Politics

[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."

 

 

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

 

 

 

good. How long has he been PM ? didn't take long did it ? How soon before he does it again .......

[Christmas Tree 4005]

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.

 

 

A fair viewpoint but where your argument falls down is trying to compare this Conservative coalition to the 1980's tories. They are two very different things. In the same way Labour moved heavily to the right under Blair, the current conservatives government has moved to the left. This has and will only be re-inforced by the pairing with the liberal democrats.

 

Society as a whole has changed a lot in 30 years and tying this lot in with that thinking is like tying Labour into wanting rid of the Bomb.

[Christmas Tree 4005]

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.

 

Did you know that Labour planned cuts in the NHS budget had they won the election.

[Christmas Tree 4005]

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?

 

 

Lets just clear this one up. What you said was.....

 

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

 

He didnt lie. He kept his promise.

[Renton 18287]

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?

 

 

Lets just clear this one up. What you said was.....

 

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

 

He didnt lie. He kept his promise.

 

'Looks like'.

 

It still looks like a lie to me, promises haven't been kept yet, and we've yet to find out if they will be, haven't we?

 

So, from a lay perspective, scrapping the 18 week waiting time - good or bad?

[Christmas Tree 4005]

Cancer Drugs.

 

Renton, you've made a few posts about cancer drugs and Cameron including....

 

 

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?

 

My opinion, as you ask for, is that if it can be done then it is a great thing indeed.

 

Moving onto fact, the policy WAS to start this program from 2011.

 

It has changed

 

The policy is now to try and bring this forward to this Autum.

 

Putting the economics to one side, do you approve of this policy?

[Christmas Tree 4005]

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?

 

 

Lets just clear this one up. What you said was.....

 

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

 

He didnt lie. He kept his promise.

 

'Looks like'.

 

It still looks like a lie to me, promises haven't been kept yet, and we've yet to find out if they will be, haven't we?

 

So, from a lay perspective, scrapping the 18 week waiting time - good or bad?

 

 

Sorry, the promises not to cut the NHS budget HAS being kept. It is policy, it has been announced in the budget.

[Christmas Tree 4005]

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?

 

 

Lets just clear this one up. What you said was.....

 

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

 

He didnt lie. He kept his promise.

 

'Looks like'.

 

It still looks like a lie to me, promises haven't been kept yet, and we've yet to find out if they will be, haven't we?

 

So, from a lay perspective, scrapping the 18 week waiting time - good or bad?

 

 

No idea,

 

but the Royal college of nursing said....

 

The Royal College of Nursing welcomed the moves.

 

Chief executive Dr Peter Carter said: "Nurses have been telling us that they were put under tremendous pressure - in some cases to the detriment of patient care.

 

The deputy chairman of The BMA Consultants said...

 

Dr Keith Brent, deputy chairman of the BMA consultants committee, said: "Waiting time targets have improved the NHS in many respects, but they have also resulted in pressure on staff to make inappropriate decisions.

 

"Patients must always be treated as individuals and we welcome this commitment to allow doctors the freedom to do what is clinically appropriate."

 

 

Guess they agree with Cameron

[ewerk 27108]

Doctors and nurses agree to less pressure on them? Who'd have thunk it.

[Renton 18287]

Cancer Drugs.

 

Renton, you've made a few posts about cancer drugs and Cameron including....

 

 

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?

 

My opinion, as you ask for, is that if it can be done then it is a great thing indeed.

 

Moving onto fact, the policy WAS to start this program from 2011.

 

It has changed

 

The policy is now to try and bring this forward to this Autum.

 

Putting the economics to one side, do you approve of this policy?

 

Do I approve of giving everybody the treatment they need? Of course I do.

 

Is it possible? No - it's not.

 

You can't just brush the economics aside - it's the key to the whole matter. No country in the World can afford to give its citizens all the healthcare they desire or need. There will have to be some system of copayment, where the rich can be treated and the poor will not be.

 

Cameron either knows this, and is lying, or he is a fucking idiot. Take your pick.

[Renton 18287]

Doctors and nurses agree to less pressure on them? Who'd have thunk it.

 

Exactly. Another pointless rent-a-quote from Mr Tree.

 

CTY - from the perspective of YOU - a potential patient - do you think indefinite waiting lists are a good idea?

[NJS 4030]

The deputy chairman of The BMA Consultants said...

 

My Man always told me that while she had respect for individual doctors she would never forget that as a group they opposed the founding of the NHS.

[Christmas Tree 4005]

Cancer Drugs.

 

Renton, you've made a few posts about cancer drugs and Cameron including....

 

 

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?

 

My opinion, as you ask for, is that if it can be done then it is a great thing indeed.

 

Moving onto fact, the policy WAS to start this program from 2011.

 

It has changed

 

The policy is now to try and bring this forward to this Autum.

 

Putting the economics to one side, do you approve of this policy?

 

Do I approve of giving everybody the treatment they need? Of course I do.

 

Is it possible? No - it's not.

 

You can't just brush the economics aside - it's the key to the whole matter. No country in the World can afford to give its citizens all the healthcare they desire or need. There will have to be some system of copayment, where the rich can be treated and the poor will not be.

 

Cameron either knows this, and is lying, or he is a fucking idiot. Take your pick.

 

 

Bearing in mind your track record with regard to Cameron and lying, I think I'll stick with Cameron.

 

Of course its possible if a government decides to channel money into it.

[Christmas Tree 4005]

Doctors and nurses agree to less pressure on them? Who'd have thunk it.

 

Exactly. Another pointless rent-a-quote from Mr Tree.

 

CTY - from the perspective of YOU - a potential patient - do you think indefinite waiting lists are a good idea?

 

 

You labourites are bloody amazing

 

You ask about targets because you think they are a Tory scam.

 

The Royal college of Nursing and BMA Consultants agree that getting rid is a good thing, but because you are so desperate to win an argument you dismiss it.

 

Gold.

[The Fish 9340]

CT, do you realise you're as guilty of ducking questions, obfuscating facts, dismissing evidence and displaying incredible bias as the characters you portray your counterparts to be?

[Christmas Tree 4005]

CT, do you realise you're as guilty of ducking questions, obfuscating facts, dismissing evidence and displaying incredible bias as the characters you portray your counterparts to be?

 

 

Unfortunately Fish you only ever pop in here with the usual bias so your views are somewhat tainted and typical.

 

Feel free to take part in an actual debate rather than a bit of cat calling from the sidelines.

 

Get yer hands dirty.

 

Rentons arguments have left him up so many dead ends tonight its quite shocking for a seemingly intelligent bloke. But thats what happens when you let bias get in the way of real facts.

 

Shame

[The Fish 9340]

So you don't deny it?

[ChezGiven 0]

It was the GPs who designed the primary care targets, they led to massive increases in payments associated with trivial activity. GP's wages rocketed after the last major contract negotiation with the government. The BMA aren't objective, they are a pressure group representing the interest of doctors.

[Christmas Tree 4005]

Newsnight tonight interviewed a Stockton family on benefits.

 

£36,000 a year, all from benefits.

 

Thanks Labour

[Renton 18287]

Bearing in mind your track record with regard to Cameron and lying, I think I'll stick with Cameron.

 

Of course its possible if a government decides to channel money into it.

 

Explain how it is possible then?

 

It would only be possible under two scenarios:

 

1) The healthcare budget is massively increased.

 

2) Money from other areas of the healthcare budget is diverted to pay for the drugs which have proven not to be cost effective.

 

The former option simply won't happen during a recession, and in fact would never happen under a Conservative government. It would be fiscal suicide.

 

The latter option would be so unfair and frankly idiotic it doesn't bear thinking about it. This would be a classic example of a political party using the NHS for their own political aims, rather than acting fairly or rationally. Labour have been guilty of this in the past as it happens but never to this extent.

 

This is the last I'll say on this matter CT because frankly I don't think you know what you're talking about.

Edited June 23, 2010 by Renton

[Renton 18287]

CT, do you realise you're as guilty of ducking questions, obfuscating facts, dismissing evidence and displaying incredible bias as the characters you portray your counterparts to be?

 

 

Unfortunately Fish you only ever pop in here with the usual bias so your views are somewhat tainted and typical.

 

Feel free to take part in an actual debate rather than a bit of cat calling from the sidelines.

 

Get yer hands dirty.

 

Rentons arguments have left him up so many dead ends tonight its quite shocking for a seemingly intelligent bloke. But thats what happens when you let bias get in the way of real facts.

 

Shame

 

Your style of 'debate' is simply to trawl the internet cherry picking opinions that suit your views. For every quote you give, I could quote somebody else giving the contrary viewpoint if I chose to. I don't do it because I'd rather give my own opinion, and frankly its boring.

 

You still haven't answered how you feel that scrapping waiting list targets will be of benefit to you. I'd like your opinion please.

[Renton 18287]

Newsnight tonight interviewed a Stockton family on benefits.

 

£36,000 a year, all from benefits.

 

Thanks Labour

 

I thought they'd increased the poverty gap though?

[JawD 48]

It does irk me somewhat when people back a party 100%. I voted Tory, I stand by that decision and I agree with many things they are doing, but don't expect me to agree with everything. Much like I dont think everything labour did as wrong. Just A lot of it. Same as someone earlier saying they voted Lib Dem as the family always have. Thats something else I just don't get. It a bit of sheep mentality. My Dad is like that, always voted labour and always will.

 

As for the debate (some what of one) above. I don't really know that much about how the NHS works internally. However, my wife and a couple of family friends work or have worked for the NHS. The biggest complaint my wife had when she was there was that Doctors would push elderly out of hospital and back home much sooner than they should have been. This was because they were under pressure to meet targets for turning people around and keep them out of hospital. My wife was an OT and she basically assessed someone and their ability to live safely in their own home. Many times they went against their recommendations only to see the person back in hospital due to a fall in the home or something.

 

Point basically that there was too much red tape, admin & management taking up their budget rather than being spent where it was needed.

 

This forms my overall view of the NHS.

 

As for doctors being able to write a perscription (might as well say cheque) for any drug. Thats a pipe dream I'd think, no matter who says it.

[JawD 48]

Newsnight tonight interviewed a Stockton family on benefits.

 

£36,000 a year, all from benefits.

 

Thanks Labour

 

and that does my head in. The system is clearly fucked if that can happen.

[Christmas Tree 4005]

Bearing in mind your track record with regard to Cameron and lying, I think I'll stick with Cameron.

 

Of course its possible if a government decides to channel money into it.

 

Explain how it is possible then?

 

It would only be possible under two scenarios:

 

1) The healthcare budget is massively increased.

 

2) Money from other areas of the healthcare budget is diverted to pay for the drugs which have proven not to be cost effective.

 

The former option simply won't happen during a recession, and in fact would never happen under a Conservative government. It would be fiscal suicide.

 

The latter option would be so unfair and frankly idiotic it doesn't bear thinking about it. This would be a classic example of a political party using the NHS for their own political aims, rather than acting fairly or rationally. Labour have been guilty of this in the past as it happens but never to this extent.

 

This is the last I'll say on this matter CT because frankly I don't think you know what you're talking about.

 

 

Breathtaking Renton, simply breathtaking

 

You accuse Cameron of lying about cutting the health budget --- Your proved incorrect.

 

You then accuse Cameron of bullshitting about cancer drugs --- Your proved incorrect.

 

I then ask your opinion about plans to cut targets as you happen to work within the NHS. You tell me its not your concern and that your quite detached from it. You then have lunch with "Clinicians" and say they are all agreed its a sneaky prelude to cutting services.

 

You then ask again whether I think its a good or bad idea.

 

Im honest enough to say I dont know, but here is the opinion of two very subtantial bodies within nursing (I left out the institute of surgeons who also agree with Cameron btw).

 

I was simply trying to get at the facts and have an honest discussion with you, but just because you've had a bad night Cameron bashing you want to run home with the ball.

 

Fair enough but its clear as day to the majority which one of us is so blinded by bias, they really are losing their grip on reality.

 

Never mind.