Labour ?

Kevin-W posted:

Oh dear. If this is true, Little Timmy Farron may have just signed the Lib Fems' electoral death warrant:

https://www.theguardian.com/po...more-syrian-refugees

Liberal voters will like it ... Brexit voters won't.  Not sure it makes much difference to their chances.

Eloise posted:

Liberal voters will like it ...

Twelve people then.

"What services are you going to cut out? No cancer treatment for the over 75s? Perhaps stop all fertility treatment?"  I'd start with prescription drugs that can be bought over the counter for less than the cost of a prescription.  And perhaps consider deterring people from going to the Drs every time they get a cold too but that's by the by.  We have a far larger population now than when the NHS was set up and people live for far longer and with more acute health issues than they did in the past.  We quite simply can't afford to continue as we are so we need to decide where we best put out money, so that it helps those who most need it, and cut back on waste.  Absolutely anyone who has worked in the health service will tell you that there is a massive amount of waste in the system.  The current set up is too big, too cumbersome, too wasteful and too affected by politics and its brief is too wide and it needs to change.

I once sat waiting at my local hospital for an eye examination, my chair was opposite some cupboards. A man eventually came along and inside were literally hundreds of keyboards/optical mouse for computers. No company in their right mind would keep this level of stock"..........so there is waste. I just hope someone can free up this wasted money, throwing new is not the answer.

dayjay posted:

"What services are you going to cut out? No cancer treatment for the over 75s? Perhaps stop all fertility treatment?"  I'd start with prescription drugs that can be bought over the counter for less than the cost of a prescription.  

That would push the cost of prescriptions for all up.  The price you pay for a prescription isn't the cost the NHS pays - its a contribution towards the overall cost of medication provided on the NHS (I'm pretty sure you must know that).  Actually most doctors I know will tell you if something is available over the counter cheaper.

And perhaps consider deterring people from going to the Drs every time they get a cold too but that's by the by.  

They already do!  The problem is that also deters the people who have more serious conditions, which then become life threatening and taking up resourced when a dose of properly prescribed antibiotics (or similar low cost treatment) would have cleared it up.

We have a far larger population now than when the NHS was set up and people live for far longer and with more acute health issues than they did in the past.  We quite simply can't afford to continue as we are so we need to decide where we best put out money, so that it helps those who most need it, and cut back on waste.

Again ... point to which treatments would you cut back on and you feel are wasteful?

Absolutely anyone who has worked in the health service will tell you that there is a massive amount of waste in the system.  The current set up is too big, too cumbersome, too wasteful and too affected by politics and its brief is too wide and it needs to change.

There is waste, but most of the attempts to cut the waste just result in bad patient care.  Hospital food ... bright idea: lets close hospital kitchens and contract it out at a reduced cost.  Result ... bad meals provided to patients and end up thrown away each day while patients have "bad" food brought in from the outside resulting in longer stays in hospital.

Yes there have been some big wasteful projects - mostly around IT projects.

The alternative is essentially a system where those that can afford it are made well, those who can't die.

Gazza posted:

I once sat waiting at my local hospital for an eye examination, my chair was opposite some cupboards. A man eventually came along and inside were literally hundreds of keyboards/optical mouse for computers. No company in their right mind would keep this level of stock"..........so there is waste. I just hope someone can free up this wasted money, throwing new is not the answer.

Your eyes were working well then I take it 

G

Eloise posted:

Kevin-W posted:

Oh dear. If this is true, Little Timmy Farron may have just signed the Lib Fems' electoral death warrant:

https://www.theguardian.com/po...more-syrian-refugees

Liberal voters will like it ... Brexit voters won't.  Not sure it makes much difference to their chances.

But only if the Lib Dems win outright the GE...

Which is as likely at President Assad winning the Nobel Peace Prize.

Gazza posted:

I once sat waiting at my local hospital for an eye examination, my chair was opposite some cupboards. A man eventually came along and inside were literally hundreds of keyboards/optical mouse for computers. No company in their right mind would keep this level of stock"..........so there is waste. I just hope someone can free up this wasted money, throwing new is not the answer.

How do you know it was waste ... I'm how do you know how many keyboards and mice they go through over the course of a week / month?  How do you know if that was the "keyboard and mouse" stock cupboard for just that hospital, or perhaps it was for the whole local health authority?  

Also that isn't a overall management problem ... thats someone not doing their job properly and having over ordered. Thats actually a lack of not having proper management and an overview in place; and could be an issue that IT supplies are the responsibility of individual hospitals rather than on a more regional level.

(I'm not totally dismissing this as an example of waste ... but just saying you need context for it)

Many years ago I worked on a small part of the NHS NPfiT project which was then one of the biggest IT projects in the world, it was without doubt the most badly managed project of all time and 15 years after I left the NHS there were still parts of it that hadn't been completed.  Now bearing in mind this was a project that was initiated by a Labour government - it tied up thousands of NHS staff doing things that were not their day job for years and years, cost billions of pounds, over ran immensely and, if I am not mistaken, one of the systems, at a cost of £12 billion was scrapped as not fit for purpose.  So yes, there is a little waste in the system.  

If you want to put an end to the Tory knobs then just simply vote for them.   They will be clueless on how to progress.  Give them the kiss of death..

dayjay posted:

Many years ago I worked on a small part of the NHS NPfiT project which was then one of the biggest IT projects in the world, it was without doubt the most badly managed project of all time and 15 years after I left the NHS there were still parts of it that hadn't been completed.  Now bearing in mind this was a project that was initiated by a Labour government - it tied up thousands of NHS staff doing things that were not their day job for years and years, cost billions of pounds, over ran immensely and, if I am not mistaken, one of the systems, at a cost of £12 billion was scrapped as not fit for purpose.  So yes, there is a little waste in the system.  

As I said ... waste around IT projects.  That is VERY different to waste at the clinical end.  It was a sensible idea (as I recall) of trying to make patients records available to any (authorised) health care professions, but an almost impossible task.  And followed the old "cronyism" path to failure, cost over runs and failure to penalise private contractors for their failings.  The actual write off of £12billion is (again as I recall) debatable as although the project itself was a failure, parts were utilised so without the IT project other costs would have been incurred.

As you say a (New) Labour / Blair-Brown project.  A shame no one learned any lessons when suggesting the Universal Credit computer system (though that wasn't so costly).

Like I said, good intentions, unrealistic aspirations, inept delivery.  It could have been a Corbyn project easily.

Mike-B posted:

 the disaster that was the 1970's. 

I disagree. The 1970s weren't all bad. For a start, you had Sid James, on a Chopper, smoking a pipe. Hyuk hyuk.

dayjay posted:

Like I said, good intentions, unrealistic aspirations, inept delivery.  It could have been a Corbyn project easily.

Sorry I don't get your point.

It wasn't a Corbyn project, and a Corbyn project by virtue that Corbyn is a very different person and has different "ruling" style means it would have been run very differently.  Not necessarily better, but certainly different.

It could equally be a Tory project and so by saying you hate Corbyn ... you are supporting May in this election and therefore likely to find more "wasteful" projects being commissioned.

Sorry just not getting your logic!

It's not very complicated so I am sure you do.  I have neither said I hate Jeremy or said I support May.  I don't know Jeremy but he seems like a very principled man with strong beliefs and a social conscience.  I do think he is an activist at best and a poor leader and that he would make a dreadful prime minister, I also think his front bench is inept and out of touch with society.  WIth one or two notable exceptions I don't hate any politicians although there are plenty of policies that I hate and loots I disagree with, Not supporting Corbyn does not make one a Tory, one can be opposed to him and still be a supporter of the Labour Party, so please don't make sweeping assumptions and baseless statements about me in your responses

dayjay posted:

It's not very complicated so I am sure you do.  I have neither said I hate Jeremy or said I support May.  I don't know Jeremy but he seems like a very principled man with strong beliefs and a social conscience.  I do think he is an activist at best and a poor leader and that he would make a dreadful prime minister, I also think his front bench is inept and out of touch with society.  WIth one or two notable exceptions I don't hate any politicians although there are plenty of policies that I hate and loots I disagree with, Not supporting Corbyn does not make one a Tory, one can be opposed to him and still be a supporter of the Labour Party, so please don't make sweeping assumptions and baseless statements about me in your responses

Hate was the wrong term I will accept that and you are right the statement was sweeping and I apologise, but sorry Dayjay - and this is of course only my opinion - in this election you have two choices (excepting a few places where Lib Dems or others have a chance at winning a seat).  

You can vote for (and encourage others to vote for) a left of centre set of policies which are presented by a man who might not be ideal but is principled and (to my mind) thoughtful and will think before acting.  A man who answers questions not with sound bites or palitable answers, but gives a thoughtful balanced reply.

Or you can capitulate to a woman who (again in my mind) is unprincipled and will change her thoughts based on what is best for her and her continued lust for power and who's policies so far presented are verging towards right wing and who's campaigning so far has relied on rhetoric and "fluff" which are appealing to much of the mainstream media and generally avoids actually answering any question.

Neither choice is entirely palatable to me, but the broken democracy of this country leads us to these two choices.  

The point I was trying to make here (and I have tried to make elsewhere) is if you favour the Tory manifesto over the Labour one then vote for Tories, but don't NOT vote for Labour manifesto and policies because of the Leader.

So what is best for the long term interests of the Labour Party ?

Is it vote Corbyn?

This is how I look at it....

If Corbyn ends up with a better than expected GE defeat, then he will be Labour leader for sometime to come..... Which is fine if that's what the Labour supporters want.

If he has the worst defeat in Labour history, he will have to resign? .......So for the future of the Labour Party it's best to vote for anyone rather then Corbyn.

I wonder which option is best for Labour?

.

wenger2015 posted:

I wonder which option is best for Labour?

What's in the best interests of the country though?

Eloise posted:

wenger2015 posted:

I wonder which option is best for Labour?

What's in the best interests of the country though?

The country needs an effective opposition,  so it's quite a simple answer, Corbyn out...

wenger2015 posted:

Eloise posted:

wenger2015 posted:

I wonder which option is best for Labour?

What's in the best interests of the country though?

The country needs an effective opposition,  so it's quite a simple answer, Corbyn out...

But an opposition can not be effective surely if it's facing a 50, 70 or even more seat deficit?

Apology accepted Eloise, it's only a friendly debate.  In truth I think what would be best for the country would be for him to step aside and I hope he will if he loses but I'm worried how much damage will be done before he does so.  I'm also worried that the party has been taken over by extremists riding on his coat tails and I wouldn't be surprised if the party split, if he loses and doesn't step down I'd put money on it.

Eloise posted:

wenger2015 posted:

Eloise posted:

wenger2015 posted:

I wonder which option is best for Labour?

What's in the best interests of the country though?

The country needs an effective opposition,  so it's quite a simple answer, Corbyn out...

But an opposition can not be effective surely if it's facing a 50, 70 or even more seat deficit?

That's why he needs to go

dayjay posted:

Apology accepted Eloise, it's only a friendly debate.  In truth I think what would be best for the country would be for him to step aside and I hope he will if he loses but I'm worried how much damage will be done before he does so.  I'm also worried that the party has been taken over by extremists riding on his coat tails and I wouldn't be surprised if the party split, if he loses and doesn't step down I'd put money on it.

I agree that he should have stepped down when the coup happened, but the way the coup happen kind of make it impossible for him to step down.  

If the unlikely happened and Labour did win, how the country went would depend as much in the PLP as on Corbyn (IMO).  Would some of the more "statesmenlike" members of the PLP return to the front bench and embrace the policies they were elected on?

In the more likely even that Labour looses even if the vote share stayed similar I think Corbyn would likely resign, not immediately perhaps but 3-6 months down the line, regardless of what he said earlier in the week.  What was asked was a typical "trick Corbyn into a corner" question to which there was no good answer.

As for Labour splitting, it already has in all but name.  

wenger2015 posted:

Eloise posted:

wenger2015 posted:

Eloise posted:

wenger2015 posted:

I wonder which option is best for Labour?

What's in the best interests of the country though?

The country needs an effective opposition,  so it's quite a simple answer, Corbyn out...

But an opposition can not be effective surely if it's facing a 50, 70 or even more seat deficit?

That's why he needs to go

But that's the point I was making above.  At this point having no leader would make the Labour Party even more unelectable.  If Corbyn resigned now that would the Tory majority in triple figures even!  

There needs to be a good vote for Labour now and then a period of contemplation before Corbyn resigns and they can build for 2022. That's the only way there can be an effective opposition.

If he stepped down and someone like Andy Burnham stepped in I am sure that they would do far better.