Predict the General Election

[asthmatic camel]

Quick way to save billions... Remove the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and whatever kind of shambles is left in Northern Ireland. Less talk, more work.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Quick way to save billions... Remove the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and whatever kind of shambles is left in Northern Ireland. Less talk, more work.

Why not include Westminster as well and just let Brussels do it all?

That would save far, far more than your suggestion.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I don't think such a commercial venture exists. If memory serves the NHS is the biggest employer in Europe with a workforce of 2 million or so. I work for a large multinational and I'm only one of a piffling 60,000.

If I had said the entire NHS, you would be correct. But I specified an NHS trust of which a large number are added together to come up with the total for the whole organisation.

For example a google search on "nhs trust employee numbers" returns as its first result the Ealing Hospital NHS trust which has 1,450 employees.

 

[mummymonkey]

I think Labour will win with a majority of 50-100.

 

[richardm]

I've just been chatting to someone who thought that the fear of a potential Tory victory would bring out the Labour voters (who have heretofore been apathetic) in droves, maintaining a large majority. An interesting viewpoint. I'm expecting a win with a much reduced majority myself.

 

[Matabiri]

I've just been chatting to someone who thought that the fear of a potential Tory victory would bring out the Labour voters (who have heretofore been apathetic) in droves, maintaining a large majority. An interesting viewpoint. I'm expecting a win with a much reduced majority myself.

This really does seem to be a fear right up the ranks - there was a Labour bloke on Newsnight last night who said something about preventing a Conservative victory, interrupted by a Lib-Dem who said, "Or a Lib-Dem one", and immediately responded, "No, no, that's not going to happen. It's either Labour or the Conservatives, and I don't think anyone wants the Tories back." I.e. Vote Labour, because the alternative's too bad to contemplate. Which isn't really a good basis for a campaign, in my opinion.

I think they're genuinely afraid of large numbers of Lib-Dem defections by the middle classes.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Vote Labour, because the alternative's too bad to contemplate. Which isn't really a good basis for a campaign, in my opinion.

I think they're genuinely afraid of large numbers of Lib-Dem defections by the middle classes.

I would disagree, since the alternative is far, far worse then another term of Labour.

For instance reminding people that the published Conservative plans regarding the NHS is to take at least one billion out of the NHS and just give it to people who could afford to pay for their treatment privately is just an example of how the NHS "is not safe in Conservative hands". When the alternative is worse then the other options it isn't wrong to tell people that.

 

[geni]

I don't think such a commercial venture exists. If memory serves the NHS is the biggest employer in Europe with a workforce of 2 million or so. I work for a large multinational and I'm only one of a piffling 60,000.

The ruassian army employs more people.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I would disagree, since the alternative is far, far worse then another term of Labour.

For instance reminding people that the published Conservative plans regarding the NHS is to take at least one billion out of the NHS and just give it to people who could afford to pay for their treatment privately is just an example of how the NHS "is not safe in Conservative hands". When the alternative is worse then the other options it isn't wrong to tell people that.

I presume you are referring to the proposal to pay half the cost of the NHS operation to people who pay to go private?

In other words they are using NHS resources to get twice as many operations carried out, if people are able/willing to pay the difference themselves. They are also cutting waiting times for those who can't afford to pay.

For example, the NHS has funding for two operations in the next year for the condition you have. You are third in the queue. Under Labour, you wait until next year. Under the Tories, the two people ahead of you may pay extra to go private, and there are sufficient funds to treat you this year. How is this bad for anybody?

Of course this is overly simplistic and ignores the possibility that they would have gone private anyway, but it is a far more accurate picture than the one you initially portrayed.

 

[Matabiri]

When the alternative is worse then the other options it isn't wrong to tell people that.

But that's not what they say. They say, "You don't want the Conservatives back, do you?" Not, "Look at our plans, look at theirs. Ours are better because..."

And I also disliked the attempt to make the UK a two-party state by deliberately marginalising the Lib-Dems.

 

[Darat]

I presume you are referring to the proposal to pay half the cost of the NHS operation to people who pay to go private?

In other words they are using NHS resources to get twice as many operations carried out, if people are able/willing to pay the difference themselves. They are also cutting waiting times for those who can't afford to pay.

For example, the NHS has funding for two operations in the next year for the condition you have. You are third in the queue. Under Labour, you wait until next year. Under the Tories, the two people ahead of you may pay extra to go private, and there are sufficient funds to treat you this year. How is this bad for anybody?

…snip…

Because (apparently) the proposed money isn't "new" money it comes out of the current pot. So in your example the NHS Trust would actually only have enough money to pay 1.5 operations this year not two so in fact it will (in theory) delay operations for people who can’t afford to pay privately.

 

[Darat]

But that's not what they say. They say, "You don't want the Conservatives back, do you?" Not, "Look at our plans, look at theirs. Ours are better because..."

And I also disliked the attempt to make the UK a two-party state by deliberately marginalising the Lib-Dems.

The Liberal party is a marginal party in terms of our parliamentary system and we've pretty much had a two party system since we had a parliament with a (fairly) open selection process for MPs.

Personally I'd like us to look at changing our parliamentary elections however I have to admit that the possible consequences for this country that would have do concern me. i.e. parliamentary paralysis and the like.

 

[richardm]

Using a very simplified model like that, the NHS plans seem reasonable. In reality, if there is any point to letting people pay for their operations then there must be an element of "Getting my operation done sooner than if I waited in the queue".

So in your example, it is not the two wealthy people in the queue ahead of the person relying on NHS funds, but the two wealthy people behind him that we need to worry about.

Suppose instead of having 3 people in the queue, you have six. You can still only afford to do 2 ops in a year.

People who can afford to opt out are represented as O. People who can't are represented as N.

O1 O2 N1 O3 O4 O5

Under the current model, everyone gets treated in turn. At a rate of 2 ops per year, We'll see O1 and O2 in Year 1, N1 and O3 in year 2, and 04 in year 3.

So the new scheme comes in, and in principle O1 and O2 pay half their operations, leaving enough for N1 to get his done in year 1 instead of year 2. Yay!

But O3 and O4 are wealthy, and can pay half their op. If they're paying good money they'll want it done ASAP, otherwise they might as well just wait. So what is to stop them paying to effectively jump the queue, leaving no resources for N1 in year 1? What happens if there are O5 -> O10? What happens to the various Ns? They find their operations delayed and put back, because the people who could potentially pay the full cost of their operation are being given a subsidy out of resources that are intended to be used by everybody.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Because (apparently) the proposed money isn't "new" money it comes out of the current pot. So in your example the NHS Trust would actually only have enough money to pay 1.5 operations this year not two so in fact it will (in theory) delay operations for people who can’t afford to pay privately.

Don't understand what you are trying to say here. Why does the amount of money available go down?

There is enough (existing) cash for two operations if they are 100% funded by the NHS - total of 200% of the cost of an NHS operation. Under the Tory proposals, this can fund 50% of two operations (carried out privately) and 100% of one (carried out by the NHS), meaning three people get treated instead of two and the total cost is exactly the same - 200% of the cost of an NHS operation.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Using a very simplified model like that, the NHS plans seem reasonable. In reality, if there is any point to letting people pay for their operations then there must be an element of "Getting my operation done sooner than if I waited in the queue".

So in your example, it is not the two wealthy people in the queue ahead of the person relying on NHS funds, but the two wealthy people behind him that we need to worry about.

Suppose instead of having 3 people in the queue, you have six. You can still only afford to do 2 ops in a year.

People who can afford to opt out are represented as O. People who can't are represented as N.

O1 O2 N1 O3 O4 O5

Under the current model, everyone gets treated in turn. At a rate of 2 ops per year, We'll see O1 and O2 in Year 1, N1 and O3 in year 2, and 04 in year 3.

So the new scheme comes in, and in principle O1 and O2 pay half their operations, leaving enough for N1 to get his done in year 1 instead of year 2. Yay!

But O3 and O4 are wealthy, and can pay half their op. If they're paying good money they'll want it done ASAP, otherwise they might as well just wait. So what is to stop them paying to effectively jump the queue, leaving no resources for N1 in year 1? What happens if there are O5 -> O10? What happens to the various Ns? They find their operations delayed and put back, because the people who could potentially pay the full cost of their operation are being given a subsidy out of resources that are intended to be used by everybody.

It could be a problem and that is a legitimate criticism of the scheme. However you need to weigh that against the benefit of more operations being carried out in total, which means a shorter waiting time for everyone (unless a very large percentage of funds goes to opt outs - if that is likely to be a problem, cap it at a maximum percentage).

 

[Matabiri]

Because (apparently) the proposed money isn't "new" money it comes out of the current pot. So in your example the NHS Trust would actually only have enough money to pay 1.5 operations this year not two so in fact it will (in theory) delay operations for people who can’t afford to pay privately.

There is also the issue that the UK does not have a private healthcare industry that wholly employs its own doctors or maintains all the necessary facilities - that is, many of these operations will be carried out by NHS doctors, in NHS facilities, under the banner of "private healthcare". They'll cost the NHS less, sure, but they won't actually get the waiting lists cleared faster because both the NHS and private healthcare use the same doctors etc.

 

[Darat]

Don't understand what you are trying to say here. Why does the amount of money available go down?

There is enough (existing) cash for two operations if they are 100% funded by the NHS - total of 200% of the cost of an NHS operation. Under the Tory proposals, this can fund 50% of two operations (carried out privately) and 100% of one (carried out by the NHS), meaning three people get treated instead of two and the total cost is exactly the same - 200% of the cost of an NHS operation.

If you view it as the number of operations in total however the policy could reduce the number of operations the NHS can provide. Now you may argue that it doesn't matter whether the operations are carried out by the private sector or the NHS however I think it is wrong to encourage a scheme in which people who can afford to pay are helped to do so at the expense of those who can’t pay.

 

[Reginald]

Hmm, The total number of operations is only a benefit if those operations are available to all, irrespective of ability to pay. And having read the posts above it is possible that more operations could be done and yet waiting times for those who can't pay could increase.

This is a useful place for some of these questions..

Channel 4 Fact check

 

[Reginald]

I'm not sure if it's MH's seeing the amount of sympathy for the passing of the pope, (not to confused with pass the parcel), or he's seen the contribution religion has made to GWB's result in the US, but this kind of thing scares the crap out of me.......



Tories propose more faith schools


Not some sort of "lets increase it by a few and see how it pans out" this is talking about "perhaps thousands".

I see that The Tory party have decided it's the core of what they stand for...."is absolutely at the heart of the Conservative vision".


..and there was me thinking it was old ladies with blue rinses sitting and laughing at people with less money than them. Politics is moving on way too fast these days.

 

[New Ager]

Tories, liberals, and labour, oh my!