Ship of Fools: Jeremy Hunt

Thread: Jeremy Hunt Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029945

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

You are a vile, unprincipled, pile of shit.

You slagged off teachers as education fuckwit, and now you are slagging off junior doctors as health fuckwit.

Please die.

Posted by David Goode (# 9224) on :

He is an extraordinary piece of work. There can't be many people who haven't enjoyed the appropriately-named James Naughtie's famous Freudian slip live on Radio 4, but in case there are, click and enjoy.

[ 11. February 2016, 18:37: Message edited by: David Goode ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

The bastard will go into history as he who ruined the NHS.

Posted by passer (# 13329) on :

Twitter is less than fully appreciative of his efforts. And his Wiki page has been having an exciting time.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

The wiki page is probably going to be protected soon.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by David Goode:
He is an extraordinary piece of work.

He's a piece of work not much thought has gone into.

Posted by passer (# 13329) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
The wiki page is probably going to be protected soon.

Already done!

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

I see that he has announced an inquiry into low morale among junior doctors in the NHS.

Can anyone help him with this?

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I see that he has announced an inquiry into low morale among junior doctors in the NHS.

Can anyone help him with this?

I expect it will be as independent as the plan to cope with the strikes, chaired by Sir Bruce Keogh, which turned out to be packed with Health department officials.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I see that he has announced an inquiry into low morale among junior doctors in the NHS.

Can anyone help him with this?

I am sure that the problem is, they are paid too much.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

tinyurl.com/jeremyhunt

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

What do you expect? He is the tool (I use the term advisedly) of a Party whose aim is to destroy public services and replace them with schemes which will yield profits for private companies. He will be rewarded with political advancement (but, alas, not an eternity in hellfire much as I would at this point like to believe in such a thing).

Oh, btw, in case you missed it, G Osborne and his son were flown to the Superbowl sponsored by, I believe, Google.

Excuse me, I have a can of worms I need to look at for light relief.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

I liked James Blunt`s tweet:

quote:

@JamesBlunt

I'm officially handing over my Cockney Rhyming title to @Jeremy_Hunt
2:08 PM - 11 Feb 2016

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

Today Hunt published a letter supporting his imposing a contract, which had been endorsed by 25 NHS CEOs.

This evening the news is breaking that in fact the CEOs signed a completely different letter from the one published, and most do not in fact support imposing a contract.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
... G Osborne and his son ...

You mean he's spawned? Dear God! the world is in peril.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Today Hunt published a letter supporting his imposing a contract, which had been endorsed by 25 NHS CEOs.

This evening the news is breaking that in fact the CEOs signed a completely different letter from the one published, and most do not in fact support imposing a contract.

If that is faked, he is fucked.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Is this the info you are referring to http://guerillawire.org/politics/jeremy-hunt-caught-fiddling/ ?

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Today Hunt published a letter supporting his imposing a contract, which had been endorsed by 25 NHS CEOs.

This evening the news is breaking that in fact the CEOs signed a completely different letter from the one published, and most do not in fact support imposing a contract.
If that is faked, he is fucked.

What worries me most is that I don't think this is true. I think this current government is so astoundingly arrogant that it won't matter. They really think they can get away with anything.

AFZ

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Is this the info you are referring to http://guerillawire.org/politics/jeremy-hunt-caught-fiddling/ ?

Yes, that's it. Good old Zelo Street!

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

I`ve tweeted the link to Nick Triggle the bbc health correspondent asking if he has seen it.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

I don't subscribe but based on the headline the health service journal seems to be carrying the story.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Its now on the bbc news site.

Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :

The BBC are hoping - err I mean suggesting - that it may be a "storm in a teacup".

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Its now on the bbc news site.

And it looks like Sir David Dalton has been landed with the task of rewriting this little bit of history. I thought he would. Hunt always has a handy minion he can throw to the Press pack when they're getting too close.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

Ain't it no surprise that the NHS Blog is blocked by my (Civil Service ingernet) NetNanny?

btw, i) How many NHS CEOs are there?
ii) On what basis are they appointed and by whom?

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Responding, Sir David told the Health Service Journal (HSJ) the statement they had agreed to "was confirming that the best and final position was considered fair and reasonable, and that they believed the NHS needed certainty and not continuation of the stalemate".

He continued that if anyone wanted to make an inference from this that they supported imposition, "then that is their inference, [but] that is not what [the signatories] have committed their names to".

"I neither want to say they do or that they don't. There is a variety of opinion on this."

Sir Humphrey couldn't have put it any better.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Responding, Sir David told the Health Service Journal (HSJ) the statement they had agreed to "was confirming that the best and final position was considered fair and reasonable, and that they believed the NHS needed certainty and not continuation of the stalemate".

He continued that if anyone wanted to make an inference from this that they supported imposition, "then that is their inference, [but] that is not what [the signatories] have committed their names to".

"I neither want to say they do or that they don't. There is a variety of opinion on this."
Sir Humphrey couldn't have put it any better.

The professors of administration at the Civil Service College, must be purring with pleasure. There's a real gift in being accountable while spouting that.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Even that doesn't address the issue of at least one CEO saying she hadn't agreed to any version of the letter, and others saying the text they had agreed to had been changed.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

There clearly are issues of interpretation here which none of us would wish to minimize. Some people would say the substance of the intention of seeking a resolution by any means necessary remained unaltered by that, I have nothing to say about that one way or the other but rather regard it as a problem that needs to be resolved in its context and not dealt with piecemeal.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

His Wiki entry can't be edited to say he's from or lives in Berkeley, can it....? [Devil]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
His Wiki entry can't be edited to say he's from or lives in Berkeley, can it....?

His constituency is South-West Surrey, which is no more than a gravel drive from Berkshire.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Ah yes, he's Mrs Bottomley's replacement, isn't he.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Responding, Sir David told the Health Service Journal (HSJ) the statement they had agreed to "was confirming that the best and final position was considered fair and reasonable, and that they believed the NHS needed certainty and not continuation of the stalemate".

He continued that if anyone wanted to make an inference from this that they supported imposition, "then that is their inference, [but] that is not what [the signatories] have committed their names to".

"I neither want to say they do or that they don't. There is a variety of opinion on this."
Sir Humphrey couldn't have put it any better.

That is prime Humphrey-esque. I think it means "Hunt lied, deceived and manipulated. Situation Normal".

And no, he won't go. He - and the other senior Tories - have managed to make a despised profession (MP) even more vile. It seems that being utterly dishonourable is no longer a bar for being an MP.

If the speaker had any cojones he would have the cabinet hung out to dry.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

https://whatwouldvirchowdo.wordpress.com/2015/09/24/weve-found-jeremy-hunts-book-and-yes-he-does-want-to-privatise-the-nhs/

Unsurprised.

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

The Tory attack on the NHS is deliberate, strategic and long in the planning. They hate the NHS and they want to destroy it. It prolongs the lives of poor people, FFS!

Hunt is not incompetent or in any kind of political trouble here (not with his cabinet colleagues, anyway). Thinking that he is, is to underestimate the enemy. Every move he makes brings him closer to the long-planned grand NHS sell-off, from which a lot of complete arseholes will make a lot of money.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Yup

Posted by Stumbling Pilgrim (# 7637) on :

quote:
Originally posted by David Goode:
He is an extraordinary piece of work. There can't be many people who haven't enjoyed the appropriately-named James Naughtie's famous Freudian slip live on Radio 4, but in case there are, click and enjoy.

Freudian slip it may have been, but prescient too!

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
The Tory attack on the NHS is deliberate, strategic and long in the planning. They hate the NHS and they want to destroy it. It prolongs the lives of poor people, FFS!

That long-term NHS destruction agenda in full:

1940s: Tory election manifesto calls for a national health service
1950s: NHS exists
1960s: NHS exists
1970s: NHS exists
1980s: NHS exists
1990s: NHS exists
2000s: Tories not in power
2010s: NHS exists

Useless Tories, eh?

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
The Tory attack on the NHS is deliberate, strategic and long in the planning. They hate the NHS and they want to destroy it. It prolongs the lives of poor people, FFS!
That long-term NHS destruction agenda in full:

1940s: Tory election manifesto calls for a national health service
1950s: NHS exists
1960s: NHS exists
1970s: NHS exists
1980s: NHS exists
1990s: NHS exists
2000s: Tories not in power
2010s: NHS exists

Useless Tories, eh?

This administration wants to destroy the NHS. Previous incarnations - from the 1990s - didn't want to because they were stupid but not that stupid.

2010s they were in a coalition, and so were restricted in what they could do. If they had tried some of the crap they are currently pulling, I think even the LibDems would have pulled out.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
The Tory attack on the NHS is deliberate, strategic and long in the planning. They hate the NHS and they want to destroy it. It prolongs the lives of poor people, FFS!
That long-term NHS destruction agenda in full:

1940s: Tory election manifesto calls for a national health service
1950s: NHS exists
1960s: NHS exists
1970s: NHS exists
1980s: NHS exists
1990s: NHS exists
2000s: Tories not in power
2010s: NHS exists

Useless Tories, eh?

You don't remember the fiasco of the internal market do you? We should have learned then that "market forces" don't give any patients whatsoever.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I think the attack on the NHS will be piecemeal, rather than all-out. For example, as services are bought by private companies, they will tend to prefer to deal with non-complex stuff, not long term illnesses, the elderly, or mental health.

These will be relegated to a sink NHS, dealing with difficult (and expensive) cases. Hence, there will be a 3 tier health system: private; private firms supplying the NHS with simpler (and more profitable) treatments; and the sink stuff.

You can already see that mental health is going down the tubes - see the suicides stats,and the long distances some people have to go to get treatment.

The solution is simple - don't get old, don't get sick, and above all, don't be poor.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
This administration wants to destroy the NHS.

Why do you think they want to "destroy" the NHS? I thought the idea was reform, which isn't the same thing. I doubt very much that the intention is to scrap the entire thing.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

Reform = privatise. Because everything is better when it's run for profit, isn't it? Ask our American friends.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

Monopolies aren't always the answer and sometimes it's good to have a bit of competition. However, not in this instance. I think the sooner Jeremy Hunt goes the better - his track record hasn't been exactly stellar.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Monopolies aren't always the answer and sometimes it's good to have a bit of competition. However, not in this instance. I think the sooner Jeremy Hunt goes the better - his track record hasn't been exactly stellar.

Depends on the kind of star. Jeremy Hunt is obviously a black hole.

Posted by Ann (# 94) on :

He's not exactly seeking out alternative views either.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
This administration wants to destroy the NHS.
Why do you think they want to "destroy" the NHS? I thought the idea was reform, which isn't the same thing. I doubt very much that the intention is to scrap the entire thing.

They sell it as reform. The reality is an attack on the core principles, which are health care for all, free at the point of use.

I saw a tweet today indicating that there are NO mental health beds available in the UK at the moment. Given the rise in MH problems and need, that is a disgrace - it means that someone needing an urgent admission will have no chance. Bear in mind this is in the face of a PM who has promised more support and investment for MH services.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Why do you think they want to "destroy" the NHS?

According to wikipedia, Hunt co-wrote a pamphlet proposing that the NHS be abolished and replaced with universal insurance. He subsequently said that it didn't express his views (because obviously just because you've coauthored something that doesn't mean it has anything to do with your views).

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

They want to destroy the whole principle of public service. This is why it's all being completely consumerised. I would like to continue to be treated by doctors and other health professionals to whom the idea of medicine as a service, as part of the fabric of society as well as a technical, medico-scientific exercise, is important. I don't want to be services by medical technicians. That way lies even further social disintegration.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
I would like to continue to be treated by doctors and other health professionals to whom the idea of medicine as a service, as part of the fabric of society as well as a technical, medico-scientific exercise, is important.

I expect you will be. Jeremy Hunt can try to impose contracts, but he can't force people to think what he thinks, and people don't usually go into nursing or NHS work for the money. The medical staff I've met in the past few years have been overworked, sometimes harassed and disillusioned, but still genuinely kind people who have that essential humanity and motivation to help that brought them into the profession in the first place.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Sioni Sais: Jeremy Hunt is obviously a black hole.

Another kind of hole also comes to mind.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
The Tory attack on the NHS is deliberate, strategic and long in the planning. They hate the NHS and they want to destroy it. It prolongs the lives of poor people, FFS!
That long-term NHS destruction agenda in full:

1940s: Tory election manifesto calls for a national health service
1950s: NHS exists
1960s: NHS exists
1970s: NHS exists
1980s: NHS exists
1990s: NHS exists
2000s: Tories not in power
2010s: NHS exists

Useless Tories, eh?

Well of course the NHS "exists", though you might wonder what that means when it's actually, for example, Virgin Care operating under the NHS logo. Obviously the NHS can't be privatised at a stroke - it's the one thing that might actually raise the British out of their dormouse-like apathy and into political action. Instead, it's done bit by bit. The last Labour government got some well deserved criticism for this when it was found that by the time they left power, about £7bn of NHS money went to private contracts. But in barely 3 years since the Health and Social Care Act came into force in April 2013, a further £5.5bn worth of NHS contracts have been awarded to private providers. (Source) Privatisation is clearly accelerating, and will continue to do so under the current regime.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
He subsequently said that it didn't express his views (because obviously just because you've coauthored something that doesn't mean it has anything to do with your views).

And he is proving that it does, in fact, represent his views.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
The Tory attack on the NHS is deliberate, strategic and long in the planning. They hate the NHS and they want to destroy it. It prolongs the lives of poor people, FFS!
That long-term NHS destruction agenda in full:

1940s: Tory election manifesto calls for a national health service
1950s: NHS exists
1960s: NHS exists
1970s: NHS exists
1980s: NHS exists
1990s: NHS exists
2000s: Tories not in power
2010s: NHS exists

Useless Tories, eh?
Well of course the NHS "exists", though you might wonder what that means when it's actually, for example, Virgin Care operating under the NHS logo. Obviously the NHS can't be privatised at a stroke - it's the one thing that might actually raise the British out of their dormouse-like apathy and into political action. Instead, it's done bit by bit. The last Labour government got some well deserved criticism for this when it was found that by the time they left power, about £7bn of NHS money went to private contracts. But in barely 3 years since the Health and Social Care Act came into force in April 2013, a further £5.5bn worth of NHS contracts have been awarded to private providers. (Source) Privatisation is clearly accelerating, and will continue to do so under the current regime.

How's the water,
froggies?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:

quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
I would like to continue to be treated by doctors and other health professionals to whom the idea of medicine as a service, as part of the fabric of society as well as a technical, medico-scientific exercise, is important.
I expect you will be. Jeremy Hunt can try to impose contracts, but he can't force people to think what he thinks, and people don't usually go into nursing or NHS work for the money. The medical staff I've met in the past few years have been overworked, sometimes harassed and disillusioned, but still genuinely kind people who have that essential humanity and motivation to help that brought them into the profession in the first place.

I suspect that the target of the Tory "reforms" aren't the motives of individual doctors, nor even the management. They want to reform the NHS to provide increased profits for their chums running medical related businesses.

Doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals will still enter the profession motivated to help others, they will just be working in an environment where the questions of how much treatment will cost will be increasingly dominant - and where anything to cut costs will be taken (including reducing the staffing levels, using less experienced/less qualified staff where possible etc).

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
The Tory attack on the NHS is deliberate, strategic and long in the planning. They hate the NHS and they want to destroy it. It prolongs the lives of poor people, FFS!
That long-term NHS destruction agenda in full:

1940s: Tory election manifesto calls for a national health service
1950s: NHS exists
1960s: NHS exists
1970s: NHS exists
1980s: NHS exists
1990s: NHS exists
2000s: Tories not in power
2010s: NHS exists

Useless Tories, eh?

I'm so tired of this Tory-apologist bollocks. I am so angry at the moment. Let's just tackle this one. As others have pointed out there's a lot going on unseen. The NHS is not a single organisation at all and it is being systematically undermined. New Labour did some amazing things with the NHS but they also let in private providers in a way that left it vulnerable, very vulnerable. However let's just cover some history (last 30 years or so).

By 1997 The NHS was in a desparate state. Crumbling buildings, not enough nurses, paid appallingly and the horrific junior doctor shifts.
From 2000 onwards, the NHS had massive investment. Dr's contracts sorted. Amazing outcomes were seen, with the fastest improving cancer survival in Europe - and if trends had continued (data not fully back yet) by 2012, we would have over-taken France for heart attack survival despite paying around a 1/3 less for healthcare (as share of GDP) than our neighbours across the Channel. Oh and highest ever patient satisfaction levels. Then there's what's happened since 2010...

Yes, the Tories are trying to destroy the NHS, all but it's wonderful brand-name. They'll keep that, that's worth a lot of money.

So, please stop this simplistic, patronising nonsense. THIS IS WHAT IS HAPPENING TO OUR HEALTH SERVICE.

[Mad]

AFZ

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

Useless Tories, eh?

Hold on now, Tories aren't at all useless. They could save a lot of trees on bonfire night.

Posted by David Goode (# 9224) on :

I thought I would supplement my earlier post in this thread with a little medley.

(Possibly NSFW, depending on how uptight your W is about repeated Freudian slips. —A, HH)

[ 16. February 2016, 00:40: Message edited by: Ariston ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

Useless Tories, eh?
Hold on now, Tories aren't at all useless. They could save a lot of trees on bonfire night.

Too much time between now and Bonfire Night.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals will still enter the profession motivated to help others, they will just be working in an environment where the questions of how much treatment will cost will be increasingly dominant - and where anything to cut costs will be taken (including reducing the staffing levels, using less experienced/less qualified staff where possible etc).

That's been ongoing for years already surely, not just because of the Conservatives.

The problem is that there isn't enough money to go round. They could save quite a lot by scrapping HS2, for starters, but unfortunately Labour committed to that so they're contractually obliged to go ahead with it (or such is my understanding).

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:

The problem is that there isn't enough money to go round. They could save quite a lot by scrapping HS2, for starters, but unfortunately Labour committed to that so they're contractually obliged to go ahead with it (or such is my understanding).

If the government can screw public sector employess* terms of employment by unilaterally changing contracts why can't it change commercial contracts on the same basis?

*except themselves. Looks like another MPs, especially committee chairs, are to get an above the 1% pay rise.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

They don't have to accept it. They could always donate their pay rises to charity, right?

I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
The problem is that there isn't enough money to go round.

The problem is not that there's not enough money to go around - it's what it's spent on. And increasingly, it's spent on people who are already well off, either by not taxing them when other people are, or by giving them extra when other people don't get that.

So by eliminating 40% pension relief, you get another £7bn in taxes. Investment income is taxed at a lower rate than earned income, which favours the rich. Most low and middle income people pay a marginal rate (including NIC) which is almost the same as rich people do - include the taper for tax credits, and the marginal rates rise up to 70-80%.

That both the tax system and the public expenditure favour the wealthy over the poor is not a big surprise, but up until now most people have been content with the crumbs. But rather than making do with a smaller cake and leaving those crumbs, we're faced with an empty plate because they're damned if they're going to go hungry.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

And Osborne has reduced corporation tax year-on-year...

The public sector is being squeezed beyond what it can take - all in the name of an economic 'theory' that has been completely and totally discredited both theoretically and historically.

quote:
Blyth, Mark (2013-03-27). Austerity: The History of a Dangerous Idea (p. 179). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.
The natural histories of these episodes demonstrate quite clearly that economies do not “self-heal” once “the bust” has run its course. Austerity was tried, and tried again— its application was not wanting— and it simply didn’t work. In fact, its repeated application made things worse, not better, and it was only when states stopped pursuing austerity that they began to recover.

Healthcare is indeed a bottomless pit of demand but let anyone tell you that is the real problem right now. There would be enough money if there was just the political will.

AFZ

Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :

It gets good at about 4:42, but remember—some country's been going to the poorhouse in an automobile for a while.

85 years and nothing's changed, Will.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I noticed this news item today. What seems to be missed by the politicians and the journalists is that these policies result in people dying, people who do not need to die.

They are all remorseful when someone from the forces is killed because of government policies, but when ordinary people die because of government policies, they are silent.

My loathing and hatred of Jeremy "what a complete knobhead" Hunt is not just because he is wrong. It is because he is wrong and it is killing people. It is in real danger of killing people who I care about.

Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :

If I needed a reason for not voting Tory, it would be Jeremy Hunt!

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

The incessant cuts to local authority budgets are another prong of the pincer movement on the NHS: on the one hand, pissing off the doctors so that many of them leave (2 of my acquaintance have left for Australia in the last year) on the other, slashing elderly care in the community so that delayed discharges cause the whole delicately-balanced system to seize up. (The Tories have correctly identified this as the easiest way to fuck up the NHS.) Then Hunt or whichever other orifice comes after him will be able to say "this state-owned health service is useless, we'll have to bring in our chums from the private sector to run it properly." In fact, they'll get their chums in the media to beg them to bring in their other chums. Things won't improve of course, but they'll make sure that the process of privatisation is irreversible so they won't care.

Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
You are a vile, unprincipled, pile of shit.

You slagged off teachers as education fuckwit, and now you are slagging off junior doctors as health fuckwit.

Please die.

My sentiments exactly!!!

But does this make us good Christians? [Devil]

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
You are a vile, unprincipled, pile of shit.

You slagged off teachers as education fuckwit, and now you are slagging off junior doctors as health fuckwit.

Please die.
My sentiments exactly!!!

But does this make us good Christians?

Yes. Because standing up against injustice is Christian. It might not make us nice people.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
You slagged off teachers as education fuckwit, and now you are slagging off junior doctors as health fuckwit.

My sentiments exactly!!!

When did Jeremy Hunt hold an education brief?

Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
The problem is that there isn't enough money to go round.
The problem is not that there's not enough money to go around - it's what it's spent on. [...]

Indeed. If this graph is accurate, the UK spends a lower proportion of its GDP on health care than (among others) Norway, Greece, Portugal, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands. The King's Fund reported recently that NHS is in a "financial crisis" and are predicting an end-of year debt of £2.3 billion - and 53% of trust financial directors said that care in their area got worse in the last year.

[ 20. February 2016, 11:59: Message edited by: Alwyn ]

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
You slagged off teachers as education fuckwit, and now you are slagging off junior doctors as health fuckwit.

My sentiments exactly!!!
When did Jeremy Hunt hold an education brief?

I think he probably didn't. I think I got this wrong, and confused one Tory fuck with Gove, another Tory fuck.

Posted by Hedgerow Priest (# 13905) on :

Not posted on this site for years, so I would like to break my silence, to declare and pronounce that Mr Hunt is a public health hazard, we really need him to resign, and we need to support the junior doctors. Why did Britain elect the Tories?, are we really such knobheads with amnesia about the 1980s?

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hedgerow Priest:
Why did Britain elect the Tories?, are we really such knobheads with amnesia about the 1980s?

Welcome back. I remember the 1980s, and that is one reason my politics changed quite significantly during that time.

This government is so much worse than that one. I think Mrs Thatcher is probably turning in her grave. And I have no love for her.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

quote:
Originally posted by Hedgerow Priest:
Why did Britain elect the Tories?, are we really such knobheads with amnesia about the 1980s?
Welcome back. I remember the 1980s, and that is one reason my politics changed quite significantly during that time.

This government is so much worse than that one. I think Mrs Thatcher is probably turning in her grave. And I have no love for her.

In those days there was a genuine breadth of opinion in the Conservative Party. There really were honest compassionate people in the party then, and many opposed Thatcher who in turn moderated the views of ideologues like Norman Tebbit and Keith Joseph.

It's different now. Greed has taken over and as in the USA, aided by the press and corporate power, they have put economic interests over those of man. I don't know if it's any consolation but the end-game is that economic power is going to shift east within three decades and the West will be a shithole.

Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
They don't have to accept it. They could always donate their pay rises to charity, right?

I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

They could, but that's a bit of a straw man.

The money will still come out of the public purse, and go into MPs pockets.

Where it goes after that is not relevant.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

There is a difference in the understanding of language between the two sides, especially of the meaning of "fairness".
To one side, what is not fair is that there are people who are left out of society, who are struggling for homes, for warmth, for food, and who are punished for this while others have more money than anyone sane knows what to do with.
To the other side, what is not fair is that anyone should be made to give up their money to anyone else, however much anyone else may need it, because it is the needy person's fault that they need it.
I was going to try to write that evenhandedly, but then decided that that would be false.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
There is a difference in the understanding of language between the two sides, especially of the meaning of "fairness".
To one side, what is not fair is that there are people who are left out of society, who are struggling for homes, for warmth, for food, and who are punished for this while others have more money than anyone sane knows what to do with.
To the other side, what is not fair is that anyone should be made to give up their money to anyone else, however much anyone else may need it, because it is the needy person's fault that they need it.
I was going to try to write that evenhandedly, but then decided that that would be false.

Not a bad summary, but being fair, I don't think that all right-wing people think that it's the needy person's fault that they're needy. I suppose Osborne's distinction between shirkers and workers suggests fault.

But there are right-wing people who genuinely seem to believe that inequality actually incentivizes people at all levels, and is therefore beneficial to society. And also that top-down economic direction in the long run makes things worse.

[ 24. March 2016, 11:56: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
There is a difference in the understanding of language between the two sides, especially of the meaning of "fairness".
To one side, what is not fair is that there are people who are left out of society, who are struggling for homes, for warmth, for food, and who are punished for this while others have more money than anyone sane knows what to do with.
To the other side, what is not fair is that anyone should be made to give up their money to anyone else, however much anyone else may need it, because it is the needy person's fault that they need it.
I was going to try to write that evenhandedly, but then decided that that would be false.

I think that's a really good summary. In my experience often Lefties and Righties end up talking past each other as L's declare it's NOT RIGHT that children go to bed hungry and R's say it's NOT RIGHT that anyone forces me to do something about it. Which is the greater wrong?

Most of my right-leaning friends are at the front of the queue to give freely from what they have...

But for me, that's not the end of the argument, because I don't think that some having LOTS and LOTS and others having so little is a natural phenomenon or simply the result of some being prepared to work hard and others not at all. Our huge wealth inequalities (in microcosm in our country and on the full-scale across our world at large) are the result of specific factors. Of course work should be rewarded and people have a right to decide to work for something and enjoy it when they get it. But it's nowhere near that simple.

The bigger factors are things like access to natural resources and who picks up the bigger costs. In the UK in particular, but also in most of the world, if you own land, you're already winning. But who says I own this piece of land? Because I inherited it, or because I bought it off someone else? But why did that person own it...? etc. etc. In the race of life, it's a very staggered start.

I also think that, if you look at the great wealth owners, it's often because they have exploited natural resources, such as oil. Surely, if oil belongs to anyone in a country, it belongs to everyone? But what actually happens is the companies who extract it pay peanuts in access rights and then for the most part, it's the rest of the world who pays the price of the pollution at the end of the day. If you're doubting this, have a look at how Fracking rights are being handed out.

Coupled to that is an economic-political system that means wealth allows access to power that has been used to concentrate wealth and so the cycle goes on.

It is not simply a case of taking "MY MONEY" off me. It is the case that I benefit from all that a modern society provides: security, legal system, infrastructure etc. etc. and so I should pay towards it. Tax is the means to do so. Moreover, our economic system is concentrating wealth and to argue therefore that it's morally unacceptable to redress that process is a flawed argument in my view. YMMV.

In other news, Jeremy Hunt has disappeared and the BMA has upped the ante. There is a full walk-out of junior doctors slated for the end of next month. Hospitals are planning on how to run the hospital with consultants only. (I was in one such meeting today).

Two things to say:
1) It will be safe. There will be plenty of senior doctors providing care and in a major incident, we'll all go back to work. Elective work will be cancelled to have enough doctors to cover emergencies.
2) It will be quite funny: Most consultants are gonna struggle to take blood and find the stationery...

AFZ

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
alienfromzog: It is the case that I benefit from all that a modern society provides: security, legal system, infrastructure etc. etc.

A monetary system.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0