Cycling UK Forum

al_yrpal wrote:The election result would have been similar with PR, perhaps even more right wing....

The Times today carries in the letters page a calculation of what the outcome would have been under the German PR system which is Conservatives 275, Labour 229, UKIP 92, LibDems 54, Others 0. The SNP would not have had a single seat as they did not meet the German 5% vote threshold (designed to prevent minor parties holding effective control in a coalition)

al_yrpal wrote:

bovlomov wrote:

al_yrpal wrote: She said nothing - its the NHS why are you asking?

Her ignorance is worrying, don't you think?

Hmmm.. I am more worried by the myths which all prove to be just… myths.

But you have been given examples of privatisation. You may argue about the rights and wrongs of it, but for your nurse to say that there is no privatisation... ..well, it's either ignorance or mendacity.

TonyR wrote:The Times today carries in the letters page a calculation of what the outcome would have been under the German PR system which is Conservatives 275, Labour 229, UKIP 92, LibDems 54, Others 0. The SNP would not have had a single seat as they did not meet the German 5% vote threshold (designed to prevent minor parties holding effective control in a coalition)

As well as repeating the Electoral Reform Society's mistake of assuming people would use the same voting strategies under MMPR, they're wrong about the German threshold: it's 5% or 3 constituency seats. There's an average of about 19 constituences per state and I think Scotland would be at least one German state, so the SNP would probably have won three or more consitutencies and therefore would qualify for additional member calculations that way.

How the German system works is online, including http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_memb ... #Threshold - but we can't expect The Times letters page to be accurate about electoral reform, or expect people to check any facts before spreading the mistakes online, can we?

This lady doesnt lie, there has been no noticeable privatisation other than you sometimes get offered the alternative of going to a private hospital which the NHS is funding. All this talk of people being turned away with your healthcare is just a pack of myths and scare stories spread by people with an 'agenda'. They are not fooling anyone as Thursdays vote showed. A significant majority voted for what we have got. Those who feel disenfranchised should do something positive rather than continually bellyaching and spreading ludicrous myths, like getting involved in politics and in particular reforming the Labour Party to make it electable

Al

al_yrpal wrote:This lady doesnt lie, there has been no noticeable privatisation other than you sometimes get offered the alternative of going to a private hospital which the NHS is funding. All this talk of people being turned away with your healthcare is just a pack of myths and scare stories spread by people with an 'agenda'. They are not fooling anyone as Thursdays vote showed. A significant majority voted for what we have got. Those who feel disenfranchised should do something positive rather than continually bellyaching and spreading ludicrous myths, like getting involved in politics and in particular reforming the Labour Party to make it electable

Al

Hang on! Are you talking about the myth of privatisation or the myth of people being turned away?

Privatisation of parts of the NHS is not a myth. There may be disagreement about the extent of it, now and in the future. About these other myths - I'm not exactly sure what you mean. There are disagreements about the causes of poor treatment (individual failings, bad management, under-funding, privatisation, etc).

You seem to be dismissing all criticism of the NHS as politically motivated. Many people writing here are clearly not Labour loyalists, and they probably have no intention of helping Labour to become electable. They are merely stating what they believe, and providing evidence to back it up.

bovlomov wrote:

al_yrpal wrote: She said nothing - its the NHS why are you asking?

Her ignorance is worrying, don't you think?

If she has not seen any recent privatization where she works other than existing examples from Labour days then why would that be ignorance? Is it because her personal experience of working in the NHS as opposed to reading about it does not agree with your narrative that the NHS is doomed under the Tories?

It is your narrative that may need looking at as much as the NHS is doomed through privatization everywhere. This Privatization demon for socialists is possibly just that a demon of your imagination. I have no doubt that it has been implemented wrongly and some is downright wrong (example is the Blair government's version of privatization through PFI's that were not implemented well at all). However the idea may have been a Tory one but the Labour shower put it into practice and made a real mess of it. Of course that is the Tory's fault too I suppose.

If you want an explanation for your bad service under the NHS perhaps look towards the pharmaceutical business. There is a big driver in medical research for drug based medicinal research because that earns money and money pays for research to make more money. That leads to pressure to buy the latest drugs in healthcare for miniscule benefits in some cases. The pharma industry makes huge profits purely from the way they link in with healthcare which is wrong. I do not know half of the carp that goes on behind closed doors but the drugs bills are likely to be very high in the UK. I think as well the whole way the NHS is run with doctors (and especially dentists - my pet hate). We have always had an element of privatization in the NHS. As someone quoted Bevan as saying the NHS was founded by shoving gold in the doctors mouths. In some ways the power of the doctors and dentists (and perhaps other elements of the NHS) needs looking at. Doctors are increasingly being seen by their customers as just normal people and not Gods to be obeyed. I go to the GP with the view that I am the senior partner in my treatment and that is the way more need to look. by that I mean I wont just get fobbed off with a paper prescription or a print off saying exercise that joint. I expect the GP to explain it to me and convince me it is what I need. I have taken the prescription and even got the drug before now but returned it to the pharmacist after questioning the treatment. In the meantime the drug company has got the money for the drugs. The consultant was all too prepared to go the drug route when it was not needed.

Well I have probably digressed enough now so I will sign off.

There is no evidence that the NHS is being privatised on any scale whatsoever or that its errors are anything to do with privatisation. It will remain free at the point of delivery to UK citizens. There IS lots of politically motivated scare stories and ludicrous claptrap about the NHS thats for sure. The public obviously arent fooled by it either.

Al

Tangled Metal wrote:It is your narrative that may need looking at as much as the NHS is doomed through privatization everywhere. This Privatization demon for socialists is possibly just that a demon of your imagination. I have no doubt that it has been implemented wrongly and some is downright wrong (example is the Blair government's version of privatization through PFI's that were not implemented well at all). However the idea may have been a Tory one but the Labour shower put it into practice and made a real mess of it. Of course that is the Tory's fault too I suppose.

I don't understand what you mean. Have I given the impression that I'm a socialist? Have I excused the Labour Party from blame? Have I stated an objection to privatisation on principle?

If you are looking to polarise the discussion, you're barking up the wrong tree with me.

I agree with most of the rest of your post.

al_yrpal wrote:There is no evidence that the NHS is being privatised on any scale whatsoever or that its errors are anything to do with privatisation. It will remain free at the point of delivery to UK citizens. There IS lots of politically motivated scare stories and ludicrous claptrap about the NHS thats for sure. The public obviously arent fooled by it either.

Al

Loads of NHS services are being put out to private tender. There is no question about that. When my Mum had a shouder replacement done recently (privately at a private hospital), many of they rooms were "doubled-up" with a curtain and were for NHS patients as they has been winning contracts for treatments.

There is no question that NHS services are being passed out to private companies. There is loads of evidence and reports of that. The debate is more concerned with the degree it has already happened and how far it will go. Debate as to whether it is a good or bad thing. Debate as to the impact increasing privatisation will have on the public provision services that are difficult to make profit from (i.e. will they still be viable once all the profitable work has been passed to private companies). Debate as to why private companies providing NHS paid for treatments are not subject to the same scrutiny (and openness).

As to the scale of the privatisation, between 2012/13 and 2013/14 there was a 7% increase in NHS budget paying private (non-NHS) providers (compared to 4% the year before and 1.5% the year before that - so privatisation is accelerating). Of the NHS budget of £113bn, some £10bn is spent on private sector providers.

And there is cause for concern. For example, earlier this year a £780m contract for a variety of treatments was given to 11 companies. Two of the companies involved in treatment provision have been badly criticised by the NHS Regulator for providing poor quality care in hospitals and care homes. so why are they now being awarded massive treatment contracts when they have already been officially found to be providing poor care ? It is a concern that the rush to pass contracts to the private sector will see contracts knowingly awarded to sub-standard providers as would seem to have already happened.

Ian

al_yrpal wrote:There is no evidence that the NHS is being privatised on any scale whatsoever or that its errors are anything to do with privatisation.

So the myth is the extent of privatisation, not the story that it is happening (pace nurse) in the NHS?

mjr wrote:

TonyR wrote:The Times today carries in the letters page a calculation of what the outcome would have been under the German PR system which is Conservatives 275, Labour 229, UKIP 92, LibDems 54, Others 0. The SNP would not have had a single seat as they did not meet the German 5% vote threshold (designed to prevent minor parties holding effective control in a coalition)

As well as repeating the Electoral Reform Society's mistake of assuming people would use the same voting strategies under MMPR, they're wrong about how the German threshold works. The SNP would probably have won three or more consitutencies (there's an average of about 19 constituences per state and I think Scotland would probably be bigger than one German state), so would qualify for additional member calculations that way.

How the German system works is online, including http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_memb ... #Threshold - but we can't expect The Times letters page to be accurate about electoral reform, or expect people to check their facts before spreading the mistakes online, can we?

Geographical area would be an odd criteria but Scotland whilst bigger than the biggest state is not hugely bigger than Bavaria. Going from population, Germany has 16 states; population 80 million; average of roughly 5million per state. The population of Scotland is roughly 5 million.

Bicycler wrote:Geographical area would be an odd criteria. Going from population, Germany has 16 states; population 80 million; average of roughly 5million per state. The population of Scotland is 5 million.

I doubt it's purely geographical, but I don't know what they use. I stand corrected though and will edit my earlier post (again): Scotland might only be 19 constituencies. I still think the SNP would win 3 or more, thereby qualifying to be in the additional seat calculation.

Agreed, they would. Indeed it's almostr unthinkable that electoral reform would be brought about with a system which excluded the SNP like that. Look also at other countries like Holland with much lower thresholds

Their existing structure is almost certainly historical. Not having that tradition of regional representation, If we were setting up a PR system I expect we'd have fixed population 'states' within England, with NI, Scotland and Wales being single 'states'

You may be flogging a dead horse by trying to control doctors and dentists. I was reading that large numbers of younger ones are heading to Oz where life is easier and pay is better. This can only get worse when they have 8 til 8 doctors surgeries, weekends too as promised by the Torys, they are going to love that! Dentists are mostly detached anyway.

Al

Vorpal wrote:And what about a blood test that requires specialised equipment, and the private companies that bid on blood testing analysis neither have the equipment, not want to invest in it? Should we find another company to do just that test? What if there are very few companies that do that test? Should the NHS pay excessive amounts for the test due to the near monopoly situation? Buy the equipment and train the staff? Send the blood samples to the continent and risk other problems (such as poor handling)?

They're no different to the issues the NHS face every day in other areas. What if they need an MRI or CT or PET scan. Should every hospital have all three fully staffed for the odd occassions the smaller ones might need a scan? Should the NHS develop and make its own drugs in its pharmacy? After all the pharma companies tend to have a patent based monopoly on the latest drugs so there is only one supplier and they might have to pay excessive rates.

The reality is that services are contracted out all the time across many different industries and its seamless for the customers. If there is any fault the NHS does not have enough people with real contracting out experience to negotiate and manage the contracts. What we do know though is that state run industries tend to have a much worse track record than their commercially run counterparts.