Bolitics The New Condem Government

[markavfc40]

 

You reap what you sow don't you.

The NHS has been under funded and billions wasted on a needless top down reorganization. On top of that huge cuts to local government funding has resulted in cuts to adult social care meaning many patients are in hospital simply because they have no where else to go. The result is we now have numerous hospitals declaring major incidents and in some cases A and E departments locking doors and ambulances being left outside with patients.

The way this country's finest achievement, the NHS, has been treated is nothing short of a disgrace. In fact the way this Tory led Government has treated many of our public services with their ideological cuts is disgraceful.

I'm no tory or tory apologist, Mark - but isn't this a bit rum?

It's not a novel thing, is it?

Health service provision needs to have some of the politics taken out of it (and that includes health charity lobby groups).

 

 

 

Snowy what do you mean a bit rum?

 

It is a novel thing. Certainly in the case of the cuts in adult social care due to the huge cuts in local government funding. Social care in this country now is as poor as it is has been since the mid 90's and this has now resulted in hospital beds being blocked by elderly patients as there isn't the provision outside of hospital to take care of them. In addition many people are now attending A and E as they can't get to see a GP with in a reasonable time scale. As was pointed out on a news report I saw earlier it has been a mild winter so it certainly can't just be written off and put down to it being winter.

 

The simple facts of the matter are that if we want a top class health service then we are going to have to pay more for it. I have said on multiple occasions I am not rich by any stretch of the imagination but I will gladly pay a few quid more in taxes if it helps protect our public services the most vital of which being the NHS.

Edited January 6, 2015 by markavfc40

[snowychap]

Snowy what do you mean a bit rum?

I think it's a bit rum to make out that the issues which exist with A&E (and also elsewhere) are due to Tory/Lib Dem government.

The same kinds of things happened under previous governments of all colours and would have been likely to have happened under another administration.

The Tory reorganization may have caused unnecessary problems but to wheel it out as the reason behind every NHS issue in the last few years is silly (just as blaming Labour politicians for the failings of Staffs is nonsense).

The health service is a difficult thing to manage (let alone manage well).

The simple facts of the matter are that if we want a top class health service then we are going to have to pay more for it.

Indeed. But on top of that, we're going to have to spend the money wisely. There seems to be little reporting (like there was a few years ago) about health cost inflation vastly outrunning the high inflation that everyone else was having to cope with. That needs to be revisited along with the consequences of longer lifespans due to better outcomes for certain conditions (along with the corollary of relatively poorer outcomes for other conditions).

[tonyh29]

You reap what you sow don't you.

The NHS has been under funded and billions wasted on a needless top down reorganization. On top of that huge cuts to local government funding has resulted in cuts to adult social care meaning many patients are in hospital simply because they have no where else to go. The result is we now have numerous hospitals declaring major incidents and in some cases A and E departments locking doors and ambulances being left outside with patients.

The way this country's finest achievement, the NHS, has been treated is nothing short of a disgrace. In fact the way this Tory led Government has treated many of our public services with their ideological cuts is disgraceful.

I'm no tory or tory apologist, Mark - but isn't this a bit rum?

It's not a novel thing, is it?

Health service provision needs to have some of the politics taken out of it (and that includes health charity lobby groups).

Snowy what do you mean a bit rum?

It is a novel thing. Certainly in the case of the cuts in adult social care due to the huge cuts in local government funding. Social care in this country now is as poor as it is has been since the mid 90's and this has now resulted in hospital beds being blocked by elderly patients as there isn't the provision outside of hospital to take care of them. In addition many people are now attending A and E as they can't get to see a GP with in a reasonable time scale. As was pointed out on a news report I saw earlier it has been a mild winter so it certainly can't just be written off and put down to it being winter.

The simple facts of the matter are that if we want a top class health service then we are going to have to pay more for it. I have said on multiple occasions I am not rich by any stretch of the imagination but I will gladly pay a few quid more in taxes if it helps protect our public services the most vital of which being the NHS.

If you werent so busy asking to be taxed more all the time you would be rich and then you could pay to go private and stop being a burden on the NHS

Think it was QT the other week where the labour NHS argument was kinda exposed for the myth it is ( unless you use left foot forward as your source for opinion ) .. I suspect that is what snowy is referring to ( well not the opinion being put to bed as he wouldn't necessarily agree with the Tory MP's case )

The NHS is in a bad way and has been for many many years ,labours privitisation didn't save it , nor has the Coalition attempts ... But It isn't just a case of chucking more money at it , it's an institution not Man City , what it needs is some proper restructuring , if some of that involves putting services out to the private sector then so be it

First thing I would do with the NHS though is scrap car parking fees at hospitals , bloody scandalous that is

[snowychap]

...what it needs is some proper restructuring , if some of that involves putting services out to the private sector then so be it

Why does 'restructuring' have to mean that?

It doesn't - other than it's the standard bloody call from everyone that the 'private sector' is more bloody efficient, supposedly.

Tell that to the Branson companies that have gone belly up, to whichever rail franchise that couldn't tell its arse from my elbow and so on.

And if we've learnt anything from the last couple of decades then surely it's that 'private sector' providers getting contracts for public funds (be they A4e, G4S, Serco, whomever) are dodgy as buggery - along with those who shove the contracts their way.

Edit:

Of course, they're the ones still getting contracts as they have 'experience in the sector'.

If that's not a reason to roast any elected politician you know over an open fire until they finally admit their culpability then I don't know what is. rocket polishers.

Edited January 6, 2015 by snowychap

[tonyh29]

Do you also manage to pick fights in an empty room ?

When something doesn't work you kinda tend to make changes or to use another phrase you restructure it ... I didn't say privatising it was the solution I said "IF" it's the solution then so be it

Not sure your point with beardy and his train set , it's like saying because Blair is a war criminal all future Labour PM's must also be war criminals ...

[snowychap]

When something doesn't work you kinda tend to make changes or to use another phrase you restructure it ... I didn't say privatising it was the solution I said "IF" it's the solution then so be it

There was a clear line from 'restructuring' to 'if it may, ahem erm possibly need some sort of private sector so be it...'

If you want to whine about not meaning x or y then go on but it's shit. I like you and what you have to say, Tony - but not when it's purely about winning an argument. If I want to have that battle, I'll walk in to an empty room.

[tonyh29]

You'd still lose

[snowychap]

You'd still lose

Of course, I'd be up against myself.

[blandy]

 

We deeply regret the decision to dispense with the Nimrod MRA4 and have serious concerns regarding the capability gaps this has created in the ability to undertake the military tasks envisaged in the SDSR. This appears to be a clear example of the need to make large savings overriding the strategic security of the UK and the capability requirements of the Armed Forces

Tory effing twunts caught.

On the comment re defence spending - it's fine to reduce spending, perhaps even admirable and necessary IF you also reduce what you try and do. It is utterly a betrayal to cut spending, whilst sending people off to all parts to fight for the interests deemed necessary by the politicians.

Both labour and even more so the Tories have politically talked the talk, walked on the big stage, sending people to Libya/iraq/Afg etc whilst tying the hands of the men and women they are sending.

The SDSR was, as was said at the time, and has been verified now, more about bean counting than defence strategy or security.

 

Now that Russia is being all war-y again, it'd have been nice to have some maritime patrol aircraft so we could find their submarines which have been lurking about in our waters, n'that. 

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mod-asks-for-american-help-in-searching-for-russian-submarine-near-scotland-9966080.html

Two American P3 Orion maritime patrol aeroplanes were called in to fill what defence experts described as a “gaping chasm” in Britain’s anti-submarine capability following the scrapping of the RAF’s £4bn fleet of Nimrod surveillance aircraft in 2010.

Angus Robertson, the Scottish National Party’s defence spokesman and MP for Moray, said the US deployment showed that Britain had resorted to going to its allies with a “begging bowl”.

 

Now who on earth could have forseen that coming.

[markavfc40]

The problem is Pete there has been too much short term thinking. It has been about making cuts at any cost with little thought to the consequences in the medium to long term.

 

The issue you have highlighted above resulting from the defence cuts, the ongoing problems in the NHS due in part to the huge cuts in adult social care meaning beds on wards being taken up by patients who could be cared for outside of hospital but there is no longer the provision. Many of our roads are in a terrible state due to a lack of funding over many years. The government have apparently said they will be spending 6 billion over the next few years but that is a fraction of what is needed.

[tonyh29]

 

 

We deeply regret the decision to dispense with the Nimrod MRA4 and have serious concerns regarding the capability gaps this has created in the ability to undertake the military tasks envisaged in the SDSR. This appears to be a clear example of the need to make large savings overriding the strategic security of the UK and the capability requirements of the Armed Forces

Tory effing twunts caught.

On the comment re defence spending - it's fine to reduce spending, perhaps even admirable and necessary IF you also reduce what you try and do. It is utterly a betrayal to cut spending, whilst sending people off to all parts to fight for the interests deemed necessary by the politicians.

Both labour and even more so the Tories have politically talked the talk, walked on the big stage, sending people to Libya/iraq/Afg etc whilst tying the hands of the men and women they are sending.

The SDSR was, as was said at the time, and has been verified now, more about bean counting than defence strategy or security.

 

Now that Russia is being all war-y again, it'd have been nice to have some maritime patrol aircraft so we could find their submarines which have been lurking about in our waters, n'that. 

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mod-asks-for-american-help-in-searching-for-russian-submarine-near-scotland-9966080.html

 

Two American P3 Orion maritime patrol aeroplanes were called in to fill what defence experts described as a “gaping chasm” in Britain’s anti-submarine capability following the scrapping of the RAF’s £4bn fleet of Nimrod surveillance aircraft in 2010.

Angus Robertson, the Scottish National Party’s defence spokesman and MP for Moray, said the US deployment showed that Britain had resorted to going to its allies with a “begging bowl”.

 

Now who on earth could have forseen that coming.

 

the Nimrod MRA4 didn't work anyway so we'd have still have had a gaping hole in our defence and bringing in the P3 Orions ..this way we do it without having killed a few Nimrod crew along the way  

[blandy]

It did, Tony. It was late, there had been all sorts of issues with the programme, caused by BAE, by MoD, by various political and commercial decisions, but without going over old ground, they sawed the aircraft up with massive diggers just at the point that the aircraft and systems had been ready to go. I watched them do it. I went on the aircraft, I worked alongside people who were on the Nimrod MR4 avionics team.

They'll be buying or renting American aircraft to part fill the gap, but they'll end up saving little or no money, while they have already degraded capability, put people out of work, harmed communities around Kinloss, reduced search and rescue coverage.

They are utterly utterly incompetent

[bickster]

The state of the roads goes back to she whose grave should be a dancefloor. It was her that introduced "Competitive Tendering" for council contracts effectively meaning the lowest bid wins the contract. What does the lowest bid mean? Shitty cheap repairs! In the main its the roads the councils are meant to be responsible for i.e. it comes out of their money (our council tax) that are the ones in need of the most urgent repair. The national roads i.e. the ones the Government pay for are in a bit better state.

Unless of course you live in Liverpool when they are all a goddam disgrace. But that issue goes back to the Militant criminal Hatton. A blind person can actually tell if they are in Liverpool or one of the neighbouring council areas just by the bumps in the road, its the a form of braille. They can tell when they move across a boundary because the roads become instantly shit

[Awol]

It did, Tony. It was late, there had been all sorts of issues with the programme, caused by BAE, by MoD, by various political and commercial decisions, but without going over old ground, they sawed the aircraft up with massive diggers just at the point that the aircraft and systems had been ready to go. I watched them do it. I went on the aircraft, I worked alongside people who were on the Nimrod MR4 avionics team.

They'll be buying or renting American aircraft to part fill the gap, but they'll end up saving little or no money, while they have already degraded capability, put people out of work, harmed communities around Kinloss, reduced search and rescue coverage.

They are utterly utterly incompetent

"This".

Cameron has also made clear that if he gets back in they won't just be axing defence further but taking a chainsaw to it. The Tories have been and continue to be criminally negligent in this regard.

I'm convinced the Nimrod decision was personal between the Tories and BAe because strategically it was nonsense.

BTW RAF are allegedly looking at taking Maritime Patrol Aircraft from Japan (P1?) as well weighing up the P8 lease/purchase from the US.

[blandy]

I think they're going for the P8, Awol.
The "personal" bit re Nimrod was (er, allegedly) becausethey wanted to cancel the carriers, but couldn't, because of the contract Gordon Brown's gov't had signed. This irked the tories a great deal.
There was also a lot of inter service and inter MoD horse trading and kind of ego stuff. The RAF likes fighters, the Army likes tanks, the Navy likes big ships. MPAs aren't as "sexy" as some of the other assets, and that's another reason they lost out, I feel.

[tonyh29]

I think they're going for the P8, Awol.

The "personal" bit re Nimrod was (er, allegedly) becausethey wanted to cancel the carriers, but couldn't, because of the contract Gordon Brown's gov't had signed. This irked the tories a great deal.

There was also a lot of inter service and inter MoD horse trading and kind of ego stuff. The RAF likes fighters, the Army likes tanks, the Navy likes big ships. MPAs aren't as "sexy" as some of the other assets, and that's another reason they lost out, I feel.

 

I'd heard P8 as well

 

the carriers bit i think i mentioned on this thread years back as my mate was involved in some of the discussions ... BAE didnt' cover themselves in any glory either but it could well have been a retaliation from the govet   but chances are the govt just got focused on the next threat being Jihadi's on tube trains and forgot how mad and dangerous Putin is

[Awol]

I think they're going for the P8, Awol.

The "personal" bit re Nimrod was (er, allegedly) becausethey wanted to cancel the carriers, but couldn't, because of the contract Gordon Brown's gov't had signed. This irked the tories a great deal.

There was also a lot of inter service and inter MoD horse trading and kind of ego stuff. The RAF likes fighters, the Army likes tanks, the Navy likes big ships. MPAs aren't as "sexy" as some of the other assets, and that's another reason they lost out, I feel.

I'd heard P8 as well

the carriers bit i think i mentioned on this thread years back as my mate was involved in some of the discussions ... BAE didnt' cover themselves in any glory either but it could well have been a retaliation from the govet but chances are the govt just got focused on the next threat being Jihadi's on tube trains and forgot how mad and dangerous Putin is

Mate at the time people were screaming blue murder about them binning Nimrod and with it our (flying) Maritime Patrol capability.

The reason successive govts hollowed out the armed forces was a gamble that as long as we had trident the big nasty boys like Putin couldn't mess with us. In order to protect the deployment of those vessels from foreign subs and maintain the integrity of the nuclear deterrent you need aircraft like Nimrod. It's the old "for want of a nail" scenario. They knew what they were doing alright and there is a zero % chance that the consequences weren't explained in detail.

As for the jihadi threat... One wonders how sacking 20K soldiers seemed like a smart way to achieve that.

Bottom line - no votes in defence. The stupid, cynical lady parts.

[bickster]

So today we saw Cameron and Milliband at their hypocritical best. If you'd merged them you'd have got the truth

Cameron says he won't be in the debates unless the Greens are invited because he thinks its anti democratic not to.

Milliband says he'll debate whoever teh TV companies invite but won't stand up for the Greens. Milliband says Cameron is running scared and he should be in the debate regardless.

Both right in different ways, both lying toads.

Cameron is right but the reason he wants the Greens in is because they may take votes off the other two and not him

Milliband is right that Cameron is running scared as the incumbent PM he'll more than likely get slaughtered but as a democrat he should be supporting the Greens right to a voice but he won't because of the real reason Cameron is standing up for them.

British politics in a nutshell that. Say one thing mean another. Know something is right but have the opposite opinion because its tactically better.

Pair of gobshites

[tonyh29]

when this broke a couple of weeks ago (it seems to have become news again today for some reason ) my first thought was Why is Cameron asking for the Greens to be included , after all they are virtually a non entity in UK politics  ... then a bit of goggling revealed exactly the answer you give  .... it's likely they will take voters away from Labour  (though on that basis I'd have thought Cameron would be hankering for the BNP to be included as well )

 

I'm not sure why Cameron has taken this view though  ... I think the debates showed last time around though , that people may swell behind the  outsider , the one offering something "different"  ( Oh how we all laughed at I agree with Nick ) .. but come the voting booth decided to stick to what they knew ( see also voting change , the Jocks )

 

instead he's given ammo to the others to accuse him of ducking the issue and being scared .... anyone ever seeing  inept Ed at PMQ , would know that Ed's words are nothing but bravado ...  but short term Ed will get a bounce and more importantly some deflection from his previous butty related mishaps

 

voters have short memories by and large  , the TV debates are too early in the campaign from what I can recall ... win or lose on the TV debates , it will be forgotten about within a few weeks ... after all how many people still refer to the "40 year old  black man "  other then this rather cool site

[Xela]

Cameron is right, the Greens should be included if UKIP are.