MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Questions Of The Day (Politics)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 233, 234, 235 ... 299, 300, 301  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

There is a lot of nonsense about beds. Our hospitals are now really efficent at dealing with bed blocking, so what have we done? Yep, you guessed it, cut total beds. Want to know why you are lying on a trolley? It is because we are great at removing bed blockers, but have a poor grasp of what a modern local agile service needs.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

modern local agile service

Tick the boxes you think will contribute to this

1. Seventy years old
2. The third largest organisation in the world after the Chinese People's Army and the Indian State Railways
3. Built round the venerable teaching hospitals
4. Created to draw in the 'consultants' who still run it
5. Dominated by the unions -- doctors, medical, ancillary -- and run for their benefit
6. Hamstrung from the off by paying for some things and not for others, apparently arbitrarily
7. Sickness rather than wellness
8. No application of appropriate therapies by money value
9. Political interference in building hospitals
10. Using PFI's to pay for them.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The normally reliable Mark Urban on Newsnight wrote:
The price rise is in turn driven by the Russians invading Ukraine and cutting energy supplies to Europe

Oh, they were operating sanctions on us and invading Ukraine. What complete bastards.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
modern local agile service

Tick the boxes you think will contribute to this

1. Seventy years old
2. The third largest organisation in the world after the Chinese People's Army and the Indian State Railways
3. Built round the venerable teaching hospitals
4. Created to draw in the 'consultants' who still run it
5. Dominated by the unions -- doctors, medical, ancillary -- and run for their benefit
6. Hamstrung from the off by paying for some things and not for others, apparently arbitrarily
7. Sickness rather than wellness
8. No application of appropriate therapies by money value
9. Political interference in building hospitals
10. Using PFI's to pay for them.


The starting point is that they, the NHS, remains at a solid B+, the good news is that we still have a ageing population. Folks live a lot longer than they used to. It actually remains good value for money as well, there are probably too few managers in the NHS, not the other way round. It simply doesn't suffer many of the alleged inefficiencies that are claimed by its detractors. We spend more on the NHS and Social Care. Yes, that is what happens when you achieve an ageing population (the over 80s are horrendously expensive, bless them), and choose a liberal migration policy which is poor at getting non-nationals to pay for their own treatment.

Something like 70% of total health and care spend is on health and care of old folks, whilst the number of younger fit folks who work hard and pay taxes to support all of this is falling. None of this, so far as I can see, is the fault of the NHS.

The problem is that we have to adapt and build on this NHS success story.

The starting point is how do you join together Health and Care for the elderly because having a "heroic" free Health service and a "hated", you need to sell your house, Care service, both pulling in totally opposite directions, is bad for patients and is adding to costs.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The starting point is that they, the NHS, remains at a solid B+

Maybe thrity years ago.

the good news is that we still have a ageing population. Folks live a lot longer than they used to.

I'll stay baffled with this remark.
It actually remains good value for money as well

Never use the word actually when you are expressing a roseate opinion rather than arguing from statistical knowledge. (AEL Rule 69)

there are probably too few managers in the NHS, not the other way round.

I don't doubt it for a minute. It's just they are not allowed to manage, only administer. Nor is there a management career structure, training or ethos that I can make out. One tip: recruit from outside. Health managers are not the same as health professionals.

It simply doesn't suffer many of the alleged inefficiencies that are claimed by its detractors.

I am only concerned with the inefficiencies claimed by this detractor.

We spend more on the NHS and Social Care. Yes, that is what happens when you achieve an ageing population (the over 80s are horrendously expensive, bless them), and choose a liberal migration policy which is poor at getting non-nationals to pay for their own treatment.

If you say so. I thought you were defending it.

Something like 70% of total health and care spend is on health and care of old folks, whilst the number of younger fit folks who work hard and pay taxes to support all of this is falling. None of this, so far as I can see, is the fault of the NHS.

It certainly wasn't a fault I was claiming.

The problem is that we have to adapt and build on this NHS success story.

The problem is we cannot adapt and build because in the past the NHS has been a success story.

The starting point is how do you join together Health and Care for the elderly because having a "heroic" free Health service and a "hated", you need to sell your house, Care service, both pulling in totally opposite directions, is bad for patients and is adding to costs.

That's the spirit!
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Labour has just posted its energy bill -- £29 billion to cover the first six months. That's a sizeable chunk of change. The futures market is indicating that it will be £29 billion every six months until at least 2024. And for why? Because of the Ukraine War and the sanctions imposed on Russia (or the sanctions they imposed on us because we imposed sanctions on them).

During that time a major beneficiary of sky high energy prices is... Russia. So they have little incentive to brings things to a halt. The Ukrainians are adamant they won't be doing so. It will be up to ... er ... the Labour Party when it sweeps back to power in 2024 and finds the kitty cleaned out with energy subsidies (it doesn't matter how you do it, but the Tories have promised they'll be doing it one way or another too).

Or I suppose we could bring matters to a halt now but that requires a lot of people saying
(1) Sorry, voters, but we got this whole sanctions business completely wrong
(2) Sorry, Ukraine, but you'll have to make do with what you've got left
(3) Sorry, liberal consciences, but on this occasion the baddies won and there's not a damn thing we can do about it.

All in all I think we can all agree that to avoid that, the odd hundred billion is cheap at the price.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I forgot to mention the other beneficiary, me. I keep getting hundreds (soon, I understand, to be thousands) of pounds dropped into my bank account, to pay for fuel that I consume in derisory amounts.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

A man from a think tank (an oxymoron by the way) said on Newsnight that all the public sector workers were looking to the railway unions to guarantee the going rate. A man from the AEL's sensory deprivation chamber points out the only thing the railway unions will be guaranteeing is some really tough anti-strike laws getting nodded through this year. Once mummy and daddy are back of course.

Will Starmer have the guts to abstain rather than vote with the government?
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Cineworld is filing for bankruptcy Channel 4 News

I went to a 'cinema' once. Get this. You pay a king's ransom to get in, you double your money getting in supplies from the 'kiosk' (not a proper shop or anything) because -- this is the bit you won't believe -- you're expected to stay there for hours. On a really uncomfortable seat after the first half hour. And don't think for one moment it's like being on a train where you can stretch your legs. Plus, it's dark! Forget about reading the paper during the adverts.

And no talking! You've been told the USP is that it's a 'collective experience' only you're not allowed to compare notes with one another. What's that all about? Are we supposed to get together in an internet chat room afterwards or something? You can watch the whole thing in the comfort of your own home for next to nothing so frankly I wouldn't want to do anything collectively with such a bunch of sad sacks anyway.

Gone bankrupt? Who passed the business model in the first place, that's what I'd like to know.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Here is the thing about films. I used to be under the impression that a film was the cherished project of a director who had always pined to do a Hispanic take on Billy the Kid, or a feminist Seven Brides For Seven Brothers. But no, it's now all studio led, you get asked in to direct a tiny bit of the latest proposed blockbuster Robocop Versus Batgirl.

"Wiley, we really like your work"

"Gee thanks. I think my dive into the canyon in Roadrunner 4 was the best yet."

"Oh no, we don't want you to direct the action scenes. We have John Woo for that. We have you down for the dialogue in scene 265, where Robocop confronts Batgirl trying on her tight red leather gear."

"Well, I am afraid I don't really have much experience of dialogue."

"Don't worry, they both will be wearing masks."
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

In the early days the director was called 'the brother-in-law' and was lucky to get his name on the credits. Then along came Cahiers du Cinéma with its 'auteur' theory and, as with everything French, what could we say?
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

More nuclear bollocks
The UN General-Secretary has called on Russia not to divert the power. Al-Jazeera

Why's he taking sides? What's it got to do with him? The Russians have captured it, why on earth would they want to supply Ukraine with energy from the biggest power source in Europe? In general, you can tell Russia's in the right just by listening to the coverage.

Instead of routinely blaming the Russians, the media has adopted a 'both sides' approach. It tells us how 'both sides' are using artillery 'close to' the power station but, since the Russians are holding it and all the area in every direction for miles around it, our intrepid war reporters haven't explained to us why the Russians would be firing on their own troops rather than firing on Ukrainian troops miles away from the reactor.

The Ukrainians are firing towards the power station, not to hit it, but to try to prevent the Russians getting to work on the surrounding infrastructure to get the juice flowing eastwards rather than westwards. It is a perfectly legitimate act of war but the world's press should at least tell the world it's only one side that is risking a nuclear meltdown. And it isn't the usual suspects.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

With everyone fixated on the relative non-story of Zaporizhzhia, the really important matter of the mysterious deaths of Ukrainian Azov PoW's when somebody blew a hole in a barrack block deep in the heart of Donets is slipping by. The authorities ('It's Donets,' say the Russians. 'It's your responsibility,' says everybody else) still aren't letting the Red Cross in. You can draw your own conclusions -- it's the usual suspects. But I wish the world's press would hold these Russian feet to the fire.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
I forgot to mention the other beneficiary, me. I keep getting hundreds (soon, I understand, to be thousands) of pounds dropped into my bank account, to pay for fuel that I consume in derisory amounts.

I forgot to mention I'm doing really well out of the inflation as well. Being a pensioner (you'd never guess if you climbed into bed with me) I get inflation-proofed rises to all my bits-and-bobs but since inflation is measured by things I mostly don't use, I'm sitting pretty. (You'd never guess to look at me.)

I may go on strike all the same. Just to be fashionable.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I am now satisfied that Russia has won the Ukraine war and there is nothing anyone can realistically do about it. This raises the following issues

1. Ideally, peace should be sought with all dispatch to save further losses in life, limb and infrastructure
2. Should NATO 'do a Vietnam' and fight on to prove to future allies/opponents that they are prepared to go the extra mile however futilely?
3. If not, should defeat be conceded openly for salutary reasons
4. If not, what face-saving formulae are available?
5. How to persuade the Ukrainians to accept their lot
6. What 'guarantees' should be sought from Russia in return for 'peace'?
7. Whither NATO?
8. Wither the new world order?
9. And so forth
10. Until the requisite AE ten point plan is reached.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 233, 234, 235 ... 299, 300, 301  Next

Jump to:  
Page 234 of 301

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group