| Non-motoring > Hartlepool by-election | Miscellaneous |
| Thread Author: Duncan | Replies: 71 |
|
New Fri 7 May 21 06:11
Hartlepool by-election - Duncan
|
|
Polling took place on Thursday in Hartlepool, a Labour stronghold since 1964. The result is expected 'imminently' - 'any second' - 'any minute'. Well soon, perhaps? The Tories are widely expected to win. Someone explain to me why? Please? |
|
New Fri 7 May 21 06:40
Hartlepool by-election - sooty123
|
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-57018799 Looks like Labour has conceded. |
|
New Fri 7 May 21 06:42
Elections 21 - sooty123
|
| Looks like, on the results so far, have done reasonably well. Although only 10% of votes have been counted. |
|
New Fri 7 May 21 06:50
Elections 21 - Duncan
|
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-57016689 I hope there is a decent level of back-biting, name calling and recrimination? This is, after all, what the Labour party does best. |
|
New Fri 7 May 21 07:14
Hartlepool by-election - sooty123
|
| Not even close in the end, Con won with a majority of 7000. |
|
New Fri 7 May 21 07:55
Hartlepool by-election - Zero
|
|
>> The Tories are widely expected to win. Someone explain to me why? Please? Its still the Brexit effect. the Tories would probably have won Hartlepool in the 2019 general election had the Brexit Party not picked up a quarter of the votes. The movement of that support to Conservative candidate Jill Mortimer does seem to have been crucial to this win. Why is Brexit still a factor, because a: the voters havent seen immigrants shot and bruned, and b: the Eu is acting stupidly. Headline like "France to cut off Jersey power in row over Fishing" is a strong election poster. |
|
New Fri 7 May 21 09:23
Hartlepool by-election - PeterS
|
|
I’m sure it’s the voters fault for not understanding the issues....so annoying when they don’t do what’s expected by those who’d believe they are entitled to the votes... ;) |
|
New Fri 7 May 21 09:46
Hartlepool by-election - Netsur
|
|
And Labour has few policies that make sense that are much different from the Conservatives, who have proven that they can manage a pandemic, no worse than most other western democracies and beat them all in the race to vaccinate the population. The headline grabbing Corbynites are still there, making stupid comments and leaving the voters wondering why the left is more concerned by the inhabitants of Gaza than the inhabitants of Grimsby. The Labour Party outside the densely populated, mainly ethnic, urban centres has lost all relevance to the white, disenfranchised proper 'salt of the earth' working family. Hartlepool is a classic case of why Labour needs to understand its history, why it was formed and why its last Government was that of the Blair/Brown era. This was not Boris winning the election, but Keir losing it big time. |
|
New Fri 7 May 21 15:08
Hartlepool by-election - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> And Labour has few policies that make sense that are much different from the Conservatives, >> who have proven that they can manage a pandemic, no worse than most other western >> democracies and beat them all in the race to vaccinate the population. They really have not managed the pandemic at all well. Late into lockdowns THREE times. Track and trace pretty well ineffective. Deaths in general and those in Care Homes during the early stages in particular. Failures and screw ups over PPE - never mind the blatant corruption involved in the 'fast track'. They got vaccination right, perhaps as a result of picking the right vaccine 'czar'. Even if she was an MP's wife she had a damn good family heritage. I suppose if they're held to account for their failings then they get credit for their wins but don't underestimate professional NHS managers and logisticians in actually making it work. >> The headline grabbing Corbynites are still there, making stupid comments and leaving the voters wondering >> why the left is more concerned by the inhabitants of Gaza than the inhabitants of >> Grimsby. Only I suspect in your world would Gaza feature, >> The Labour Party outside the densely populated, mainly ethnic, urban centres has lost all relevance >> to the white, disenfranchised proper 'salt of the earth' working family. Hartlepool is a classic >> case of why Labour needs to understand its history, why it was formed and why >> its last Government was that of the Blair/Brown era. You may be right (up to a point) about the disenfranchised but the use of the term 'ethnic' is as offensive as it is incorrect. Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 7 May 21 at 15:08
|
|
New Fri 7 May 21 15:47
Hartlepool by-election - No FM2R
|
|
>> The Labour Party outside the densely populated, mainly ethnic, urban centres has lost all >> relevance to the white, disenfranchised proper 'salt of the earth' working family I've got considerable problems with that statement. How does "white" come into it? What's this idea that somehow the white can be "salt of the earth". Why does the Labour Party have different relationship with "ethnic" people. Aside from the incorrect use of the word "ethnic", which is merely a grouping of similar cultural tradition, not actually a thing in itself. I agree with Bromp on the subject. That is offensive. I'm not sure you meant it that way, but I think you shouldn't have written it. |
|
New Fri 7 May 21 16:03
Hartlepool by-election - sooty123
|
|
but don't underestimate professional NHS managers and logisticians in actually making it work. >> >> > Or not. |
|
New Fri 7 May 21 17:54
Hartlepool by-election - PeterS
|
|
>> Or not. Once thing that is certain is that the success in setting up the testing and vaccination centres (not the operation and manning of them) had almost nothing to do with the NHS and PHE. That success sits with the vaccination task force as well. What the NHS has done is execute a plan put in place by people who did know what needed doing. Left to the NHS we’d be with the stragglers of Europe in our delivery Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 7 May 21 at 20:15
|
|
New Fri 7 May 21 16:55
Hartlepool by-election - Duncan
|
|
Ok Brompy, so Netsur has got this wrong, and got that wrong. What is YOUR explanation of why the Tories are doing well, and/or why Labour is doing badly? May I refer you to the question I asked at 06.11 today? Last edited by: Duncan on Fri 7 May 21 at 16:55
|
|
New Fri 7 May 21 17:09
Hartlepool by-election - Manatee
|
|
>> And Labour has few policies that make sense that are much different from the Conservatives, >> who have proven that they can manage a pandemic, no worse than most other western >> democracies and beat them all in the race to vaccinate the population. We'll never know whether it would have been better under Labour or not, but I seriously doubt if they would have managed sleazily and wastefully to disburse anything like the same amount of money to their friends and relatives as Johnson and his government have. >> >> The headline grabbing Corbynites are still there, making stupid comments and leaving the voters wondering >> why the left is more concerned by the inhabitants of Gaza than the inhabitants of >> Grimsby. This is tragic of course because the Conservatives meanwhile are blatantly transferring e.g. NHS activity to the private sector where it will be capitalised with ludicrously loans and expensive equity which we will be paying for and will ultimately increase costs substantially - but the Conservatives clients and donors will get a lot richer while being protected from tax so that's OK. >> The Labour Party outside the densely populated, mainly ethnic, urban centres has lost all relevance >> to the white, disenfranchised proper 'salt of the earth' working family. Hartlepool is a classic >> case of why Labour needs to understand its history, why it was formed and why >> its last Government was that of the Blair/Brown era. The tragedy is that we really need to get rid of the current government for the sake of all those working families who will be kept poor by Tory policies. >> >> This was not Boris winning the election, but Keir losing it big time. I think Corbyn and his acolytes are still losing elections for Labour. It's true that Starmer has not cut through - somehow Labour needs to create an appealing vision of what sort of country it wants to make the UK - just "not being led by Corbyn" isn't enough it seems, particularly when his blind followers put more effort into attacking Starmer than attacking the utterly dishonest and incompetent leader and government in power. Unfortunately the argument in Labour will now be between the moderates and the Corbynites who will try and use the results to bring down Starmer so Labour can go further backwards. The country is the loser. Labour is a dead loss at the moment and without an effective opposition the Tories will get become ever more shameless. Riddle me this - in the 1960s when we had on average in real terms 1/3 of the income per capita that we do now, we could afford parks and libraries, the gullysucker came round every 6 weeks and a house cost 4 times the average wage. Now the infrastructure is collapsing and houses cost 8 x wages, and debt both public and private has rocketed. The richer are comparatively richer and the gap between median and average earnings is increasing. This is what you get when government conspires with the rich. |
|
New Fri 7 May 21 11:14
Hartlepool by-election - Zero
|
|
>> I’m sure it’s the voters fault for not understanding the issues....so annoying when they don’t >> do what’s expected by those who’d believe they are entitled to the votes... ;) When Corbyn was in charge, he tried to get the party back to the grass roots - Miners, Shipbuilders, Iron Foundry, Heavy industry working man - traditional labour heartland. No-one told him its gone, its seen now as heritage, not relevant to toaday. I dont blame KS, hes been a bit wrong footed, having to agree, for national unity, with Gov in power handling of pandemic. Once its all over he can return to proper opposition, and attack BoJos weak underbelly - traditional tory party cronyism and sleaze will get him |
|
New Fri 7 May 21 11:36
Hartlepool by-election - James Loveless
|
|
"Once its all over he can return to proper opposition, and attack BoJos weak underbelly - traditional tory party cronyism and sleaze will get him." To be fair, Starmer did have a go at Boris over precisely these issues, but somehow didn't seem to make much of an impact. What is worrying is that Boris's behaviour might be now seen as a kind of new normal, in the same way that Trump's crass behaviour was ignored by some who (strangely) believed he had some other qualities. Of course I realise that the pandemic and the success of the UK vaccination programme have overshadowed everything else. The fact that figures for the regrowth of the economy are looking surprisingly good may also blind voters to other things that matter. Last edited by: James Loveless on Fri 7 May 21 at 11:37
|
|
New Fri 7 May 21 12:17
Hartlepool by-election - sooty123
|
| Voters have their own way of deciding what matters and what doesn't. |
|
New Fri 7 May 21 12:49
Hartlepool by-election - Terry
|
|
All governments need an effective opposition - sadly the UK does not have one. Past experience would suggest that the Tories should have been wiped out - sleaze, covid management, etc. But this simply does not register with voters. The Labour party need to be very critical of why they failed. Blaming voters, or the media in the belief they "woz robbed" is denial at its worst. The reality (like it or not) is that an amoral Bojo is a hugely better, more positive communicator than KS. KS may be highly intelligent, decent, rational etc etc - but that does not make him electable. Two similar examples. Trump got 74m votes in the US elections - not all right wing nutters, but people wanted to believe his promises despite very obvious gross inadequacies. Same with Tony Blair - very persuasive communicator who went to war on the back of a weapons of mass destruction fiction. Sadly KS for all his strengths will struggle to win an election unless (a) Bojo screws up in an unimaginably major way, or (b) he is able to identify and sell a very clear, positive, and inspiring vision for the future. |
|
New Fri 7 May 21 13:02
Hartlepool by-election - sooty123
|
|
I see (unsurprisingly) SKS's critics are making moves inthe Labour Party. The Corbyn wing want to break the party up into various smaller parties reporting back to the centre, a federation style of party. Timing wasn't great for Labour, but they've got to deal with that. The results that are coming in now suggests they are losing more seats in their heartland, the government have picked up a fair few seats. I wonder if they thought it would be this bad? |
|
New Fri 7 May 21 13:15
Hartlepool by-election - Lygonos
|
|
In England there is still a belief that Labour will hit the bottom then bounce back. There is a real possibility that they are in a terminal slide, although the LibDems not really being a viable alternative to te Tories helps Labour out. In Scotland the choice is largely SNP or Tory. Labour have no trump card over the SNP - the Tories have the 'Unionist' vibe at present. Intrigued to see how it turns out up here. First Jock result in: a hold for Lib Dems with a small drop in their share cf last election - SNP and Tories both gained a little, Labour lost a little. Last edited by: Lygonos on Fri 7 May 21 at 13:19
|
|
New Fri 7 May 21 14:55
Hartlepool by-election - bathtub tom
|
|
I heard an opinion that Boris is 'riding the wave' and Starmer can do nothing about it: Labour put up a remainer who told Hartlepool electorate they were stupid for voting leave (the majority did). Boris got brexit and covid vaccines sorted. Boris jumped on the bandwagon and criticised the European football super league and threatened to do everything in his power to prevent it. I feel sorry for Starmer. |
|
New Fri 7 May 21 19:31
Hartlepool by-election - Manatee
|
|
Starmer hasn't cut through, and part of that is there has really been no successful articulation and promotion of a credible and appealing vision of what Labour wants post-COVID, post-Brexit Britain to be like. Starmer's sin, if there is one, of of omission. He has done nothing wrong, he's just perceived to have done not very much. Corbyn is still costing Labour electability. My neighbour, a decent bloke I think, is still talking about Corbyn and "that Communist McDonnell" as reasons for Labour being dangerous. He sums up Starmer as a millionaire lawyer in a suit who can't relate to ordinary people and says "Boris" gets through to ordinary people and talks their language! The fact the Starmer's family is genuinely working class and Johnson lives in a world where wallpaper costs £850 a roll doesn't matter. Then he told me why socialism is bad. The Nazis and Stalin called themselves socialists. The commentary on my point that Johnson is a serial liar and a total turd as a man elicited "they're all the same" which I'm sure we have all heard many times. He said all this to me about a week ago and I thought "we're all stuffed". Or a word to that effect. Last edited by: Manatee on Fri 7 May 21 at 19:33
|
|
New Fri 7 May 21 19:45
Hartlepool by-election - No FM2R
|
|
>>Starmer hasn't cut through, and part of that is there has really been no successful articulation and promotion of a credible and appealing vision of what Labour wants post-COVID, post-Brexit Britain to be like I realise I am a distance away,m and thus don't live in the middle of news & discussion, but I must say Starmer is mostly unknown to me. What little I've seen or heard seems ok, but he's not stamping his mark on anything. I think nobody expects the Tories to be in touch with ordinary people, and consequently don't seem particularly disturbed by then not being so. But here is this perception, expectation or belief that Labour should be, and so they seem to be heavily disadvantaged when they're not seen to be. >> which I'm sure we have all heard many times. And I've said it. They are all similar people, with a range of personalities. Their quality does not improve or deteriorate depending on their political beliefs, but we are all more or less willing to believe that it does. If only we could focus so much more on what they actually do, rather than how they spin it. I think Starmer is ok, wouldn't bother me if he became Prime Minister I get the impression in and of himself he'd be pretty good, but some of the others in the Labour Party are just dreadful and would be a disaster. And I don't see much sign that he could control or limit them. |
|
New Fri 7 May 21 20:01
Hartlepool by-election - sooty123
|
|
. He sums >> up Starmer as a millionaire lawyer in a suit who can't relate to ordinary people >> and says "Boris" gets through to ordinary people and talks their language! I assume the exclamation mark is one of surprise, I'm not sure why though. There seems to be an assumption/genuine surprise that the well off can't communicate and articulate with the working class and equally the only people that can talk to them is a working class politician. The fact the >> Starmer's family is genuinely working class and Johnson lives in a world where wallpaper costs >> £850 a roll doesn't matter. Correct. Not aimed at you, but there seems to be an undercurrent of telling people what they should be concerned about and what they shouldn't. As we've seen in the past few years, there couldn't be a worse tactic. |
|
New Fri 7 May 21 20:25
Hartlepool by-election - Biggles
|
| The original accusations against Boris of him being a 'lier' were 1) relating to which ancient Greek said what and 2) was he having an affair. Hardly character judging stuff. |
|
New Fri 7 May 21 21:08
Hartlepool by-election - Manatee
|
|
>> The original accusations against Boris of him being a 'lier' were 1) relating to which >> ancient Greek said what and 2) was he having an affair. Hardly character judging stuff. That's hilarious. Are you seriously suggesting that he has only lied a couple of times? A couple of hundred probably wouldn't be an exaggeration. www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/apr/25/observer-view-on-boris-johnson-fitness-for-office |
|
New Fri 7 May 21 21:25
Hartlepool by-election - Biggles
|
|
No, hence the use of the word 'original'. Here is a summary which I thought at the time to be somewhat pathetic. As a correction, itwas not ancient Greece but middle ages England. www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-lies-conservative-leader-candidate-list-times-banana-brexit-bus-a8929076.html |
|
New Fri 7 May 21 19:21
Hartlepool by-election - sooty123
|
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57024995 Interesting article, worth reading. What went wrong for Labour and what to do about it. |
|
New Fri 7 May 21 23:38
Hartlepool by-election - Terry
|
|
Boris seems amoral - definition: lacking a moral sense; unconcerned with the rightness or wrongness of something. His character traits have been evident for decades - as a correspondent, London mayor, Brexit, leadership contest etc. People voted for him despite these obvious failings. Labour messages are ineffectual and underpinned by a flawed rhetoric: - the Tory party is the home of the privileged, moneyed few. Demonstrable nonsense as with 44% of the vote in 2019, they must have attracted support from all parts of society - the politics of envy no longer work. £850 a roll for wallpaper is a lot more than I (or most) would care to spend. Reality - wealth is not spread evenly - cars, houses, holidays, clothes etc etc. For Boris £850 a roll may simply be what he expects to spend. - Tories want to privatise the NHS. Only ~12% have private health insurance so the Tories are heavily reliant on voters who need, value and use the NHS. True privatisation would be like turkeys voting for xmas. Simple scare mongering. Labour need to radically update their message. I am no supporter of Boris and value an effective opposition. Parroting the ideological, political and social messages of the 1960-80s will not win the next election (or even get them close). |
|
New Sat 8 May 21 07:16
Hartlepool by-election - Manatee
|
|
The 'rhetoric' is essentially correct, the fact that a lot of people seem wilfully ignorant of that is the problem for me - I say for me, because they might actually believe that allowing the real clients of the Tory party to accumulate enormous wealth and pay next to no tax, including through using private capital to deliver NHS services, are good things. How can it be good to provide NHS services with a WACC of 15% when the government can fund it at a real interest rate close to zero? They are about creating opportunities for their donors and supporters to pt their capital to work for the highest returns, and the easiest and lowest-risk opportunity of all is to give them state contracts. Labour is an ineffectual mess. The Conservative leadership is despicable. The future for Britain is not bright. |
|
New Sat 8 May 21 08:05
Hartlepool by-election - Haywain
|
|
"The future for Britain is not bright." Indeed! It certainly makes you wonder why 5 million EU nationals applied to stay here after Brexit. |
|
New Sat 8 May 21 09:48
Hartlepool by-election - legacylad
|
|
Must be our varied weather that attracts them. Yesterday afternoon I was walking around Arnside under blue skies enjoying the extensive views across Morecambe Bay to the Lakeland fells. Sitting on boulders and benches contemplating the meaning of life and appreciating what a lucky SOAB I was. The friend I was with had totally forgotten about the voting and only remembered when I mentioned the result in monkey hanger land to her. Turned out the meaning of life was beer and a BBQ in the evening with friends, before the arrival of today’s biblically proportioned rain. |
|
New Sat 8 May 21 10:00
Hartlepool by-election - Manatee
|
|
>>Indeed! It certainly makes you wonder why 5 million EU nationals applied to stay here after Brexit. Not sure I see the relevance of that. Personal circumstances, jobs, property, husbands, wives, they basically kept the option. Brexit has already cost us as much as our total net contributions ever, on some estimates. All so a few rich people can get richer. I have never had strong feelings about the principle of renouncing EU membership but the execution has been incredibly destructive, incompetent, and dishonest. |
|
New Sat 8 May 21 10:13
Hartlepool by-election - Haywain
|
|
"Not sure I see the relevance of that." I was merely pointing out that not everyone's as miserable and gloomy as you. Cheer up, old boy! |
|
New Sat 8 May 21 13:26
Hartlepool by-election - PeterS
|
|
I don’t see any evidence that the Torys want to destroy or underfund the NHS, and the NHS is certainly not the best health service in the world. There’s also nothing wrong with mixing state and private provision of health services - it’s how most of the German and French healthcare systems work after all, and they were lauded in the early days of the pandemic for how they were coping... there’s no point having a low cost of capital if the organisation is inefficient - it’d often still be cheaper to pay someone else, who can do it better, for less and still make a profit. Most people have used the NHS, and many of those who have had negative experiences with it can see that a lot of its issues are nothing to do with funding levels, or privatisation, they come from incompetence, a complete indifference to patient outcomes, a refusal to accept that there are better ways of doing things and a lack of accountability. It’s not the state religion, and treating it as though it is isn’t the vote winner that some seem to think. I’ve experienced healthcare systems and hospitals round the world through Andys dialysis, and while that can only provide a snapshot of how the others work, I can’t think of a single one where I thought that the NHS provided better or more efficient care. Maybe you’d expect the US, Japanese or German systems to be better run. But Greece and India? The clinics there were an oasis of calm and efficiency compared to a U.K. hospital. There are a few outsourced dialysis clinics in the U.K., which are pretty pleasant places, but they are are looked down on by renal staff in NHS hospitals for some reason. Last edited by: PeterS on Sat 8 May 21 at 13:29
|
|
New Mon 10 May 21 01:54
Hartlepool by-election - zippy
|
|
>>The clinics there were an oasis of >> calm and efficiency compared to a U.K. hospital. There are a few outsourced dialysis clinics >> in the U.K., which are pretty pleasant places, but they are are looked down on >> by renal staff in NHS hospitals for some reason. >> There are a few of these on our books and I have visited some of them and reviewed their business model. They can't cope with emergencies very well, not that many are expected to happen with dialysis but if they do it's 999 and an ambulance. They don't treat complex cases - there is no profit in it. They make a very decent profit. I have not got a problem with the profit but if the costs are higher than the NHS cost for the same service then it is depriving the NHS of those funds. What I have seen is business cases where local NHS doesn't have the capital funds to pay for the renal equipment they need and shortly thereafter a renal care service company is proposed in that area and is asking us for funding. I rejected one where for some reason the directors / owners were redacted from companies house data and it would be good to know if the people that have a say in cutting or restricting funding are in any way connected to the people setting up these companies. |
|
New Mon 10 May 21 08:05
Hartlepool by-election - Manatee
|
|
>> What I have seen is business cases where local NHS doesn't have the capital funds >> to pay for the renal equipment they need and shortly thereafter a renal care service >> company is proposed in that area and is asking us for funding. This is why I say it's either bent, or incompetent. The NHS will have to find the money to pay for the care, and the NPV of doing that will far exceed the cost of capitalising it - by a lot. It's not just the profit element for the operator, it's the cost to the NHS of commissioning and managing, the cost of borrowing from banks like yours and even more expensive private capital which is leveraged (by your bank or others) to yield double figure returns. The argument that private can be more efficient so cheaper is usually rubbish - PFI certainly wasn't an efficient way of providing hospitals. You have made the point that the outsourced dialysis clinics won't do complicated stuff - it's not difficult to operate a production line for the simple stuff and it is quite obvious it could be done more cheaply by the NHS. The NHS can't find the capital, but it can afford to pay double the total cost for services as long as it's all in the operating budget? This has been going on since the Thatcher era. Maybe Labour, who actually expanded it, did it as a way of fiddling the borrowing figures, or maybe that's how they kept 'business' happy. I think what's happening now is institutionalised funneling of public funds into private profit. Bent, bent, bent. Money that should be paid in taxation is allowed to be kept, and 'invested' in zero-risk services to siphon off even more public money. Doesn't anybody ever stop to wonder why, with productivity/GDP at 3 x the level of the 1960's, the state is double bankrupt? It's not all down to bank bailouts and COVID. |
|
New Mon 10 May 21 09:02
Hartlepool by-election - PeterS
|
|
At the risk of this sounding like a rant, because it’s something that I’ve experienced closely for far more years than is fair, I think you’re letting political dogma obscure what’s really important, which is how best to balance best quality / lowest cost treatment for patients. The capital cost of a dialysis machine is inconsequential in the annual costs of providing dialysis for a year. A machine costs around £3k, or less, depending on the therapy used. Dialysis doesn’t need a whole hospital infrastructure, so of course a purpose built facility is cheaper than using hospital space, and that’s where the bulk of the savings are. Hospitals also tend to be relatively difficult to get to, whereas purpose built clinics are out of town (on cheaper land) with plenty of free parking. Which makes for a better patient experience generally. The average cost of proving haemodialys across the U.K. is around £35k per year, and most of the cost is in the staff, buildings and dialysis fluid. And those are the bits that most countries in the world manage to do very well without the state actually running it, but simply paying. I’m not sure where you get your double the cost statement from so I can’t comment on that, other than to say it’s not a number I recognise from the CCGs I talk to. They’d say it’s roughly 10% cheaper to send a patient to a stand alone unit. And the patients prefer it. Now you’ll say that the governments should design and build these standalone facilities, then run them. But it doesn’t have the skills, and has a proven track record of huge overspend on most capital projects, primarily because of poor definition of scope, poor quality management and political meddling. And I think to your last point, government spending is roughly the same % of GDP, but we expect it to do much more. Longer life expectancy has driven up the cost of healthcare, social care and pensions almost exponentially. That’s the big driver of spend, not outsourcing. Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 10 May 21 at 11:08
|
|
New Mon 10 May 21 10:11
Hartlepool by-election - Manatee
|
|
>> Now you’ll say that the governments should design and build these standalone facilities, then run >> them. But it doesn’t have the skills, and has a proven track record of huge >> overspend on most capital projects, primarily because of poor definition of scope, poor quality management >> and political meddling. Not convinced. Where do people like Branson suddenly conjure up the skills to do this sort of thing? And political meddling doesn't happen when third parties are engaged to do it? Huge projects nearly always go way over projected cost, whoever does them. It's how projects get commissioned, it's a massive subject as is the question of whether the risk can really be offloaded on to the private sector at all. It's the financing that's the issue here. Nothing to stop the NHS employing contractors to set up or acquiring the skills required - it's not as if it doesn't have the scale. It's ludicrous to suggest that a spiv with capital seeking a return can do better. It's a truism that healthcare costs are a bottomless pit. Allowing the private sector to create work for itself won't help. There's a parallel with private medicine and the universal postal service here. The private sector skims the easy work, sweats the labour, and leaves the publicly owned services to do the difficult stuff. >> >> And I think to your last point, government spending is roughly the same % of >> GDP, but we expect it to do much more. Longer life expectancy has driven up >> the cost of healthcare, social care and pensions almost exponentially. That’s the big driver of >> spend, not outsourcing. The government we currently have would be happy to outsource the whole lot. It's only going in one direction. I don't like sweeping generalisations but I think it's generally said that we have amongst the most cost-effective healthcare systems. People have always wittered about administration and management cost in the NHS but I don't think they will be reduced by outsourcing. If we don't spend money policing the providers we will be robbed blind. Yes I know there are many outsourced services already, commonly in the areas of building services where the employees enjoy low wages and stripped down benefits. The surplus goes to capital, right? The services cost more, and the employees get less is my guess. Outsourcing in these areas does not improve people's lives, especially if these mainly very low paid employees are included. I notice you have swerved around the huge PFI problem. The structure of these public-private partnerships became just as bloated as any public utility. Look at Carillion - didn't the report say (apart from the bent accounting) that was treated as a cash machine and that resulted in a deterioration of public services? |
|
New Mon 10 May 21 11:56
Hartlepool by-election - Zero
|
|
>> Not convinced. Where do people like Branson suddenly conjure up the skills to do this >> sort of thing? He doesn't, Branson has no specific skill in most of the operations the name is stuck to. And thats all it is, a name. Its a brand marketing image that operators pay a % (turnover - not profit) to use. The Branson team arrives with branding and goodie bags, then departs to rake off their ongoing % Mrs Z was outsourced to them, she got Virgin Care goody bags and an annual party at the Branson Mansion meanwhile hours were increased, workload went up, medical support services were mired in red tape justification and cost limits, and the Service fell to bits, the contract was terminated early and Branson sued the NHS trust. By suing the NHS Bransons brand went tits up. I liken Branson to a tic, that feeds on the lifeblood of a business, occasionally leaving it with a debilitating disease. Outsourcing, generally nearly always fails* unless 1/ the outsourced business was a spectacularly useless management basket case (plenty of those about) or its a mundane admin process. *Failure of service, cost wise it usually pays - after all it was only done on cost grounds. |
|
New Mon 10 May 21 12:05
Hartlepool by-election - Manatee
|
|
>>*Failure of service, cost wise it usually pays - after all it was only done on cost grounds. Maybe that depends on the eventual cost of the service failure. I worked for a business that outsourced call handling to save money. Same building, same people, different employer. Short story, a few years later it came back in house - to save money. |
|
New Mon 10 May 21 12:11
Hartlepool by-election - No FM2R
|
|
>>I worked for a business that outsourced call handling to save money. Same building, same people, different employer. Short story, a few years later it came back in house - to save money. I don't approve of outsourcing customer contact. Having said that it is quite possible to outsource a service, reducing cost by facing (having someone else face) an issue, and then to bring it back in and save more money by solving a different problem. |
|
New Mon 10 May 21 12:09
Hartlepool by-election - No FM2R
|
|
>>Outsourcing, generally nearly always fails* Yes. Usually because the people doing it are just trying to make something difficult go away and don't understand outsourcing. Outsourcing is normally the ready alternative to doing something properly oneself. Have you ever heard anything as ridiculous as a company outsourcing their only method of contact with their customer? Ludicrous. Outsourcing can be done properly, but usually it isn't. However, the NHS is a more complex argument, surely? If what we care about is freely available, good quality healthcare free at the point of use then the supply model is not relevant to that. Sure it needs to be done properly, but sourcing is a different argument to the actual existence of the NHS. I should think that next to Peter I am probably the next largest user of global healthcare. In my experience generally the international difference is the funding model and thus availability of healthcare. It is not my experience that the NHS is particularly better than the health service in other countries. Or worse for that matter. It always seems to have far more management/admin deadwood around than other services, and it most certainly is not cleaner. Outsourcing is not an answer to a problem, it is not necessarily right or wrong, it is a sourcing approach that will have a particular effect. The problem with the NHS is part management and part the 66 million expert opinions it has to deal with. |
|
New Mon 10 May 21 12:14
Hartlepool by-election - No FM2R
|
|
>> Where do people like Branson suddenly conjure up the skills to do this sort of thing? They pay the right money to get the right skills. Whereas the Government pays 1/10th of the rate and wonders why it gets paper pushers who fail, albeit having perfected the art of failing over a very long period of time. The Government once asked after my services to solve a £100m+ problem and were prepared to pay me £35,000 to do it. Which just about sums them up. |
|
New Thu 13 May 21 11:55
Hartlepool by-election - PeterS
|
|
>> >> I notice you have swerved around the huge PFI problem. >> >> The structure of these public-private partnerships became just as bloated as any public utility. Look >> at Carillion - didn't the report say (apart from the bent accounting) that was treated >> as a cash machine and that resulted in a deterioration of public services? >> I think PFI proves my point to be honest. It’s was seen by Labour as a solution to a problem they faced, but it ended up costing the taxpayer a fortune. Presumably because the contracts were structured in a way that was commercially disadvantageous to the taxpayer. Now the Government of the time willing entered into those contracts. So either they and the Civil Service lacked the expertise to understand what it was agreeing to (solution - hire people who can understand and negotiate contracts), or they were aware and were negligent in exposing the taxpayer to that risk. All I’ll add is that patient care for renal is better in dedicated, outsourced units, an experience that’s replicated world wide. And any definition of cost effective healthcare has to take into account quality of care surely? As we see with all nationalised organisations, the end user is soon forgotten and choice removed, which always ends badly. |
|
New Mon 10 May 21 09:43
Hartlepool by-election - Zero
|
|
>> vote winner that some seem to think. I’ve experienced healthcare systems and hospitals round the >> world through Andys dialysis, and while that can only provide a snapshot of how the >> others work, I can’t think of a single one where I thought that the NHS >> provided better or more efficient care. Maybe you’d expect the US, Japanese or German systems >> to be better run. But Greece and India? I'm afraid Andy was a different customer. he was the equivalent of a private patient in those places, and I can assure you it was nothing like the care the majority of the locals get. When I broke my hip in Cuba, I went private, and it was as you say, a haven of calm and instant service with top rate services. Only because there was no-one else there. Re Renal centres, we have one near us, in an industrial estate, given the different ambulance service logos that rock up, I would guess its well used by a large geographical area, with high utilisation and subsequent cost effectiveness. My own use of the NHS in recent years has been pretty extensive, in the last 18 months under difficult circumstances for all concerned, but its been very good. You need to take some responsibility for your own care and know how to drive the system (if you sit back and assume it will all tick along for you it may not) I acknowledge at this point that my experience may be not be typical, my Local NHS trust appears to be well managed. Some I know are not. |
|
New Tue 11 May 21 11:59
Hartlepool by-election - Manatee
|
|
>> >> Re Renal centres, we have one near us, in an industrial estate, given the different >> ambulance service logos that rock up, I would guess its well used by a large >> geographical area, with high utilisation and subsequent cost effectiveness. The NHS operates like this in many specialities which are more or less centralised to specific hospitals. Patients tend to object when they have to travel to see a heart specialist or whatever but it seems to help maintain standards as well as being cost effective. >> You >> need to take some responsibility for your own care and know how to drive the >> system (if you sit back and assume it will all tick along for you it >> may not) Absolutely my experience with my heart problem. e.g. if somebody says they will book you an MRI, and you haven't got the appointment within a week, ring them up and ask when your appointment is. I did this with a couple of things and was told they weren't even in the system, or at least not trackable. I have a theory about this which is that hospitals avoid missing targets for wait periods by not starting the clock promptly. |
|
New Tue 11 May 21 16:42
Hartlepool by-election - hjd
|
|
>> >> Re Renal centres, we have one near us, in an industrial estate, given the different >> ambulance service logos that rock up, I would guess its well used by a large >> geographical area, with high utilisation and subsequent cost effectiveness. >> I work a couple of days a week on that industrial estate. Unfortunately there isn't enough parking for everyone. When they set the dialysis centre up all the other businesses on the estate got a letter to ask if we would rent out any of our parking spaces to them. Don't think anyone took them up on the offer as parking is pretty tight. The ambulances offload patients then go and park at the turning circle at the end of the road so the drivers can sit and smoke. Signs say no parking of course and larger lorries have problems turning round. |
|
New Sat 8 May 21 14:03
Hartlepool by-election - Haywain
|
|
"Interesting article, worth reading." Thanks, I read that article but, being the BBC, the broadcasting arm of the Labour party, it failed to identify the main problem. Both the party and the Beeb still see anyone living outside their elite metropolitan bubble as an uneducated, flat-cap wearing, whippet racing, pigeon fancying, onion growing oik …… and so they patronise him. I will provide some examples ……. Several months ago, the millionaire footballer, Marcus Rashford and his agents saw an ideal opportunity to boost Marcus’ profile by fronting a scheme to persuade the mean ol’ government to provide lunches for children during the period when schools were closed because of the pandemic. The Boris-hating Beeb (with Sally Nugent), of course, was only too happy to publicise this by making it headline news and for a week we saw videos of sad mothers on their doorsteps surrounded by a brood of 6 or 7 children. And so it came to pass that the wicked government capitulated ……….. but what did Whippet-man make of this? Did he see the defeat of a miserly Boris, or did he think ‘hang on a minute – my taxes are paying for all these kids!’ In a Telegraph article, Gary Lineker said that ‘he admired’ Marcus Rashford for shaming the government into paying for the lunches. I strongly suspect that Whippet-man would have been more impressed if Marcus had shamed absent fathers into paying for their own kids’ school lunches. And then there was the wallpaper-gate affair – and, again, the Beeb managed to keep this story going for a week. Whilst something was very probably wrong in the wallpaper-procurement department at No 10, put against the background of the vaccine rollout, Whippet-man didn’t give a stuff. And then there was the lovely photograph of Sir Kneel and his sidekick paying homage to that Marxist, racist organization, BLM. As someone who was immediately preceded by at least 4 generations of black slaves aka coalminers, I was not impressed. My great, great uncle died in the Whitwick pit disaster of April 1898 – his body wasn’t brought out until February the following year; he left behind a wife and 8 children. Maybe Sir Kneel should take the knee in front of my uncle’s tombstone and explain to his ghost the concept of ‘white privilege’. |
|
New Sat 8 May 21 15:35
Hartlepool by-election - zippy
|
|
>>BLM There seems to be a lot of confusion about BLM. It is not that BLM above all others. It is that a lot of people think that they do not matter. I am not religious and this parable works well for religious or not religious people: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Lost_Sheep I think the point is, All lives matter, but in this context, black people, when confronted by the authorities in some places are more likely to be hurt than white people and therefore need attention to fix that problem. Of course we care about the whole community, but a subset of that community are in trouble and they are the ones that deserve some concentration on until the issues are resolved. |
|
New Sat 8 May 21 22:00
Hartlepool by-election - No FM2R
|
| What Zippy said +1 |
|
New Sat 8 May 21 21:36
Hartlepool by-election - Haywain
|
|
"And then there was the lovely photograph of Sir Kneel and his sidekick ......." I now understand that, as of Saturday evening, the side-kick has been kicked aside. |
|
New Sun 9 May 21 15:00
Hartlepool by-election - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> Several months ago, the millionaire footballer, Marcus Rashford and his agents saw an ideal opportunity >> to boost Marcus’ profile by fronting a scheme to persuade the mean ol’ government to >> provide lunches for children during the period when schools were closed because of the pandemic. Do you honestly believe that account? >> In a Telegraph article, Gary Lineker said that ‘he admired’ Marcus Rashford for shaming the >> government into paying for the lunches. I strongly suspect that Whippet-man would have been more >> impressed if Marcus had shamed absent fathers into paying for their own kids’ school lunches. Getting Fathers to pay sounds good in practice but it doesn't work; remember the Child Support Agency? The single parent with seven kids by six fathers is largely a myth albeit beloved of the right wing. The reality is that many families on Free School Meals are in work (as was Rashford's mother), that a large cohort of single parents have escaped violent and abusive relationships and that the income floor, above which FSMs stop is under £10grand. If whippet man doesn't know that should politicians pander to his (entirely unintentional) lack of knowledge? >> And then there was the lovely photograph of Sir Kneel and his sidekick paying homage >> to that Marxist, racist organization, BLM. He did no such thing. It's an outright lie to conflate support for the BLM concept, which Zippy has explained, with homage to extremist hangers on who've tried to steal its name and cause. |
|
New Sun 9 May 21 19:04
Hartlepool by-election - No FM2R
|
|
>> The single parent with seven kids by six fathers is largely a myth albeit beloved >> of the right wing. I have no idea why the right wing would find the fact worthy of love, but it is most certainly not a myth. I could give you as list of names, some of which are related to me, where exactly that happens. OK, 7 is perhaps an exaggeration, but 3 or 4 isn't, it's common. Insofar as your main points are concerned though, I entirely agree; Rashford did good things for good reasons. There's no need for people to try to hate him just because of jealousy, resentment or bitterness. >> >> And then there was the lovely photograph of Sir Kneel and his sidekick paying >> homage to that Marxist, racist organization, BLM. Oh don't be a dick. The core of the BLM movement, and the need for it, is racism, bigotry and discrimination suffered by, amongst others, black people. It doesn't matter how much you resent the idea, it is a fact. What is your problem with it? Nobody is saying that only black lives matter. Just a simple statement that "Black Lives Matter". Do you disagree? As for accusing organisations of being marxist, leftist, racist, these days that's so automatic it's surely become passe? |
|
New Sat 8 May 21 13:31
Hartlepool by-election - Kevin
|
| Will someone please define this "working class" that everyone keeps mentioning? |
|
New Sat 8 May 21 14:01
Hartlepool by-election - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> Will someone please define this "working class" that everyone keeps mentioning? There are multiple definitions but as used in this debate I'd treat it as meaning those who work for a wage in unskilled or semi-skilled roles predominantly physical work. |
|
New Sat 8 May 21 15:43
Hartlepool by-election - zippy
|
|
>> Will someone please define this "working class" that everyone keeps mentioning? >> www.investopedia.com/terms/w/working-class.asp |
|
New Sat 8 May 21 18:49
Hartlepool by-election - Kevin
|
|
Then why, whenever Labour lose an election north of Watford, do they always claim that it's because they've lost the backing/trust/whatever of "the working class" but never the rest of the electorate? Khalid Mahmood has given them a clue why their support is draining away. “A London-based bourgeoisie, with the support of brigades of woke social media warriors..," Not that I expect the message to get through. |
|
New Sat 8 May 21 19:12
Hartlepool by-election - No FM2R
|
|
Who here votes based upon party allegiance? I don't. It seems to me that [simplistically] the Labour party believe there is a certain type of voter which is their birthright, that should always vote Labour no matter what and they feel aggrieved, or that that have lost out, if that doesn't happen. There doesn't seem to the the idea that one might vote on issues. Whereas the Tories would seem to be right the other way. They're not looking for loyalty, they're looking for people who think there's something in it for them. Over the years I suspect that I've voted more for Tory than any other party. But I expect there's not much in it. I even remember voting Liberal once. |
|
New Sat 8 May 21 19:41
Hartlepool by-election - Robin O'Reliant
|
|
>> I even remember voting Liberal once. >> I once voted Monster Raving Looney in a local election ( I think for the Police & Crime Commissioner), but by God I've never stooped that low. |
|
New Sat 8 May 21 19:41
Hartlepool by-election - Manatee
|
|
It's incredible. Some CLPs are still dominated by people who are Corbyn-mad and they are more exercised about getting rid of Starmer than they are of Johnson. They call the Starmer supporters (who are of course in the majority) "red Tories". Starmer is a good guy I think, but elections aren't won by intelligent debate and recently even Milliband has looked positively charismatic in comparison. I'm afraid it probably is very much about the leaders' personas and the contrast between them. Democracy might be the least bad method of government but I don't think it is delivering right now, possibly because it's not at all cool to take an intelligent interest in how the country is run and many voters presumably don't see a need to apply any critical thinking to the process - elections are a simple popularity contest and now of social media have massively grown the effectiveness and therefore importance of disinformation. We might not get a Labour government but if people took more of an interest we might get some better Conservatives. |
|
New Sat 8 May 21 20:22
Hartlepool by-election - Fullchat
|
|
Local PCC - ex Senior cop who has overseen during his tenure an almost bottom of the table force (Humberside) to almost top got his marching orders today. He was affiliated to the Labour party. Replaced by a Conservative of unknown antecedents who at the last minute replaced a real Walt with, lets say, a creative CV based around being a Special Constable. The area is made up of 4 unitary authorities. Hull being the biggest and Labour to the core. The surrounding 3 are all majority Conservative. It seems that a solid proven candidate has been removed due to the colour of his rosette. |
|
New Sat 8 May 21 21:01
Hartlepool by-election - Manatee
|
| I can't understand why PCC's should have public party affiliations anyway. The way they vote should have nothing to do with how they do what should surely be an apolitical job. It's a very American idea and a bad one IMO. |
|
New Sat 8 May 21 21:17
Hartlepool by-election - Haywain
|
|
"I can't understand why PCC's should have public party affiliations anyway. The way they vote should have nothing to do with how they do what should surely be an apolitical job. " I agree with that sentiment, though it can backfire. The first time we had to elect a PCC, we had Lab, Con, LD + independent candidates. Knowing nothing about any of them, I voted independent. I subsequently discovered that the bloke had been involved with some shonky organisation procuring dodgy locum doctors. |
|
New Sat 8 May 21 21:43
Hartlepool by-election - Robin O'Reliant
|
| I've always thought PCC is a bit of a non-job. What exactly do they do that's any use? |
|
New Sat 8 May 21 21:54
Hartlepool by-election - Haywain
|
|
" What exactly do they do that's any use?" That's not an unreasonable question! Darned if I know the answer. |
|
New Sun 9 May 21 02:36
Hartlepool by-election - Terry
|
|
PCC are elected by the public to hold the police to account - I assume this means reviewing performance, strategy and plans. It should not be a political appointment, although there are stereotypical differences between different parties - are the police there to maintain law and order, or act as empowered social workers to deal with the causes of crime (deliberately extreme characterisation). However, I increasingly think local democratic processes are a sham intended to seduce the public into believing they have influence and control. In practice they have litte or none. My local council charge council tax of £1860 for a band D property: - £240 goes to the police, - £90 to fire and rescue, - £1350 to the County Council for education, roads, social care etc - £180 (9%) actually goes and gets spent by the local council Most of what gets spent is driven by central government diktat - particularly standards for education, roads, social care, environment etc. The real impact of my local councillors on what happens in my local environment and town is limited. Worse than that there are unresloved priority conflicts - eg: the local council approves a large new house building program, but the County Council hold the budget to deal with the impacts on schools and road schemes. |
|
New Sun 9 May 21 10:57
Hartlepool by-election - Lemma
|
|
A pal of mine is a retired Super and has very strong views on the PCC role. He regards it as politicisation of the police as “they” seek to undermine the independence and integrity of the Chief Constable and their officers. Combined with less coppers and more PCSOs this is further debased. Coppers swear an oath to serve the Queen and not some politician and he sees PCCs and PCSOs as degrading this independence and the ability to pursue the law without fear or favour. I have a lot of sympathy with this view and cannot for the life of me see why this governance role should be political. Bring back the Watch Committees composed of citizens from the community, who coincidentally don’t require huge salaries etc. |
|
New Sun 9 May 21 11:49
Hartlepool by-election - Fullchat
|
|
The old Police Authorities had a mixture of political parties plus independent members + full time admin staff. I'm not sure cost wise what the difference between the two was but the last time I saw any figures it wasn't that far apart. However the previous Tory PCC employed a deputy on a nice little salary which upped the costs somewhat. Last edited by: Fullchat on Sun 9 May 21 at 11:49
|
|
New Sun 9 May 21 12:08
Hartlepool by-election - Zero
|
|
>> The old Police Authorities had a mixture of political parties plus independent members + full >> time admin staff. None of whom were chosen, elected or approved by the local population. The idea of of a locally elected PCC is a good one. In practise of course, its political cronyism and interference on a dangerous scale. |
|
New Sun 9 May 21 12:05
Hartlepool by-election - sooty123
|
|
. Bring back the Watch Committees composed >> of citizens from the community, who coincidentally don’t require huge salaries etc. >> Retired busybodies then ;) |
|
New Sun 9 May 21 21:42
Hartlepool by-election - Lemma
|
|
I am a member of several public sector boards and there are inevitably a number of semi and retired people who serve on them. There are also a good number of people from various walks of life including business executives, members of various private practices etc who recognise, or whose employers recognise, that contributing to such organisations acknowledges the role we all, personal and corporate, play in society. There has been quite a step forward in governance in recent years with boards being much more active, seeking to recruit the skills they need. One of the boards I serve on has full time employed members - an accountant, QC, solicitor, senior business person, property specialist etc, as well as a couple of retired people. Recruitment is very much aimed at weeding out those who seek to pad their CVs with an eye to a ?BE or better. In fact we have one at the moment who slipped through, but reappointment comes up soon. None of these are remunerated. Busybodies? Possibly so, but the Nolan Principles do mean something I think. Last edited by: Lemma on Sun 9 May 21 at 21:44
|
Forum Version 3.0 - By Khoosys
Car4play Forum
