eFestivals Posted January 20, 2015 Report Share Posted January 20, 2015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted Dansons Wig Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 What a tool. The point we want him to pick up on in his statement is the gradual outsourcing. Thats where the bodies are buried in terms of some of the risky decisions taken to give services to the outsourcing dog pack. The insurance model just makes him look like a loon in the current environment. Thats the stuff the Tories talk about after too much port and cigars - they wouldn't dare come out in the open with it. Get talking about the Circle stuff in Cambridgeshire and how they just lobbed a hospital over the fence to the private sector. There was a bit of a pre-emptive strike by the Mail saying it only failed because of lefties in the CCG's and local authorities stopping it winning contracts. So they're trying to blame the left for the failure rather than them nice capitalists just trying to learn on honest bob. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eFestivals Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 The insurance model just makes him look like a loon in the current environment.Not necessarily. For someone in his position it's probably a personal money-spinner; he's probably paying both NI* plus private health insurance, and would pay less overall if it was just private health insurance.He won't be the only one in that position, and he's playing his tune mostly to the tory-thinkers don't forget.(* tho probably not on his EU earnings, which I believe are tax free [tho I could be wrong]).He gives himself away if you scruitinise every word...“Frankly, I would feel more comfortable that my money would return value if I was able to do that through the marketplace of an insurance companyThat's my bolding, to concentrate your mind on what *exactly* he's saying.And what exactly he's saying is: if Nigel can get something cheaper then the whole world should adapt to make Nigel's life cheaper.It's 100% Thatcherism, of "me me me and fuck everyone else". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted Dansons Wig Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 (edited) Not necessarily. For someone in his position it's probably a personal money-spinner; he's probably paying both NI* plus private health insurance, and would pay less overall if it was just private health insurance. He won't be the only one in that position, and he's playing his tune mostly to the tory-thinkers don't forget. (* tho probably not on his EU earnings, which I believe are tax free [tho I could be wrong]). He gives himself away if you scruitinise every word... That's my bolding, to concentrate your mind on what *exactly* he's saying. And what exactly he's saying is: if Nigel can get something cheaper then the whole world should adapt to make Nigel's life cheaper. It's 100% Thatcherism, of "me me me and fuck everyone else". He's still a marginal figure and always will be. He's a pantomime character who will go back to his guest slots on Have I Got News For You after the election. Whether his party will or not I'm not sure - but their value till May is keeping their vote to a point where the loopy end of the tories switch to them. He'll frame it as "asking the difficult question" and "priming the debate". No sensible politician will go there this side of 2020 - the Tories can cause much more damage elsewhere. I keep banging on about acute care - but when we get to 2020 and they've removed the family practitioner function from GP's and basically just put most of them in A&E - then we're in trouble. CCG's disappear, local authority social care disappears, we have Primary Care Providers replacing them both and we pay for everything else like physio, OT, chronic condition management etc. Death of the NHS by stealth. Edited January 21, 2015 by Ted Dansons Wig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eFestivals Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 He's still a marginal figure and always will be.I dunno about that. He's getting some high profile for being a loon.And, eventually, it seems to be sticking. A very recent opinion poll has them on just 11%, the lowest in any poll for around 6 months, and they're consistently down on where they were a month ago.Death of the NHS by stealth.we differ in our views of how they plan to do it, but we're both seeing it all as the same deliberate plan.Unfortunately, an opinion poll I saw yesterday suggests that too many think today's problems would be much the same under any govt and any plan short of throwing more money at it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted Dansons Wig Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 I dunno about that. He's getting some high profile for being a loon. And, eventually, it seems to be sticking. A very recent opinion poll has them on just 11%, the lowest in any poll for around 6 months, and they're consistently down on where they were a month ago. 11%. Jesus I despair I really do. But at least in that 11% theres some that would vote Tory if UKIP weren't there. Isn't there a rule of thumb to say you have to be regularly getting 20% in national or regional polls before you're likely to win seats in FPTP? Might be wrong about this. we differ in our views of how they plan to do it, but we're both seeing it all as the same deliberate plan. Unfortunately, an opinion poll I saw yesterday suggests that too many think today's problems would be much the same under any govt and any plan short of throwing more money at it. Yeah you're right. I think people are pretty savvy and Labours hands are pretty dirty on this as well from the tail end of the Blair/ Brown era. Which is a bugger really. I did some envelope stuffing for Labour at the weekend and the stuff on the NHS is so wishy washy it'd be hard to figure out what our position is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eFestivals Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 11%. Jesus I despair I really do. But at least in that 11% theres some that would vote Tory if UKIP weren't there.Isn't there a rule of thumb to say you have to be regularly getting 20% in national or regional polls before you're likely to win seats in FPTP? Might be wrong about this.I dunno about any rule of thumb, but at best they're only likely to win a handful of seats in most political commentator's eyes. Most predictions have them having less than 5, and Farage is gonna struggle to win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comfy Bean Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 Oh for fucks sake - you've got a 287 page thread on this already. Dont go polluting this one as well. He's still a marginal figure and always will be. He's a pantomime character who will go back to his guest slots on Have I Got News For You after the election. Whether his party will or not I'm not sure - but their value till May is keeping their vote to a point where the loopy end of the tories switch to them. He'll frame it as "asking the difficult question" and "priming the debate". No sensible politician will go there this side of 2020 - the Tories can cause much more damage elsewhere. I keep banging on about acute care - but when we get to 2020 and they've removed the family practitioner function from GP's and basically just put most of them in A&E - then we're in trouble. CCG's disappear, local authority social care disappears, we have Primary Care Providers replacing them both and we pay for everything else like physio, OT, chronic condition management etc. Death of the NHS by stealth. Apologies in advance about bringing Scotland into this UKIP thread. Someone keeps bring up UKIP in the Indy thread and I agree it`s annoying when it`s irrelevant Anywayz Ted, Genuine non-political non-indy related question as you seem to know your onions here. This bit about Social Care in 2020, is this only in England or is your point valid in Scotland as well ? We`ve got the Health and Social Care Integration getting launched up here in April which we keep hearing ( from Nicola Sturgeon ) will ease the pressure on A&E. Whats your view ? I`ve just seen her on the news and the story goes that the 6 SNP MP`s will now vote in Westminster ( on the NHS ) as if the Tories ( or whoever ) privatise the NHS down your way then they obviously won`t need to put as much of our money into it which will have a knock on effect on how much money then goes to Scotland even though health is devolved. Again, sorry for wrong threadness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grumpyhack Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 I don't think it's wrong threadness. The General Election outcome may well depend on who the SNP and Plaid are prepared to work with. Though at this stage I suspect that the Tories will get back despite the slight vote bleed to the Kippers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted Dansons Wig Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 Apologies in advance about bringing Scotland into this UKIP thread. Someone keeps bring up UKIP in the Indy thread and I agree it`s annoying when it`s irrelevant Anywayz Ted, Genuine non-political non-indy related question as you seem to know your onions here. This bit about Social Care in 2020, is this only in England or is your point valid in Scotland as well ? We`ve got the Health and Social Care Integration getting launched up here in April which we keep hearing ( from Nicola Sturgeon ) will ease the pressure on A&E. Whats your view ? I`ve just seen her on the news and the story goes that the 6 SNP MP`s will now vote in Westminster ( on the NHS ) as if the Tories ( or whoever ) privatise the NHS down your way then they obviously won`t need to put as much of our money into it which will have a knock on effect on how much money then goes to Scotland even though health is devolved. Again, sorry for wrong threadness. I'm only really referring to England mate - as to be truthful its the only bit of the UK I know enough about. I've done lots of work in Scotland in the past but always on the social care side - and a good proportion of that putting computer systems in to support effective social care delivery rather than being involved in change programmes. The Scottish LA's always seemed to be a good 2-3 years ahead of most LA's in England was my general rule of thumb - specially some of the bigger boys like Glasgow and Aberdeen (though the degree to which Glasgow is now in bed with Serco pissed me off no end). From my limited understanding your integration is based in statute and talks about the handover of duties and responsibilities between Health and Social Care. We've got it slightly differently - and the latest incentive for integration is direct funding (the BetterCare fund) which is supposed to encourage integration in England. Sturgeons rhetoric at least talks about integrated access - which means the access point to support should be the same whether or not you have a clinical need. This in principle can only be a good thing. We in England also have Public Health (not sure how you define it in Scotland) that the LA now has responsibility for. Public Health is sometimes lumped in with whats known as Preventative services and includes things like anti-obesity campaigns, anti- smoking that sort of thing. You give people access at one point to all three of these things you have a greater potential for getting stuff sorted early and stops you having to come in the clinical door and should therefore lower demand at A&E. Its obviously miles cheaper as well as you avert people using expensive clinical services and your triage service is operated by staff who are not necessarily clinically trained and therefore cheaper to employ. Trouble is - you start attracting the rabid dogs of the outsourcers who smell lower paid staff and "efficiency savings" and start lobbying to run the services. Then yr fucked - haven't seen one yet that is ruled by anything else than the love of profit with resultant poorer outcomes for patients. In England this is happening all over - especially in the big counties (Kent for instance - coming shortly). We also have GP's (who run the CCG's that commission services) who are being over-run and getting stick from every angle (they dont dignose cancer early enough, they dont open long enough hours, they prescribe too many antibiotics etc etc). We only just moved to this model a couple of years ago - so I thought it wouldnt be touched for a while. But reading stuff coming out a debate at the Kings Fund earlier this week there is thought of getting GP's in the main out of the community and into a big one stop shop for health and social care services that is really just an extended A&E. That would be cataclysmic - but as far as I know is only suggested as one potential option for England - not for up your way. Sorry for blabbering (the NHS and social care is my fecking life as well as my bread and butter). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaosmark2 Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 I'm only really referring to England mate - as to be truthful its the only bit of the UK I know enough about. I've done lots of work in Scotland in the past but always on the social care side - and a good proportion of that putting computer systems in to support effective social care delivery rather than being involved in change programmes. The Scottish LA's always seemed to be a good 2-3 years ahead of most LA's in England was my general rule of thumb - specially some of the bigger boys like Glasgow and Aberdeen (though the degree to which Glasgow is now in bed with Serco pissed me off no end). From my limited understanding your integration is based in statute and talks about the handover of duties and responsibilities between Health and Social Care. We've got it slightly differently - and the latest incentive for integration is direct funding (the BetterCare fund) which is supposed to encourage integration in England. Sturgeons rhetoric at least talks about integrated access - which means the access point to support should be the same whether or not you have a clinical need. This in principle can only be a good thing. We in England also have Public Health (not sure how you define it in Scotland) that the LA now has responsibility for. Public Health is sometimes lumped in with whats known as Preventative services and includes things like anti-obesity campaigns, anti- smoking that sort of thing. You give people access at one point to all three of these things you have a greater potential for getting stuff sorted early and stops you having to come in the clinical door and should therefore lower demand at A&E. Its obviously miles cheaper as well as you avert people using expensive clinical services and your triage service is operated by staff who are not necessarily clinically trained and therefore cheaper to employ. Trouble is - you start attracting the rabid dogs of the outsourcers who smell lower paid staff and "efficiency savings" and start lobbying to run the services. Then yr fucked - haven't seen one yet that is ruled by anything else than the love of profit with resultant poorer outcomes for patients. In England this is happening all over - especially in the big counties (Kent for instance - coming shortly). We also have GP's (who run the CCG's that commission services) who are being over-run and getting stick from every angle (they dont dignose cancer early enough, they dont open long enough hours, they prescribe too many antibiotics etc etc). We only just moved to this model a couple of years ago - so I thought it wouldnt be touched for a while. But reading stuff coming out a debate at the Kings Fund earlier this week there is thought of getting GP's in the main out of the community and into a big one stop shop for health and social care services that is really just an extended A&E. That would be cataclysmic - but as far as I know is only suggested as one potential option for England - not for up your way. Sorry for blabbering (the NHS and social care is my fecking life as well as my bread and butter). Dude, two words: Spacing. Paragraphs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eFestivals Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 (edited) Apologies in advance about bringing Scotland into this UKIP thread. Someone keeps bring up UKIP in the Indy thread and I agree it`s annoying when it`s irrelevant Many Scots go on about the "red tories" and think that's relevant, despite the £30+Bn spending gap between the two parties that those Scots insist are identical.So why can't the massive similarities - actual real ones - between what's going on around the SNP and what's going on around UKIP ever be mentioned? Nicola Sturgeon ... I`ve just seen her on the newsI saw her last night too. She was very reluctant to talk actual SNP policies - I wonder why? - but still managed to say that everything in Scotland was Westminster's fault despite seven years of an SNP govt.And all of the problems in 2015 Britain is the fault of the pre-2010 Labour govt according to the tories.Anyone might think that the tories aren't the only ones talking bollocks to con the dumb. Edited January 22, 2015 by eFestivals Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pink_triangle Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 I don't think it's wrong threadness. The General Election outcome may well depend on who the SNP and Plaid are prepared to work with. Though at this stage I suspect that the Tories will get back despite the slight vote bleed to the Kippers. If that's the case then ed Miliband is our pm, there's no chance either could work with the torys Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eFestivals Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 If that's the case then ed Miliband is our pm, there's no chance either could work with the torysAnd yet it's far from clear.If Miliband does a deal with the SNP to give Scotland something above what other parts of the UK has, then Labour will be 100% fucked as a party forever after. Labour cannot even risk there being a perception of Scottish gain.Because of that, from the angle of common sense it's more likely that the SNP would support the tories (especially as they're keenest to give Scotland more powers; divide and rule) - apart from that bringing its own doom scenario onto the SNP.And so ultimately, if the SNP hold the balance of power the UK is (ultimately) ungovernable and they'll be a further election - and the tories will clean up because people will vote for a strong govt before no govt.Reality means that only a majority Labour victory brings a better tomorrow for the left, but too many SNP-voting Scots don't do reality just as UKIP voters don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted Dansons Wig Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 Dude, two words: Spacing. Paragraphs. Point Taken K. In defence 4 other words: Red Wine Written Midnight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaosmark2 Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 Point Taken K. In defence 4 other words: Red Wine Written Midnight The first two would have been enough Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comfy Bean Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 I'm only really referring to England mate - as to be truthful its the only bit of the UK I know enough about. I've done lots of work in Scotland in the past but always on the social care side - and a good proportion of that putting computer systems in to support effective social care delivery rather than being involved in change programmes. The Scottish LA's always seemed to be a good 2-3 years ahead of most LA's in England was my general rule of thumb - specially some of the bigger boys like Glasgow and Aberdeen (though the degree to which Glasgow is now in bed with Serco pissed me off no end). From my limited understanding your integration is based in statute and talks about the handover of duties and responsibilities between Health and Social Care. We've got it slightly differently - and the latest incentive for integration is direct funding (the BetterCare fund) which is supposed to encourage integration in England. Sturgeons rhetoric at least talks about integrated access - which means the access point to support should be the same whether or not you have a clinical need. This in principle can only be a good thing. We in England also have Public Health (not sure how you define it in Scotland) that the LA now has responsibility for. Public Health is sometimes lumped in with whats known as Preventative services and includes things like anti-obesity campaigns, anti- smoking that sort of thing. You give people access at one point to all three of these things you have a greater potential for getting stuff sorted early and stops you having to come in the clinical door and should therefore lower demand at A&E. Its obviously miles cheaper as well as you avert people using expensive clinical services and your triage service is operated by staff who are not necessarily clinically trained and therefore cheaper to employ. Trouble is - you start attracting the rabid dogs of the outsourcers who smell lower paid staff and "efficiency savings" and start lobbying to run the services. Then yr fucked - haven't seen one yet that is ruled by anything else than the love of profit with resultant poorer outcomes for patients. In England this is happening all over - especially in the big counties (Kent for instance - coming shortly). We also have GP's (who run the CCG's that commission services) who are being over-run and getting stick from every angle (they dont dignose cancer early enough, they dont open long enough hours, they prescribe too many antibiotics etc etc). We only just moved to this model a couple of years ago - so I thought it wouldnt be touched for a while. But reading stuff coming out a debate at the Kings Fund earlier this week there is thought of getting GP's in the main out of the community and into a big one stop shop for health and social care services that is really just an extended A&E. That would be cataclysmic - but as far as I know is only suggested as one potential option for England - not for up your way. Sorry for blabbering (the NHS and social care is my fecking life as well as my bread and butter). Cheers Ted. From what the SNP are saying atleast, Health and Social Care integration seems to make sense. It`s crazy people are stuck in hospital beds because they can`t go home due to a lack of a local support network. NS was announcing an extra £100mill to hopefully ease this " bed-blocking ". All the Local Authority cuts coming back to bite ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comfy Bean Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 Because of that, from the angle of common sense it's more likely that the SNP would support the tories (especially as they're keenest to give Scotland more powers; divide and rule) - apart from that bringing its own doom scenario onto the SNP. Rubbish. As fine you know Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comfy Bean Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 So why can't the massive similarities - actual real ones - between what's going on around the SNP and what's going on around UKIP ever be mentioned? SNP v UKIP No Westminster deal with the Tories after the GE. Pro Europe Pro immigration Are these the " similarities " you are referring to ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted Dansons Wig Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 Cheers Ted. From what the SNP are saying atleast, Health and Social Care integration seems to make sense. It`s crazy people are stuck in hospital beds because they can`t go home due to a lack of a local support network. NS was announcing an extra £100mill to hopefully ease this " bed-blocking ". All the Local Authority cuts coming back to bite ? It does make sense - with the big Greenland sized caveat that it needs funding properly. Local authorities in England are divided into 2 types - fucked and completely fucked. The last of the actual provision is either being sold to Capita/ Serco et al or are (in the brave ones) being set u pin arms length organisations (such as Serona In Bath & NE Somerset). Thats going to start happening even more up your way if it hasnt already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eFestivals Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 Rubbish. As fine you know it was a hypothetical. They couldn't risk doing that any more than Labour could risk taking the SNP's support. Equally, that would cut that party's throat.SNP v UKIPNo Westminster deal with the Tories after the GE.Pro EuropePro immigrationAre these the " similarities " you are referring to ?Nope.It's about what drives those people to those 'other' parties where everything is all the fault of some vaguely-identifiable 'other', and if that 'other' can be disposed of a new utopia will burst into being all by itself.The policies are very different; what causes those people to be where they are is much the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comfy Bean Posted January 24, 2015 Report Share Posted January 24, 2015 Just posted this in the Scottish Indy thread but suppose this is it`s rightful place. Take Take Take. Reminded me of Edwina Currie who is " fed up funding the Scots extravagant lifestyle " Who actually votes for UKIP Horrible bunch. http://youtu.be/R7qA8wDUiXo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grumpyhack Posted January 24, 2015 Report Share Posted January 24, 2015 (edited) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11367754/Ukip-MEP-Amjad-Bashir-defects-to-Conservative-Party.html Another kipper jumps ship - or was he pushed? Edited January 24, 2015 by grumpyhack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eFestivals Posted January 25, 2015 Report Share Posted January 25, 2015 (edited) Just posted this in the Scottish Indy thread but suppose this is it`s rightful place. Take Take Take. Reminded me of Edwina Currie who is " fed up funding the Scots extravagant lifestyle " Who actually votes for UKIP Horrible bunch.UKIP are indeed horrible.However, there's truth within the words that lots of peeps are "fed up funding the Scots extravagant lifestyle", because the UK *DOES* proportionally fund Scotland to a greater extent than the UK average.People in Scotland get around 120% the amount spent on them than the UK average. That extra money comes from taxes outside of Scotland and outside of oil revenues even if they were all allocated to Scotland.The Scottish Govt themselves acknowledge this fact, as you can read on the Scottish Govts website here:-http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2014/03/7888So the next question is whether Scotland is rightfully deserving of that extra.The likes of UKIP (and Edwina) think 'no', but that's not the whole UK story. Edited January 25, 2015 by eFestivals Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comfy Bean Posted January 25, 2015 Report Share Posted January 25, 2015 There`s truth in the line about our " extravagant lifestyle " ?............. my goodness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.bcf296e1600f49e34d4b41f56d478e0b.jpg)
.thumb.png.55d2384f41c746b1a642191581be6ebb.png)
.thumb.jpg.53030afb9aabca68e07b59cb5426fa4b.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.