At 55 I admit that I'm not as excited by change as I once was, I now see that change is not necessarily not for the better. I also look back on my younger years with a rose tinted fondness that I think is inevitable really. All that said, I don't feel I've lurched to the right in my ways of thinking. I'm still "live and let live" and genuinely try not to break rule 1. I'm fallible but I try.
So the lurch to the right as many get older really saddens me.
[img] 
[/img]
That is a very misleading graph. It shows a line going down under labour but if you read the small print it's the % change in waiting lists (is it year on year? I guess it's something like that), and never dips below 100 so the waiting lists were increasing every year under labour, just at a slower rate than the Tories.
I'm not saying Labour aren't better for the NHS, but it shouldn't take abuse of statistics to demonstrate that
The original graph from the FT doesn't have it showing a % change.
https://www.ft.com/content/b2154c20-c9d0-4209-9a47-95d114d31f2b
[url= https://i.postimg.cc/W4ZtkdD5/Screenshot-20240630-214142-Samsung-Internet.jp g" target="_blank">https://i.postimg.cc/W4ZtkdD5/Screenshot-20240630-214142-Samsung-Internet.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
The way I interpret is that the lowest point is given 100 and the other points are related to that. So for example if the waiting list in 2010 was 1 million then in 2000 it was 2.3 million and it's now over 3 million. However that graph is interpreted one thing for sure is that the waiting list has gone up to beyond where it was in the 90s under the Tories despite having been in decline for 10 years under Labour.
I think waiting lists could be getting larger simply because the population is increasing (and ageing) and there'll be more people wanting operations. So even if performance stayed the same the number would go up.
getting larger simply because the population is increasing
that's why having a competent government matters 😕
@5lab; No, waiting list in absolutes was decreasing under labour. A quick google found this which is last couple of years of the labour admin but shows decline and then increase.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7281/
The graphs in earlier posts as % change can't be, even allowing for 100% change would mean doubling and assuming that means actually static, a change of 200% or 300% would mean doubling or trebling on a yearly basis and compounding that leads to grain of rice on a chessboard sized numbers very quickly.
and to Molgrips - correct but even normalising for population, and being charitable and discounting the post covid numbers, from 2010 at about 2.5m to 2020 at 4.5m the population went from about 63m to about 67m
2.5m in 2010 increasing by the same rate as population would get you to about 2.66m
Must watch “The Wall” again.
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
I’m reminded of Larry Grayson for some reason
shut that door…….on yer way out and **** off for good
We are being priced out of having a family....
having kids is now a luxury many can't afford.... what state to get into 😕
Being an NHS worker there is no doubt in my mind that the NHS improved under labour. the main issue was still money. Even at its best NHS funding was well short of the european mean and well short of what is needed.
Don't expect much improvement with an incoming labour government. They are not prepared to fund it properly nor to have the harsh conversations about what the NHS should cover and Streeting is not to be trusted. He has already been told by all the NHS professionals that his plans will not work and his answer is to say he will pick fights with them.
The last thing the NHS needs is another round of major reorganising - its just needs a basic rationalisation of the fake market nonsense and increased funding. Reorganisation if needed can be dealt with later. the first prioritry is more funding. significantly more.
Surely a lot was to do with lansley reforms moving social care responsibility to councils & then decinating their funding with austerity.
NHS ends up with chronic bed blocking because nowhere to discharge oaps too & everything backs up (certainly what I saw interacting with cancer surgeries, especially in winter)
yes that is a major issue - not so much the social care moving to councils or even the privitisation of it but the total lack of funding for it. social care is very poor much of the time. Funding is so poor that carers get barely minimum wage - which means its very hard to recruit staff, which means delays in getting folk discharged. This is a problem that can only be solved with money - lots of it.
The NHS just killed my FiL. 6 months ago he was living independently. He fell and broke his elbow (only) and under their care basically never took another step. His funeral is tomorrow.
This is a problem that can only be solved with money – lots of it.
There's an alternative but it doesn't appear to be palatable. Euthanasia and minimal medical interventions for the over 70's were there isn't a significant benefit in active quality of life.
Don’t forget public health measures to minimise obesity etc - in the long run that would save the NHS billions and also just be good for us all.
Surely a lot was to do with lansley reforms moving social care responsibility to councils & then decinating their funding with austerity.
Yes.
There are two key parts to this.
Firstly the babbling about the NHS being a sacred cow which is beyond discussion isnt only babbling but outright lies to hide the fact the "reforms" have failed.
Its has been under continuous reform and "improvement" since it was created. The problem is in recent years the "improvement" have been a net negative.
So anytime some tory **** says fixing the NHS cant be discussed tell them to **** off and ask them why they dont want to discuss why their "improvements" have failed and they are trying to hide behind the sacred cow bollocks.
Secondly its not so much the councils but the tories (plus sadly new labours) idea that the councils shouldnt be trusted with stuff which has resulted in social care being privatised and then flogged off to the private equity firms who saw massive profit opportunities.
Result being the council bills raising massively and hence bed blocking occurring.
My condolences fwiw @thecaptain
We are being priced out of having a family….
having kids is now a luxury many can’t afford…. what state to get into
This is totally the wrong lesson to draw from the data, and yet these articles always do. NB that the long term decline of fertility below the replacement rate occurred in the UK through economic boom and decline, and the same trends are seen in countries richer (Japan) and poorer (Italy) than the UK. Women in a society generally have fewer children when they are better educated, greater participation in the labour force, and better access to contraception/reproductive health. This is why baby incentivisation plans (in Hungary or Korea or Russia for example) never ever work across the whole population, and why people still have kids in recessions. UK's declining birthrate is not due to short term cozzy livs.
Funding is so poor that carers get barely minimum wage – which means its very hard to recruit staff, which means delays in getting folk discharged. This is a problem that can only be solved with money – lots of it.
Spending as a proportion of GDP is fairly normal for the UK compared to other western 'developed' countries (excluding USA).
The problems of the NHS aren't really exclusive, but perhaps the issue is the way the money is being spent?
_by_country#/media/File:Health_spending_by_country._Percent_of_GDP_(Gross_domestic_product).png)
There are many weeks where I find myself, on a Monday, wishing it was already Friday.
This week the feeling is exceptionally strong.
I CBA to search and find the post regarding Blair & Ecclestone, but wonder what the OP thinks about this:
Rishi Sunak abandoned his “legacy” policy to ban smoking for future generations amid a backlash from the tobacco industry in the form of legal threats, lobbying and a charm offensive aimed at Conservative MPs, an investigation reveals.
I reckon it'd cost the lobbying parties less than a million, even in today's money.
Sunak was crowned, not elected. That came at a price for him (and everyone else) because he wasn't allowed to do a lot of things any more. His weakness combined with his entitlement and tetchiness makes him the risible and intensely dislikeable character he is.
Enjoying Jimmy Dimly getting tied in knots on GMB this morning.
At the risk of becoming some kind of Sunak apologist: the tobacco ban was never going to make it into the "wash up" batch of legislation to be pushed through between calling the election and dissolving parliament. It was too big, too complicated and too early. The plans weren't clear and the Lords would have opposed and amended it.
That's a world away from taking a donation from Bernie Ecclestone and then giving his business a special exemption. There's no defending that - why even deploy whataboutery?
So anytime some tory * says fixing the NHS cant be discussed tell them to * off and ask them why they dont want to discuss why their “improvements” have failed and they are trying to hide behind the sacred cow bollocks.
The sacred cow stuff does suit the narrative though. Anyone and everyone can (and does) bang on about "fixing the NHS" although it's got more insidious recently with attacks on "managers" or "admin" (too many managers, too many pencil-pushers...)
It'd be better to ask any Tory what happened to the additional £350m a week the NHS was supposed to get, where are the 40 new hospitals...?
Spending as a proportion of GDP is fairly normal for the UK compared to other western ‘developed’ countries
Its really not as that data shows - consistent funding below others. The reason it shows high the last few years is not an increase in funding - its the fall in GDP and includes the billions wasted on useless PPE
The stupid fake market stuff in England wastes 10% of the NHS budget - Scotland does not have this and admin costs are half! 10% of budget compared to 20% in England
The stupid fake market stuff in England wastes 10% of the NHS budget – Scotland does not have this and admin costs are half! 10% of budget compared to 20% in England
Is there a source for this claim (that comes up fairly often)?
I did try googling and only came across this decade old writeup from the Socialist Health Association:
the highest [hospital management and administration] costs per capita (after numerous adjustments) are in those systems with complex payment systems. Systems which have single payer and block funding have the lowest costs. ... the best estimate for England is for administration and management to account for between 17% and 21% of total expenditure... The study suggest that a base level of around 12% is necessary for any system.
In comparisons of relative expenditure England comes out slightly higher than Wales but Scotland is significantly lower. The explanation though appears to be a technical one in that management of capital in Scotland is more centralised. In fact there is not a lot of difference between the three nations.
NB this is for looking at all management and administration costs (not just "fake market stuff") in hospitals (not healthcare systems as a whole). The suggestion seems to be that if the admin and management happens centrally, that's not a hospital cost but doesn't mean the cost is removed from the healthcare system as a whole. It might still be a bit cheaper though.
https://sochealth.co.uk/2015/02/23/cost-of-the-market-in-our-nhs/#_ftn3
PCA - I assume thats the data I got that from - its certainly around the right time.
there is no doubt that the scottish system is much simpler and easier to administrate with less layers
“I CBA to search and find the post regarding Blair & Ecclestone, but wonder what the OP thinks about this:
Rishi Sunak abandoned his “legacy” policy to ban smoking for future generations amid a backlash from the tobacco industry in the form of legal threats, lobbying and a charm offensive aimed at Conservative MPs, an investigation reveals.”
What I was pointing out was that both Parties are corrupt, I really thought Blairs Cabinet were going to be different, but a million from Ecclestone changed their firmly held beliefs. Starmer hasnt shown any corruption yet, but almost all Governments in the past have taken money, or people in the Party have taken money to advance someones cause. I hope that’ll change, and we have a government we can be proud of.
On another point, I’m surprised Starmers record as DPP hasnt been put under attack. There is plenty of ammunition there, but I havent heard anything about it, maybe the tories have more skeletons in their cupboard than Starmer does?
One of the issues with UK politics is bribery is legal. Donations for favours, non exec directorships etc.
I do not think Starmer is corrupt at all. However I do believe others in the Shadow cabinet are and am certain Streeting is.
PCA – I assume thats the data I got that from – its certainly around the right time.
Okay, well, if that's right - it doesn't say what you are presenting it as saying.
“Risk”?
I think you're confusing me with someone else. The only other thing I can remember saying in defence of Sunak was that it wasn't fair to accuse him of being an anti-****stani bigot because he (Sunak) objected to being called a "P***".
I am surprised to see a couple of people here (who probably would say they aren't bigots) thinking that the victim of racist abuse was a racist themselves or that it was okay to be racist towards them because they were nasty.
“Genuine question, what did he mess up heading the DPP?”
It came up on FB yesterday. I know there were rumours about Rotherham rape gangs, but on closer inspection he didnt have anything to do with that. Jimmy Saville too, thats rather cloudy, CBA looking any further. First article from a search linked below, no doubt there are many more accusations if you have time to search:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/dec/23/keir-starmer-lawyer-dpp
Wonder if Alani will go back onto his FB feed and point out the facts?
#DoubtIt
no doubt there are many more accusations if you have time to search:
The problem with that, and dare I say the trap you're 'setting' whether deliberately or not, is that in modern campaigns it doesn't have to be true, if you repeat it enough then it becomes 'fact', and even defending or disputing just cements the lie as no smoke without fire or similar. £350m for the NHS or more recently £2000 tax bill for all households.
As DPP you won't get everything right, if indeed you're involved in getting things right at a granular level anyway. He's accused of leniency on Saville but wasn't involved in that. However, it was under his leadership therefore he must be personally soft on pedophiles. Say it often enough and it sticks.
He defended muslim clerics accused of terrorism / incitement. He was a human rights lawyer, sure, but there's also the cab on the rank rule that means he has to take whatever comes. The only way to avoid being asked to defend 'undesirables' (and make note, part of the legal system is ensuring a fair trial is available no matter how abhorrent the crime or accused) would be to not be a human rights lawyer. And how many others then would have their rights violated with no expert barristers. But to the political enemy, the detail doesn't matter - because the headline 'STARMER SIDED WITH ABU QATADA!' is enough to get the response they want.
On another point, I’m surprised Starmers record as DPP hasnt been put under attack.
It's been tried, it hasn't stuck.
