked up big time, but they improved a lot of things in this country and what they did in comparison with certain bankers was fuckin childs play....no city fuck up= little or no current recession in my book. Then no need for Brown to be blamed for everything from the 10p tax rate to the crucifiction of christ and perhaps we'd still have a government that for the most part (and despite their many and glaring faults) actually wanted to make life better for ordinary people.This lot don't and never will.

 

But they didn't. The Labour government was the worst case of Orwell's animal farm syndrome ever. In the 13 years they were in power the gap between the richest and poorest rose. The amount of children in poverty grew and we decided to back the most right wing government in America in centuries. Added on top of that the absolute fuck up over bank regulation which gets despicable when you see that the head of RBS was whispering in Browns ear plus the corruption in Labour counvcils which I have proof of. The last 13 years saw the most un Labour Labour party in history.

 

 

Spot on and very sad for genuine Labour supporters who now have to bear the shame.

 

Relative poverty might be unchanged (or may be worse, I'd like to see some independent figures), but absolute poverty has certainly declined. Anyone with eyes and a brain should know that. Labour embraced free market capitalism, yes. There was really little option though as traditional socialism had been rejected four elections on the trot. They went for what worked, and for the large part, it did work.

 

Besides, if Labour has drifted to the right then that should appease the likes of you, shouldn't it?

 

Child poverty went up by 100,000 under Labour since 2004....(Labours own figures)

 

Have you got a link, out of interest? Just curious whether this is an absolute or relative measure.

 

Seems odd to criticise Labour for being too generous on welfare yet criticse them for worsening pverty at the same time. How can both be true?

[NJS 4002]

If they define poverty as a percentile of a median income, then obviously the number could go up while at the same time the number in deep shit could be reduced - ie if the country as a whole is so well off that everyone has 2 cars then only having one could be counted as being poor - while the number not having any would be less.

[Renton 18038]

If they define poverty as a percentile of a median income, then obviously the number could go up while at the same time the number in deep shit could be reduced - ie if the country as a whole is so well off that everyone has 2 cars then only having one could be counted as being poor - while the number not having any would be less.

 

Yeah, those were my thoughts. It's all relative and a child in poverty here is like a millionaire when compared to most countries. Although it's not good that the distribution of wealth has become more extreme I do believe Labour tried - and perhaps failed - at reducing it.

[NJS 4002]

I'm not one to spout patriotic "to be born in England is to win the lottery in life" bollocks and I do recognise some people are pretty poor but compared to almost every other country on earth we don't do badly.

 

If the US still counts as the richest country on earth then they definitely have a worse problem as I think they have obscene amounts of real poverty.

[ChezGiven 0]

The last time the Tories were in they tried to introduce market forces into the NHS by splitting up Purchasing services (RHAs, PCTs etc) from Providing services (hospitals etc). That split still exists today. What was predicted by economic theory (Le Grand circa 91 and a father of the Chicago school, Williamson) was that this would create huge transaction costs. That directly translates as 'lots of bureaucracy'. Or managers.

 

The reason for this is contracting and risk. Since each Purchaser can not know exactly how many services they will need over the budget year and each Provider doesnt know how may services they have to provide, the payment contracts become inordinately difficult to implement. The quantity can be monitored but the additional payments and fundings are difficult to price at the margin. The quality monitoring (already discussed here) produces targets that skew incentives away from giving good healthcare.

 

The whole Tory rhetoric on the NHS is one massive piss-take as it was their lot that brought in the massive management culture into the NHS in the mistaken belief that efficiency gains would outweigh the costs. Labour's subsequent record on the NHS was all the more remarkable given the mess it was in when they took over.

[Christmas Tree 4003]

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.

 

Just chatting about this at lunch. The clinicians are all agreed that the targets are being removed as a prelude to reducing the quality of service. Makes perfect sense if you think about it.

 

Btw CT, Cameron had promised the NHS would not be affected by his cuts. Looks like that was a lie then.

 

Cough, Cough

 

What on Earth are you talking about? This budget was never going to be about funding to the NHS, that will come later, no doubt when they've checked the books again and they're strangely in a worse state than anticipated - again!

 

I'll remind you though of what Cameron said before the election, which was basically that doctor's will be able to prescribe any anticancer drug they want regardless of whether NICE has deemed it cost effective or not. Now, that is either the most blatent example of electioneering I have ever heard - because that promise is clearly undeliverable at the best of times let alone now - or it means Cameron hasn't got a clue about the economics of the health service. So which is it in your opinion?

 

As for this budget, really its quite underwhelming isn't it? It's been built up to be something it's not, probably deliberately. However, as the COnservatives are fixing it so that they will have 5 years of power, even though they are a minority government, they have plenty of time to screw us over.

 

Amazing stuff, even by your standards :rolleyes:

 

Care to elaborate what you mean?

 

 

Was it a lie... yes or no...Simples

 

Was what a lie?

 

You said Cameron lied about not cutting the NHS budget. They have said very clearly....They are not cutting the NHS budget.

 

 

they are removing targets in readiness to decrease service provision, I am fairly sure frontline cuts must be coming.

 

They are removing some targets because they think some targets are shit. The money saved will be re-spent within the NHS. Once again they have said there will be no cuts.

 

 

I know what's been promised but that doesn't mean he will keep his promises over the course of a parliament does it? I don't know anyone working in the NHS who believes there will be no cuts. We'll have to wait and see, but I stand by my comment that the reason for removing targets in the NHS is likely to be because services are going to be adversely affected. They also anounced this week that the new Stockton hospital was being cancelled - is that not a cut in your world?

 

Now, a question for you, do you think the 18 week target was 'shit'? If so, why? Removing it paves the way back for two year waiting lists - is this acceptable to you?

 

 

Okay, so you agree Cameron hasnt lied.

 

With regard to the Stockton hospital its on public record that Mandelson promised the world pre election on lots of different projects, mainly in seats Labour were either trying to hang onto or trying to win. He promised money that wasnt there and that his own civil servants refused to sign off. The coalition have said they will re-evaluate these promises on a one by one basis and if they are "proper" projects that make economic sense in todays climate they will get the go-ahead.

 

They have agreed with the Nissan one but not this one.

 

I dont know enough about the 18 week target to comment, which is why I asked for your "inside" opinion. You have told me that "its not really your concern", so I guess we both need to hear the arguments for and against when they arise.

[LeazesMag 0]

The last time the Tories were in they tried to introduce market forces into the NHS by splitting up Purchasing services (RHAs, PCTs etc) from Providing services (hospitals etc). That split still exists today. What was predicted by economic theory (Le Grand circa 91 and a father of the Chicago school, Williamson) was that this would create huge transaction costs. That directly translates as 'lots of bureaucracy'. Or managers.

 

The reason for this is contracting and risk. Since each Purchaser can not know exactly how many services they will need over the budget year and each Provider doesnt know how may services they have to provide, the payment contracts become inordinately difficult to implement. The quantity can be monitored but the additional payments and fundings are difficult to price at the margin. The quality monitoring (already discussed here) produces targets that skew incentives away from giving good healthcare.

 

The whole Tory rhetoric on the NHS is one massive piss-take as it was their lot that brought in the massive management culture into the NHS in the mistaken belief that efficiency gains would outweigh the costs. Labour's subsequent record on the NHS was all the more remarkable given the mess it was in when they took over.

 

every time I hear the Tories harping on about the NHS it makes me laugh. So far as this particular baby is concerned, they are lying cunts and always have been.

[Christmas Tree 4003]

Are there any Liberal Democrat voters on here? If so I would like to hear what they think of the party and Clegg after this budget.

 

I voted for the cunts but I always have done, (Sort of in the family,Nan was a good friend of David Steele)

 

Osborne has made Thatcher look like a benevolent defender of the poorest members of society this afternoon...I hope Clegg and the rest of the bandwagon jumpers can look the grass roots in the face at the next party conference..

 

 

What a load of drivel

 

Wheres your vitriol for the fuckers who got us into this mess.

 

Labour fucked up big time, but they improved a lot of things in this country and what they did in comparison with certain bankers was fuckin childs play....no city fuck up= little or no current recession in my book. Then no need for Brown to be blamed for everything from the 10p tax rate to the crucifiction of christ and perhaps we'd still have a government that for the most part (and despite their many and glaring faults) actually wanted to make life better for ordinary people.This lot don't and never will.

 

But they didn't. The Labour government was the worst case of Orwell's animal farm syndrome ever. In the 13 years they were in power the gap between the richest and poorest rose. The amount of children in poverty grew and we decided to back the most right wing government in America in centuries. Added on top of that the absolute fuck up over bank regulation which gets despicable when you see that the head of RBS was whispering in Browns ear plus the corruption in Labour counvcils which I have proof of. The last 13 years saw the most un Labour Labour party in history.

 

 

Spot on and very sad for genuine Labour supporters who now have to bear the shame.

 

Relative poverty might be unchanged (or may be worse, I'd like to see some independent figures), but absolute poverty has certainly declined. Anyone with eyes and a brain should know that. Labour embraced free market capitalism, yes. There was really little option though as traditional socialism had been rejected four elections on the trot. They went for what worked, and for the large part, it did work.

 

Besides, if Labour has drifted to the right then that should appease the likes of you, shouldn't it?

 

Child poverty went up by 100,000 under Labour since 2004....(Labours own figures)

 

didn't your hero say they wouldn't raise VAT in his election "promises"

 

 

No

 

 

he did

 

and from the Daily Mail too

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12...x-increase.html

 

Hardly got started and he's lied already

 

And just for good measure.........

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2...put-up-VAT.html

 

"We have absolutely no plans to raise VAT. Our first budget is all about recognising we need to get spending under control rather than putting up tax."

 

 

Im suprised an old codger like you doesnt know the political difference between "we wont" and "we have no plans"

 

If you need a refresher heres a page detailing the 27 election pledges Labour broke in 2005 including such goodies as...

 

We will not raise the basic or top rates of income tax . . .

 

They lied, they did

 

http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2010/04/labou...o-promises.html

[Renton 18038]

Okay, so you agree Cameron hasnt lied.

 

With regard to the Stockton hospital its on public record that Mandelson promised the world pre election on lots of different projects, mainly in seats Labour were either trying to hang onto or trying to win. He promised money that wasnt there and that his own civil servants refused to sign off. The coalition have said they will re-evaluate these promises on a one by one basis and if they are "proper" projects that make economic sense in todays climate they will get the go-ahead.

 

They have agreed with the Nissan one but not this one.

 

I dont know enough about the 18 week target to comment, which is why I asked for your "inside" opinion. You have told me that "its not really your concern", so I guess we both need to hear the arguments for and against when they arise.

 

Since you are being so pedantic in your comment to LM I will be pedantic here - I haven't said he lied, I said it looks to me as if he has by scrapping these targets, and his impossible promise of anticancer drugs for everyone.

 

The targets aren't in my area of professional expertise, but their implications should be obviouis to the layman - the 18 week one at least. It effectively means you may be kept indefinitely on waiting lists for elective operations. Please tell me how this can possibly be a good thing?

[Renton 18038]

Are there any Liberal Democrat voters on here? If so I would like to hear what they think of the party and Clegg after this budget.

 

I voted for the cunts but I always have done, (Sort of in the family,Nan was a good friend of David Steele)

 

Osborne has made Thatcher look like a benevolent defender of the poorest members of society this afternoon...I hope Clegg and the rest of the bandwagon jumpers can look the grass roots in the face at the next party conference..

 

 

What a load of drivel

 

Wheres your vitriol for the fuckers who got us into this mess.

 

Labour fucked up big time, but they improved a lot of things in this country and what they did in comparison with certain bankers was fuckin childs play....no city fuck up= little or no current recession in my book. Then no need for Brown to be blamed for everything from the 10p tax rate to the crucifiction of christ and perhaps we'd still have a government that for the most part (and despite their many and glaring faults) actually wanted to make life better for ordinary people.This lot don't and never will.

 

But they didn't. The Labour government was the worst case of Orwell's animal farm syndrome ever. In the 13 years they were in power the gap between the richest and poorest rose. The amount of children in poverty grew and we decided to back the most right wing government in America in centuries. Added on top of that the absolute fuck up over bank regulation which gets despicable when you see that the head of RBS was whispering in Browns ear plus the corruption in Labour counvcils which I have proof of. The last 13 years saw the most un Labour Labour party in history.

 

 

Spot on and very sad for genuine Labour supporters who now have to bear the shame.

 

Relative poverty might be unchanged (or may be worse, I'd like to see some independent figures), but absolute poverty has certainly declined. Anyone with eyes and a brain should know that. Labour embraced free market capitalism, yes. There was really little option though as traditional socialism had been rejected four elections on the trot. They went for what worked, and for the large part, it did work.

 

Besides, if Labour has drifted to the right then that should appease the likes of you, shouldn't it?

 

Child poverty went up by 100,000 under Labour since 2004....(Labours own figures)

 

didn't your hero say they wouldn't raise VAT in his election "promises"

 

 

No

 

 

he did

 

and from the Daily Mail too

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12...x-increase.html

 

Hardly got started and he's lied already

 

And just for good measure.........

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2...put-up-VAT.html

 

"We have absolutely no plans to raise VAT. Our first budget is all about recognising we need to get spending under control rather than putting up tax."

 

 

Im suprised an old codger like you doesnt know the political difference between "we wont" and "we have no plans"

 

If you need a refresher heres a page detailing the 27 election pledges Labour broke in 2005 including such goodies as...

 

We will not raise the basic or top rates of income tax . . .

 

They lied, they did

 

http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2010/04/labou...o-promises.html

 

And what a shit storm that caused.