General Election

There must be more to life than football?
User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 15544
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by mrblackbat » Wed Dec 11, 2019 7:55 pm

I would say currently it's an utterly pointless waste of time and resource.

User avatar
Dan
Unemployed ex-pro
Posts: 7047
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 11:08 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by Dan » Wed Dec 11, 2019 11:41 pm

I can't fault 111, we've called for advice a couple of times over the last 12 months with non-urgent things for the little 'un, and they've been generally pretty helpful on the phone and given advice that we couldn't have got elsewhere at the time.
The one time we did genuinely have a more serious issue (baby was struggling slightly with with breathing) they quite rightly dispatched a paramedic while we were on the phone who turned up in around 4 minutes (followed by a first response car with basic supplies 5 minutes later... :yeahright: ) and blue lighted her into A&E. Biggest problem there was lack of parking when I followed in the car :x

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 27946
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by Rover the Top » Thu Dec 12, 2019 11:34 am

I've not got a problem with 111 itself, my experience sounds similar to Dan's, the staff are polite and helpful, and so far they've pointed us in the right direction for getting help. If they're always sending you to A&E or the out of hours doctor, then that's because you're right to be concerned about whatever issue it is and need to see someone. They're not a replacement for doctors. The only issue this time was when I first called they couldn't refer us to out of hours because our GP was still open for another 5 minutes - a typically illogical bureaucratic rule that sums up the service. But even there, something worked well because when I called back, it flagged with a supervisor who then took over knowing exactly what had gone wrong and what we needed.

But since we're all advised to use it rather than just turn up at A&E, there needs to be some advantage to using it rather than turning up at A&E. It's just one anecdote, but when we eventually arrived at hospital it was like everything we'd done up to that point hadn't happened. Which meant the whole process took 2 or 3 hours longer than when we'd gone straight to hospital 3 days earlier.

I spent a couple of months earlier this year tearing my hair out as I was passed from department to department trying to sort out an appointment for my daughter. Somehow they kept losing the request amongst themselves. Eventually I got the direct number for the right department, and the initial response was what was I bothering them for. They did at least ring back 10 minutes later and apologise for the poor attitude, and we then sorted out the appointment albeit 3 months later than it should have been. When we took the baby to it, the first question was why hadn't we been to see them sooner... :banghead:

Every government whatever the colour always promises more money for the NHS. As an inevitable symptom of nationalisation it's never enough, it just disappears and nothing improves. No one in politics seems brave enough to propose restructuring it so that it works more efficiently, remains free at point of delivery and doesn't keep burning taxpayer's money. Until it's accepted that quality of service is far more important than ideology, nothing will change.

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 15544
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by mrblackbat » Thu Dec 12, 2019 4:04 pm

Rover the Top wrote:
Thu Dec 12, 2019 11:34 am
I've not got a problem with 111 itself, my experience sounds similar to Dan's, the staff are polite and helpful, and so far they've pointed us in the right direction for getting help. If they're always sending you to A&E or the out of hours doctor, then that's because you're right to be concerned about whatever issue it is and need to see someone. They're not a replacement for doctors. The only issue this time was when I first called they couldn't refer us to out of hours because our GP was still open for another 5 minutes - a typically illogical bureaucratic rule that sums up the service. But even there, something worked well because when I called back, it flagged with a supervisor who then took over knowing exactly what had gone wrong and what we needed.

But since we're all advised to use it rather than just turn up at A&E, there needs to be some advantage to using it rather than turning up at A&E. It's just one anecdote, but when we eventually arrived at hospital it was like everything we'd done up to that point hadn't happened. Which meant the whole process took 2 or 3 hours longer than when we'd gone straight to hospital 3 days earlier.

I spent a couple of months earlier this year tearing my hair out as I was passed from department to department trying to sort out an appointment for my daughter. Somehow they kept losing the request amongst themselves. Eventually I got the direct number for the right department, and the initial response was what was I bothering them for. They did at least ring back 10 minutes later and apologise for the poor attitude, and we then sorted out the appointment albeit 3 months later than it should have been. When we took the baby to it, the first question was why hadn't we been to see them sooner... :banghead:

Every government whatever the colour always promises more money for the NHS. As an inevitable symptom of nationalisation it's never enough, it just disappears and nothing improves. No one in politics seems brave enough to propose restructuring it so that it works more efficiently, remains free at point of delivery and doesn't keep burning taxpayer's money. Until it's accepted that quality of service is far more important than ideology, nothing will change.
The 5 minutes thing is typical. But also in my experience, they refer to a&e or the out of hours when it isn't needed. I have never been told to wait and keep an eye on things even though that was the assessment when arriving at whichever place they sent us to. So, I really don't see the point: its not filling a triage function, nor does it allow any kind of speeding up of the process when you arrive.

I totally agree on your final point. Every government has promised more money for the NHS since I can recall. They squabble over the amount but it's a funding black hole. The answer, in my opinion, has proved not to be more doctors and nurses: that's all that's happened, and it clearly isn't solving the problem.

User avatar
Gibbon
Promising manager
Posts: 18434
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:54 am
Location: Location: Location
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by Gibbon » Thu Dec 12, 2019 6:41 pm

If you abolish existing infrastructure and replace it with third party service providers who charge more for the same resources then clearly you're going to have to either offer an inferior service or throw more money at it. The last few governments have made a habit of doing this while the private service providers make a huge profit.

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 15544
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by mrblackbat » Thu Dec 12, 2019 7:07 pm

Who said anything about abolishing existing infrastructure? The NHS is mostly a service led..... erm, service?

Go back to the red cross example. They were able, due to cutting out middle management waste, to deliver a better service for less. The same occurs at all sorts of levels within the NHS already hence the furore directed at Labour when they were claiming they would remove private contractors from the NHS. As Today on R4 asked:but won't that increase waiting times? The answer is yes. And as such also add increased cost to the NHS by ultimately requiring a greater number of more expensive treatments that could have been avoided by earlier (but profit making oh noes) treatments and diagnoses. 111 is a service (albeit a rubbish one). GPs offer a service, with infrastructure being almost negligible for offering that service. Consultants for more serious conditions can operate perfectly well out of offices and so on.

The ultimate goal of a free healthcare system, is free healthcare. Not a nationally run fund sink.

And if you want to acknowledge the biggest culprits for bringing in inferior services to the healthcare system, at least make sure you're pointing it in the right direction at Toby Blair and Gordon Brown's ludicrous PFI contracts.

The other huge problem with publically run and owned services is short termism. The failed NHS IT system is a perfect case in point. Because funding could only be guaranteed for four to five years, and carried out in yearly budgets, the only staff employed were contractors, who had no investment in building a sustainable and functional system: all they cared about was seeing out their contract and perhaps garnering a repeat. Further down the line, due to that same short termism, in order to "maximize efficiency" by reducing the time to bring onboard new staff, only those who had already worked on the project were employed to continue it. So no fresh blood to correct mistakes, and the same people working on short term contracts simply following instructions for their three to six month contracts carrying out new work. It was always destined to failure operating under such circumstances.

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 15544
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by mrblackbat » Thu Dec 12, 2019 10:03 pm

Exit poll suggesting huge conservative majority and worst Labour position in "modern times", basically their fewest seats since prior to WW2.

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 15544
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by mrblackbat » Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:35 am

Some epic failings of tactical voting. City of London goes to the Tories despite them taking 17k votes and the greens, labour and lib dems taking 25k votes.

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 27946
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by Rover the Top » Thu Jan 16, 2020 11:57 am

mrblackbat wrote:
Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:35 am
Some epic failings of tactical voting. City of London goes to the Tories despite them taking 17k votes and the greens, labour and lib dems taking 25k votes.
Not sure that particular constituency represents a failure of tactical voting - the Lib Dems parachuting Chukka in there was hostile to Labour and always going to split the left side of the vote. It would be interesting to see how each constituency would fall if the votes were combined on a left/right basis though.

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 15544
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by mrblackbat » Thu Jan 16, 2020 7:43 pm

Momentum have online ballot for their members to indicate their preference of next Labour leader.... and include one candidate as the option.... :doh:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51140071

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 27946
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by Rover the Top » Mon Jan 20, 2020 8:00 am

mrblackbat wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 7:43 pm
Momentum have online ballot for their members to indicate their preference of next Labour leader.... and include one candidate as the option.... :doh:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51140071
Would you expect anything else from wannabe Commies?

With a choice between 4 women and 1 man, Labour's going to implode trying to decide whether picking Starmer would be anti- or pro- equal rights...

User avatar
Gibbon
Promising manager
Posts: 18434
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:54 am
Location: Location: Location
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by Gibbon » Sun Feb 02, 2020 10:30 pm

Rover the Top wrote:
Mon Dec 02, 2019 4:13 pm
Gibbon wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 2:09 pm
Regardless, with the conservatives going after labour for Anti-Semitism,
What, Ian Austin, Margaret Hodge, Luciana Berger, Tom Watson etc? It isn't the Tories who've made it a big issue.
John Bercow says he suffered anti-semitic abuse while in parliament. Not from labour members, but from his fellow Tories.

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 27946
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by Rover the Top » Tue Feb 04, 2020 9:05 am

I don't think there's ever been any question that racists can be involved in any political party. The issue is how they are dealt with, and one particular party has chosen to try and play down its own issues and deflect with "yeah, but what about them?" comments. Which, rather than eradicating the problem, actually gives the impression they condone a level of racism within the party. And it seems those who persist in defending them don't seem to grasp that's what's made it a systemic problem that sets Labour apart from the othe parties.

User avatar
Gibbon
Promising manager
Posts: 18434
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:54 am
Location: Location: Location
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by Gibbon » Tue Feb 04, 2020 10:25 am

Rover the Top wrote:
Tue Feb 04, 2020 9:05 am
The issue is how they are dealt with, and with both parties choosing to try and play down their own issues and deflect with "yeah, but what about them?" comments.
*fixed

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 27946
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: General Election

Post by Rover the Top » Tue Feb 04, 2020 11:18 am

Gibbon wrote:
Tue Feb 04, 2020 10:25 am
Rover the Top wrote:
Tue Feb 04, 2020 9:05 am
The issue is how they are dealt with, and with both parties choosing to try and play down their own issues and deflect with "yeah, but what about them?" comments.
*fixed
Except that's not true, is it? You don't see Tories, or UKIPpers, Lib Dems, Scottish Nationals for that matter, going round dealing with racism issues by saying, "it's all ok because Labour have racists too." Generally, they've all been quiet and let Labour tear itself to pieces over the anti-semitism issues. As an argument it's nonsensical, it doesn't justify or absolve anything, just gives the impression that the person making the defence thinks political partisanship outweighs stamping out racism.

Post Reply