Friday 14th to Monday 17th April 2017

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Sat 15 Apr, 2017 1:43 pm

howsillyofme1 wrote: I could have some sympathy for an upgrade to a 'private room but it does sound a bit shit to be honest and how do we provide all this accommodation without increasing cost?

You can't. Which is why more liberal systems are inevitably more expensive than wholly collective ones. That being the point I've kept making. if you want these additions you'll have to pay, and then the overall cost will go up. There being no free lunches.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Sat 15 Apr, 2017 1:50 pm

Looks like a good poll for Labour hidden under this headline

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... st-pm-poll" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"The Tories lost their double-digit lead over Labour in headline voting intentions, but were still nine percentage points ahead. "

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Sat 15 Apr, 2017 1:53 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote: I could have some sympathy for an upgrade to a 'private room but it does sound a bit shit to be honest and how do we provide all this accommodation without increasing cost?

You can't. Which is why more liberal systems are inevitably more expensive than wholly collective ones. That being the point I've kept making. if you want these additions you'll have to pay, and then the overall cost will go up. There being no free lunches.

Cannot see this at all being feasible......either you would have to pay the full cost of 'top up' which will run into thousands very quickly for very little benefit or you would need a lot of people paying insurance to spread the cost

Queue jumping within the NHS based on ability to pay would never be acceptable to me

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sat 15 Apr, 2017 1:54 pm

Perhaps it's time for the left to talk about reform of the NHS if the alternative is to allow the Tories to slowly disintegrate it into a two tier system as has already happened in optometry and dentistry.

Take the initiative and start exploring possible changes based on models that work elsewhere that are more closely aligned to our own system. And they do exist. This idea the UK is the only country that publicly funds its healthcare system, that insurance based systems are the only viable option for our future, is rubbish. What about Canada? And we're not the only country with government administered healthcare, either. What about Scandinavia? It's this misleading idea that we're somehow out on a limb doing something completely different to everyone else, who all have an identical and better system, that reveals the ulterior motives of such discourse. No two universal healthcare systems are the same and no system is perfect. I think the real downfall of the NHS is not that it is imperfect, all systems are imperfect, but that we have stopped trying to make it the best it can be, while other countries haven't.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Sat 15 Apr, 2017 1:57 pm

Willow904 wrote:Perhaps it's time for the left to talk about reform of the NHS if the alternative is to allow the Tories to slowly disintegrate it into a two tier system as has already happened in optometry and dentistry.

Take the initiative and start exploring possible changes based on models that work elsewhere that are more closely aligned to our own system. And they do exist. This idea the UK is the only country that publicly funds its healthcare system, that insurance based systems are the only viable option for our future, is rubbish. What about Canada? And we're not the only country with government administered healthcare, either. What about Scandinavia? It's this misleading idea that we're somehow out on a limb doing something completely different to everyone else, who all have an identical and better system, that reveals the ulterior motives of such discourse. No two universal healthcare systems are the same and no system is perfect. I think the real downfall of the NHS is not that it is imperfect, all systems are imperfect, but that we have stopped trying to make it the best it can be, while other countries haven't.

I don't think Labour will be in power, so I wonder if there isn't scope for collective provision through co-ops and unions?

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sat 15 Apr, 2017 2:04 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
Willow904 wrote:Perhaps it's time for the left to talk about reform of the NHS if the alternative is to allow the Tories to slowly disintegrate it into a two tier system as has already happened in optometry and dentistry.

Take the initiative and start exploring possible changes based on models that work elsewhere that are more closely aligned to our own system. And they do exist. This idea the UK is the only country that publicly funds its healthcare system, that insurance based systems are the only viable option for our future, is rubbish. What about Canada? And we're not the only country with government administered healthcare, either. What about Scandinavia? It's this misleading idea that we're somehow out on a limb doing something completely different to everyone else, who all have an identical and better system, that reveals the ulterior motives of such discourse. No two universal healthcare systems are the same and no system is perfect. I think the real downfall of the NHS is not that it is imperfect, all systems are imperfect, but that we have stopped trying to make it the best it can be, while other countries haven't.

I don't think Labour will be in power, so I wonder if there isn't scope for collective provision through co-ops and unions?

I was thinking more about looking at countries that are more like us, looking at where they do things better and challenging the government as to why that isn't happening here, rather than allowing the right wing to unfairly compare us to more expensive insurance based systems and ducking responsibility for their deliberate poor management choices?

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Sat 15 Apr, 2017 2:17 pm

I agree with Willowr on this - we shouldn't accept no change as an option but continuous improvement of an already good system

Hugo's ideas seem to be on how can we allow the rich and well off to have flexibility to move outside the system available to all (and it would cost someone loads, who doesn't think the tax payer would pay for this 'flexibility' in some way?) rather than look to improve the system for all the users

There may be some options for more flexibility but I cannot see it being that popular to be honest - how much is a 'private room' a night? How much to access a non-NICE approved drug? Queue jumping a no-no!

What should be aimed for is consistent access and care across the whole of NHS (working with devolved administrations as well of course)

edited to get the name of person I was agreeing with right

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sat 15 Apr, 2017 2:41 pm

http://theconversation.com/creating-a-b ... eden-30366" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Australia has a relatively strong health system by international standards, but it needs a makeover. To generate fresh ideas, The Conversation is profiling five international health systems that have important lessons – good and bad – to pull Australia out of its health reform black hole.

Just to underline that no health system is perfect and in illustration of the sort of ongoing conversations I feel we should be trying to have in this country about what improvements could be made to our own system without tearing it up in its entirety.Touches on what Howsillyofme said about perks adding extra costs across the board, impact of parallel private insurance take up and also "controversially" includes the UK in a list of countries with broadly similar outcomes as Australia, which may come as something of a shock to the right wingers who are convinced the NHS is far inferior.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Sat 15 Apr, 2017 2:43 pm

howsillyofme1 wrote: If people want the NHS to stay true to its principles then they shouldn't vote Tory.......if they do then they take the consequences

We all take the consequences. FPTP.

I've said before, the NHS is lost unless we get PR, even if the tories don't succeed in completely unravelling it this time they'll just start again down the line.

I get particularly infuriated by articles and btl comments saying this, that or the other system is better than the NHS when clearly the only alternative model on offer to us is the US one, which is pretty much a disaster.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Sat 15 Apr, 2017 3:00 pm

Only 45% of Labour voters think Corbyn would be best PM: poll

Research by Opinium also suggests the Conservatives are the most trusted party on all major issues except the NHS (Guardian)

So nuclear war's off, then?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... st-pm-poll

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Sat 15 Apr, 2017 3:28 pm

PorFavor wrote:
Only 45% of Labour voters think Corbyn would be best PM: poll

Research by Opinium also suggests the Conservatives are the most trusted party on all major issues except the NHS (Guardian)
So nuclear war's off, then?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... st-pm-poll

Apparently, although Kim has some nicely painted tin cans that look like missiles.

One assumes nobody took all this media coverage seriously, otherwise why would he have put all his top brass, best equipment and himself in a previously advertised location. Even Trump and company could work that out.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Sat 15 Apr, 2017 3:39 pm

On the NHS stuff, it was, until Lansley fucked it up, easily the most cost efficient healthcare system in the world. It had similar outcomes to far more expensive systems.

Obviously America doesn't count here as only 50% of their population have anything resembling healthcare.

What it does need right now is for the Tories to fix social care, the continual blocking of resources in hospital is creating massive inefficiencies.

Once that has been done (as if) the next priority is rolling back all this competitive tendering bullshit, which also costs a fortune and achieves perverse outcomes.

Today the service only functions because of the goodwill of the staff, they are rapidly burning out and leaving, or being let go, as resources and money run out.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Sat 15 Apr, 2017 3:39 pm

gilsey wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote: If people want the NHS to stay true to its principles then they shouldn't vote Tory.......if they do then they take the consequences
We all take the consequences. FPTP.

I've said before, the NHS is lost unless we get PR, even if the tories don't succeed in completely unravelling it this time they'll just start again down the line.

I get particularly infuriated by articles and btl comments saying this, that or the other system is better than the NHS when clearly the only alternative model on offer to us is the US one, which is pretty much a disaster.

Fair comments all

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Sat 15 Apr, 2017 3:51 pm

The trouble with the assumptions we make about this stand off with North Korea is around the people calling the shots

I worry Trump is too hubristic to ever back down and one day he will push too far.

In Syria he has launched one strike....what is next if Assad goes pushes him again.....Assad is not irrational though I don't think and will take his lead from others

The Afghanistan bombing seems a bit of cock waving and does nothing other than say 'look at our big bombs

North Korea though is a different proposition. No one really seems to know what is going on there and they don't even need to be able to deliver weapons that well to have a devastating impact on South Korea

I find all this sabre rattling (by a very flawed individual as well) very worrying

If this goes wrong the consequences could be acutely dangerous

It seems Trump has got a liking for this intervention thing and it helps his ratings.....when will he reign himself in. Hopefully before it all goes boom - and don't tell me it can't or won't

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Sat 15 Apr, 2017 4:09 pm

gilsey wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote: If people want the NHS to stay true to its principles then they shouldn't vote Tory.......if they do then they take the consequences
We all take the consequences. FPTP.

I've said before, the NHS is lost unless we get PR, even if the tories don't succeed in completely unravelling it this time they'll just start again down the line.

I get particularly infuriated by articles and btl comments saying this, that or the other system is better than the NHS when clearly the only alternative model on offer to us is the US one, which is pretty much a disaster.

Under no conceiveable government will we be moving to the US system, so i think that is an irrelevant comparator.

Germany, maybe.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Sat 15 Apr, 2017 4:18 pm

One of the reasons I backed Labour in 2015 was because "only Nixon could go to China" ie only Labour had the credibility to instigate any change in the NHS. Even evidence based change backed up by micro economists will be denounced as privatisation by the usual suspects.

That said, i don't think Labour has done or said anything of interest on the NHS for a decade.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Sat 15 Apr, 2017 4:39 pm

I fail to see why we have to 'copy' anyone else's system

There is no perfect model and we have to take into account the massive change programme needed to move to something organisationally different from the NHS..

Hugo wants to make it easier for the rich to have perks whilst the rest of us seem to suggest building on the current strengths and work out how to improve for everyone not just provide some baubles for the few

It would be a start for us to look to increase spending as proportion of GDP to the Germans

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Sat 15 Apr, 2017 4:50 pm

howsillyofme1 wrote:I fail to see why we have to 'copy' anyone else's system

There is no perfect model and we have to take into account the massive change programme needed to move to something organisationally different from the NHS..

Hugo wants to make it easier for the rich to have perks whilst the rest of us seem to suggest building on the current strengths and work out how to improve for everyone not just provide some baubles for the few

It would be a start for us to look to increase spending as proportion of GDP to the Germans

As I've tried to explain, comparing the cost of the UK system with that of more liberal systems like Germany is a false comparison. If you give people the choice to pay more some will, and the overall spend goes up. You want to deny the choice whihc leads to the higher expenditure.

The problems with the NHS is not just confined to poor outcomes. You get poor service too with very long delays to see GPs or have routine surgery, of a length that you don't see elsewhere in Europe.

Blair, in his pomp, saved the NHS in its current form in 2000. No politician of the left with that much clout, and to be fair favourable economic circumstance, is coming back. Labour will lose in 2020 and 2025.

So, we need either to argue for structures outside of government (unions, co-ops) or to look to other systems which we could viably move towards that are not so susceptible to underfunding at government whim (ie look at everyone else in the EU).

Post by **refitman** » Sat 15 Apr, 2017 5:01 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote:I fail to see why we have to 'copy' anyone else's system

There is no perfect model and we have to take into account the massive change programme needed to move to something organisationally different from the NHS..

Hugo wants to make it easier for the rich to have perks whilst the rest of us seem to suggest building on the current strengths and work out how to improve for everyone not just provide some baubles for the few

It would be a start for us to look to increase spending as proportion of GDP to the Germans
As I've tried to explain, comparing the cost of the UK system with that of more liberal systems like Germany is a false comparison. If you give people the choice to pay more some will, and the overall spend goes up. You want to deny the choice whihc leads to the higher expenditure.

The problems with the NHS is not just confined to poor outcomes. You get poor service too with very long delays to see GPs or have routine surgery, of a length that you don't see elsewhere in Europe.

Blair, in his pomp, saved the NHS in its current form in 2000. No politician of the left with that much clout, and to be fair favourable economic circumstance, is coming back. Labour will lose in 2020 and 2025.

So, we need either to argue for structures outside of government (unions, co-ops) or to look to other systems which we could viably move towards that are not so susceptible to underfunding at government whim (ie look at everyone else in the EU).

I seem to remember the NHS working pretty well towards the end of Labour being in power. Waiting times were down, outcomes were up. Staff were happy and so were the patients.

Were you looking at a different NHS to the rest of us?

Post by **refitman** » Sat 15 Apr, 2017 5:04 pm

Hugo, when you talk about "liberal" healthcare, do you actually mean free-market?

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Sat 15 Apr, 2017 5:13 pm

refitman wrote:Hugo, when you talk about "liberal" healthcare, do you actually mean free-market?

Not at all. Liberal means giving people choice to pay more for add ons (see every other healthcare system I know of). You could deliver that under a completely state monopoly provider.

Conversely you could have a wholly collective system (ie you get what you're given) and the entire provision of care was outsourced.

Outsourcing is a separate issue (if that is what you mean by free market). That is, again, a separate issue from free at the point of use.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Sat 15 Apr, 2017 5:14 pm

refitman wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote:I fail to see why we have to 'copy' anyone else's system

There is no perfect model and we have to take into account the massive change programme needed to move to something organisationally different from the NHS..

Hugo wants to make it easier for the rich to have perks whilst the rest of us seem to suggest building on the current strengths and work out how to improve for everyone not just provide some baubles for the few

It would be a start for us to look to increase spending as proportion of GDP to the Germans
As I've tried to explain, comparing the cost of the UK system with that of more liberal systems like Germany is a false comparison. If you give people the choice to pay more some will, and the overall spend goes up. You want to deny the choice whihc leads to the higher expenditure.

The problems with the NHS is not just confined to poor outcomes. You get poor service too with very long delays to see GPs or have routine surgery, of a length that you don't see elsewhere in Europe.

Blair, in his pomp, saved the NHS in its current form in 2000. No politician of the left with that much clout, and to be fair favourable economic circumstance, is coming back. Labour will lose in 2020 and 2025.

So, we need either to argue for structures outside of government (unions, co-ops) or to look to other systems which we could viably move towards that are not so susceptible to underfunding at government whim (ie look at everyone else in the EU).
I seem to remember the NHS working pretty well towards the end of Labour being in power. Waiting times were down, outcomes were up. Staff were happy and so were the patients.

Were you looking at a different NHS to the rest of us?

Depends what you mean of course. Better in terms of outcomes than comparable states? No. Better in terms of waiting times? No.

Better than now? Undoubtedly yes.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Sat 15 Apr, 2017 5:14 pm

refitman wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote:I fail to see why we have to 'copy' anyone else's system

There is no perfect model and we have to take into account the massive change programme needed to move to something organisationally different from the NHS..

Hugo wants to make it easier for the rich to have perks whilst the rest of us seem to suggest building on the current strengths and work out how to improve for everyone not just provide some baubles for the few

It would be a start for us to look to increase spending as proportion of GDP to the Germans
As I've tried to explain, comparing the cost of the UK system with that of more liberal systems like Germany is a false comparison. If you give people the choice to pay more some will, and the overall spend goes up. You want to deny the choice whihc leads to the higher expenditure.

The problems with the NHS is not just confined to poor outcomes. You get poor service too with very long delays to see GPs or have routine surgery, of a length that you don't see elsewhere in Europe.

Blair, in his pomp, saved the NHS in its current form in 2000. No politician of the left with that much clout, and to be fair favourable economic circumstance, is coming back. Labour will lose in 2020 and 2025.

So, we need either to argue for structures outside of government (unions, co-ops) or to look to other systems which we could viably move towards that are not so susceptible to underfunding at government whim (ie look at everyone else in the EU).
I seem to remember the NHS working pretty well towards the end of Labour being in power. Waiting times were down, outcomes were up. Staff were happy and so were the patients.

Were you looking at a different NHS to the rest of us?

I think everybody would agree Burnham had it sorted. The problem is Lansley broke it. Labour haven't been in power for 7 years and 2030 is the most likely date for their return to power (if they survive).

At which point god knows what state the NHS will be in.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sat 15 Apr, 2017 5:17 pm

Non-Tory government - possibly a coalition - in 2025. Calling it now.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Sat 15 Apr, 2017 5:24 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
refitman wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
Depends what you mean of course. Better in terms of outcomes than comparable states? No. Better in terms of waiting times? No.

Better than now? Undoubtedly yes.

It was better in terms of outcomes most definitely.

Waiting times were bloody good as well, for the money spent. Not sure I ever saw an analysis with comparable countries on waiting.

Choice in healthcare is a nebulous concept. All Joe Public wants is the best possible treatment as quickly as possible. They are not equipped to understand which of the various options they are presented with will give them that outcome. Few people are, unless you are a trained doctor.

Also there is a value play here, salary is not a judgement as to your worth to society. A CEO is worth far less than a trained healthcare professional, trained fighter pilot, trained teacher, trained engineer, trained scientist.

Any bullshit artist can be a CEO, there is no shortage of candidates.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Sat 15 Apr, 2017 5:26 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Non-Tory government - possibly a coalition - in 2025. Calling it now.

OK, two questions.

Who will be Labour leader at the next GE (you can name a spread of three).

How big will the Tory majority be in 2020.

tinybgoat · Post by **tinybgoat** » Sat 15 Apr, 2017 5:29 pm

Maybe Interesting article & comments on libdemvoice:
re: resurgence based on being anti-brexit
http://www.libdemvoice.org/of-eggs-hatc ... 53922.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sat 15 Apr, 2017 5:32 pm

Q1 - don't know, but still think there is a very good chance it won't be Corbyn (and if it isn't him, it won't be McDonnell either)

Q2 - who knows? I agree a Tory win is likely even if JC is no longer there, but the recent leaking of private polling showing them losing seats to the LibDems was revealing. Quite a lot of current Tory support is soft and augmented by a feeling (partly media created, of course) that "there is no alternative" rather than positive enthusiasm.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Sat 15 Apr, 2017 5:37 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Q1 - don't know, but still think there is a very good chance it won't be Corbyn (and if it isn't him, it won't be McDonnell either)

Q2 - who knows? I agree a Tory win is likely even if JC is no longer there, but the recent leaking of private polling showing them losing seats to the LibDems was revealing. Quite a lot of current Tory support is soft and augmented by a feeling (partly media created, of course) that "there is no alternative" rather than positive enthusiasm.

"Something will turn up."

For Labour, I don't think it now will.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sat 15 Apr, 2017 5:40 pm

I know that you don't want it to. You have told us enough times already, after all

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Sat 15 Apr, 2017 5:46 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:I know that you don't want it to. You have told us enough times already, after all

If I could have the 97-2010 government back, I'd take that in an instant. Best government of my lifetime.

The problem is even you, the optimist's optimist, can't tell a plausible story about how we return to a Labour government. The party itself is transformed, a process that is continuing, not going into reverse.

Unexpected things happen of course (Corbyn and Trump). But it looks a bit implausible.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sat 15 Apr, 2017 5:53 pm

I would have the 1997-2002 period back, for sure.

There's still a good alternate history to be written, on what happens if only Gore had carried Florida in 2000.

Certainly hard to see how Corbyn ever happens in that scenario. Trump, for that matter.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Sat 15 Apr, 2017 6:54 pm

Mixed polls for Labour with Opinium giving the Tories a narrow 9 point lead in The Observer, while ComRes in the Sunday Mirror give them a disappointing 21 point gap. Truth somewhere in between.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Sat 15 Apr, 2017 6:57 pm

Mixed polls for Labour with Opinium giving the Tories a narrow 9 point lead in The Observer, while ComRes in the Sunday Mirror give them a disappointing 21 point gap. Truth somewhere in between.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sat 15 Apr, 2017 7:07 pm

ComRes have tended to give the worst Labour figures for a while now. They are also a rubbish pollster, those facts are not necessarily related - but they could be

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 15 Apr, 2017 7:09 pm

McDonnell gets a rocket from David Blanchflower for what the latter sees as anti-business rubbish.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... bn-tax-gap" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The £36bn tax gap, as defined by HMRC has avoidance at £2.2bn. A worthwhile sum, no doubt, but not what McDonnell seems to be implying. Also, how many companies are going to stop doing avoidance because they publish their tax returns, as implied? Maybe a few ethically-branded ones, but why should most care?

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sat 15 Apr, 2017 7:15 pm

Not denying that McDonnellomics has problems, but I think this is pretty risible from Blanchflower tbh.

He was quite rightly taken to task over it on Twitter earlier.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Sat 15 Apr, 2017 7:15 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:ComRes have tended to give the worst Labour figures for a while now. They are also a rubbish pollster, those facts are not necessarily related - but they could be

You used to say this a lot before the May 2015 General Election as well.

The same poll shows majority approval for Labour's bland soft left policies. What conclusions can we draw i wonder?

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 15 Apr, 2017 7:22 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Not denying that McDonnellomics has problems, but I think this is pretty risible from Blanchflower tbh.

He was quite rightly taken to task over it on Twitter earlier.

I thought his "squeeze the pips" comment was silly, but he's right more broadly about framing business as the enemy and implying you're going to get huge sums out of them. That'll reduce investment.

I wonder if McDonnell's just playing to a base now, preparing for Jez to walk and him to be out on his ear. Nice place in leftist history for him.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 15 Apr, 2017 7:24 pm

Something's already turned up. Brexit.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 15 Apr, 2017 7:26 pm

The sums at stake from hard Brexit must dwarf the avoidance tax gap McDonnell is going after.

Dots to be joined here.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sat 15 Apr, 2017 7:27 pm

ComedyResults have all but admitted they make their figures up FFS. They are garbage.

As far as drawing conclusions from Labour's GE defeat is concerned, precisely the wrong one was was taken by the Liz Kendall tendency - that the result showed that Labour's policies were all wrong, and that to win "power" again the party basically had to abandon everything that it had ever believed in. Instead the sensible line would have been "the policies were basically correct and events will bear this out, but we didn't do enough to either explain them or deal with people's concerns about us". Instead, the likes of Mandelson - including with his ventriloquist's dummy Chuka on that infamous Sunday morning appearance - basically gloated at "anti-business" Ed's defeat. This was followed by Harman's utterly maladroit second spell as acting leader - exemplified by the utterly catastrophic appointment of Leslie as shadow chancellor - and the three "mainstream" leadership candidates basically competing to be as objectionably right wing as possible (even Burnham was, regrettably, drawn in - no doubt egged on by the likes of the execrable Dugher)

And you wonder how we ended up with Corbyn?

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Sat 15 Apr, 2017 7:39 pm

Blanchflower - left wing, thoughtful, economist, versus McDonnell - left wing, not an economist, and the opposite of thoughtful.

Tough call - nah room 101 for "only joking" McDonnell.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sat 15 Apr, 2017 7:42 pm

Blanchflower is normally OK, but that stuff today could have been scripted by the Taxpayers Alliance. Poor from him.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 15 Apr, 2017 7:47 pm

McDonnell was worse.

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Sat 15 Apr, 2017 9:14 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
RogerOThornhill wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote: 1. One thing I feel quite strongly about is that those in the medical profession are exactly the wrong people to be listening to. They are trained in medical care. not the economic modelling of delivering services. The people to listen to on the delivery of heathcare are (micro-)economists.

2. The NHS does have strengths, but there are also good reasons why the UK is the only country that adopts this model.

3. The NHS is cheap, but illiberal. It is cheap because it is illiberal. Because it is illiberal there are costs it puts on to people (like me) in terms of time (ie queues) that I'd prefer to pay more to avoid, but can't without opting out of collective provision (which I don't wish to do).

4. Personally, I'd prefer the German model. One of the reasons for that is I think we now have Tory government as a more or less permanent feature of the UK (at least for the next thirteen years) and they will simply never properly fund a wholly state delivered system.
None of that addresses my central point against that writer.

He is not even a specialist in health economics - the title of his PhD was Constructing a new measure of poverty for the UK

If you're going to propose a different system then it would help if you could argue the case for it using a model and not just keep banging on about how everything is terrible...change the funding model and it'll all be fine.

I notice in that article he doesn't even say what he would propose - utterly pointless.

I think the point that he makes no concrete proposal (ie support a move to say the Singaporean model while explaining it) is fair.

Complaining about who he is isn't really.

Can I just challenge the idea that the UK is the only country that has adopted the NHS model. There are countries across the world that have exactly what we have, a socialised medical system, that sits alongside a privatised system for the very rich. The two interact and use the staff and resources of the government run hospitals. I happen to know of one such place, today they are in the forefront of studying kidney disease, social medicine leading the research that will help benefit several other nations who have a crisis in their populations. The same methodology used in a widespread way outside of Europe. It has however come under attack in recent years by predatory private hospital chains that provide more luxurious hospitals but poach the doctors educated at state expense.

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Sat 15 Apr, 2017 10:08 pm

Frankly tou haven't seen anything where healthcare is concerned until you have had to comfort someone for the loss of a beloved child or family member and learn the realities of the lifelong debt that family has incurred for general and ordinarily decent levels of terminal care. I can attest to the fact that that immense burden, often lifelong, means that those people themselves will not be able to afford healthcare for themselves, neither will they ever afford much for themselves again, and it then becomes a family matter to maintain care for everyone else in that family unit. This is what the undermining of socialised care delivers. Except in the US of course where it means ever escalating monthly health insurance costs, and medication co-pays that would scare the shit out of the average Brit. This is what we are sleep walking into.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Sat 15 Apr, 2017 10:19 pm

seeingclearly wrote:quote="SpinningHugo"]
1. One thing I feel quite strongly about is that those in the medical profession are exactly the wrong people to be listening to. They are trained in medical care. not the economic modelling of delivering services. The people to listen to on the delivery of heathcare are (micro-)economists.

2. The NHS does have strengths, but there are also good reasons why the UK is the only country that adopts this model.

3. The NHS is cheap, but illiberal. It is cheap because it is illiberal. Because it is illib

Can I just challenge the idea that the UK is the only country that has adopted the NHS model. .

[/quote][/quote]

Which other systems, specifically, are you thinking of?

tinybgoat · Post by **tinybgoat** » Sun 16 Apr, 2017 1:05 am

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39612095" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

North Korea has attempted to launch a missile on its east coast which is believed to have failed, South Korea's military says.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Sun 16 Apr, 2017 4:44 am

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 85016.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Jeremy Corbyn’s policy blitz supported by majority of British public, poll says