I sincerely beg forgiveness for the sources but [url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2065467/Elderly-treated-home-instead-hospital-says-Health-Secretary-Andrew-Lansley.htmlLansley says elderly should be treated at home, instead of hospital[/url is particularly poignant after yesterday's headlines, highlighting [url=http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16115805systematic failures to treat elderly in their own homes[/url



The bloke's a complete and utter fecking joke

The word you're looking for is [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dl1jPqqTdNoTos-ser[/url

[url=http://www.robgee.co.uk/#/andrew-lansley-rap/4550782503The original poem[/url

I see the OECD says the NHS is pretty damn good actually ... and wonders why Lansley is messing it about. Lansley takes this as approval for his top-down feckup. www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011">www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/nov/23/health-bill-nhs-oecd-report">www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011 ... ecd-report

I see the OECD says the NHS is pretty damn good actually ... and wonders why Lansley is messing it about. Lansley takes this as approval for his top-down feckup. www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011">www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/nov/23/health-bill-nhs-oecd-report">www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011 ... ecd-report

As Ny Bevan said: "The NHS will last as long as there are folk left with the faith to fight for it"



BRING IT ON

Quote ="cod'ead"How stupid for thinking they might be linked to an improvement in the performance of the end product: the education of the children, usually measured by improved examination ">results.'" Examination results are a terrible measure of the quality of education. They are massively skewed by variations in pupil intake, whether you are comparing different schools or different years in the same school. Publishing league tables for schools is a horrendous idea. Quote ="cod'ead"you also conveniently forgot this bit: "or increased their pension, salary and bonus packages from the previous ">year."'" Not really, people negotiate an increase in their pension, salary and bonus packages on the back of their performance in work. This is how it works when you do not have collective bargaining keeping wages down. Quote ="cod'ead"Which suggests to me that they're remunerated for getting bigger, not better'" Aren't academies supposed to be better than normal schools? So more academies means more, better, schools?

Quote ="cod'ead"How stupid for thinking they might be linked to an improvement in the performance of the end product: the education of the children, usually measured by improved examination ">results.'" Examination results are a terrible measure of the quality of education. They are massively skewed by variations in pupil intake, whether you are comparing different schools or different years in the same school. Publishing league tables for schools is a horrendous idea. Quote ="cod'ead"you also conveniently forgot this bit: "or increased their pension, salary and bonus packages from the previous ">year."'" Not really, people negotiate an increase in their pension, salary and bonus packages on the back of their performance in work. This is how it works when you do not have collective bargaining keeping wages down. Quote ="cod'ead"Which suggests to me that they're remunerated for getting bigger, not better'" Aren't academies supposed to be better than normal schools? So more academies means more, better, schools?

Oh come on! Care to back that up?

We're discussing the large salaries Academies pay their senior staff. Which their counterparts who aren't free to negotiate their own salaries do not receive.

Quote ="SBR"We're discussing the large salaries Academies pay their senior staff. Which their counterparts who aren't free to negotiate their own salaries do not ">receive.'" Or conversely, the small salaries paid by academies to junior staff simply because they can get away with it

Quote ="SBR"We're discussing the large salaries Academies pay their senior staff. Which their counterparts who aren't free to negotiate their own salaries do not ">receive.'" Or conversely, the small salaries paid by academies to junior staff simply because they can get away with it

The estate of Dick Emery should be coining it in for the plagiarism of one of his beloved characters.



Andrew Lansley has now been forced into a climbdown in anticipation of a right royal rodgering from the HoL.



[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jan/28/andrew-lansley-nhs-health-reform-climbdownLinky dink dink[/url



Gaylord - "Dad, I got it wrong again"







Lansley

I was saddened to learn yesterday that adults in residential care receive benefit of just £22 per week for all their other needs - entertainment, treats, clothes, etc, etc. That's year in year out for mayve 60 or 70 years. OK they get food, shelter and care but the care homes have to try to get second hand clothes, etc for them. I think it's really sad that such a rich country couldn't find the cash to help the most vulnerable have a little more in life, when there is such enormous waste of public funds, eg they keep spending money on our railway station and making it worse. They have put in barriers - which make life more inconvenient for users, they now pay two blokes to stand watching people go through and after about 7pm they are left open anyway. What a waste - serves absoluetely no purpose - certainly not an improvement for customers and certainly not justified by an perceived protection of revenue. They built an identikit, hideous glass extension to the villagey station building to house the barriers (when the actual building has a plaque commerorating its award for sympathetic architectural revedelopment. Network Rail and First Capital Connect are a joke, they waste billions and can't run a half decent railway. Yet people in need are treated so badly. We live in a sick society that needs to get its priorities right. These rail people get bonuses too and some are amazingly well paid - why? 150 years of trying and the railways are worse than ever. Reward for failure seems the thing in modern Britain.

Quote ="Dally"I was saddened to learn yesterday that adults in residential care receive benefit of just £22 per week for all their other needs - entertainment, treats, clothes, etc, etc. That's year in year out for mayve 60 or 70 years. OK they get food, shelter and care but the care homes have to try to get second hand clothes, etc for them. I think it's really sad that such a rich country couldn't find the cash to help the most vulnerable have a little more in life, when there is such enormous waste of public funds, eg they keep spending money on our railway station and making it worse. They have put in barriers - which make life more inconvenient for users, they now pay two blokes to stand watching people go through and after about 7pm they are left open anyway. What a waste - serves absoluetely no purpose - certainly not an improvement for customers and certainly not justified by an perceived protection of revenue. They built an identikit, hideous glass extension to the villagey station building to house the barriers (when the actual building has a plaque commerorating its award for sympathetic architectural revedelopment. Network Rail and First Capital Connect are a joke, they waste billions and can't run a half decent railway. Yet people in need are treated so badly. We live in a sick society that needs to get its priorities right. These rail people get bonuses too and some are amazingly well paid - why? 150 years of trying and the railways are worse than ever. Reward for failure seems the thing in modern ">Britain.'" Also, to add to that, this government voted for the removal of the mobility component of DLA for adults in residential care even though they were fully entitled to it. They ended up having to do a complete U turn (like most other things they are proposing nowadays). Utterly dispicable. www.guardian.co.uk/society/joepu">www.guardian.co.uk/society/joepublic/2011/nov/30/u-turn-mobility-payments-just-start">www.guardian.co.uk/society/joepu ... just-start

Quote ="Dally"I was saddened to learn yesterday that adults in residential care receive benefit of just £22 per week for all their other needs - entertainment, treats, clothes, etc, etc. That's year in year out for mayve 60 or 70 years. OK they get food, shelter and care but the care homes have to try to get second hand clothes, etc for them. I think it's really sad that such a rich country couldn't find the cash to help the most vulnerable have a little more in life, when there is such enormous waste of public funds, eg they keep spending money on our railway station and making it worse. They have put in barriers - which make life more inconvenient for users, they now pay two blokes to stand watching people go through and after about 7pm they are left open anyway. What a waste - serves absoluetely no purpose - certainly not an improvement for customers and certainly not justified by an perceived protection of revenue. They built an identikit, hideous glass extension to the villagey station building to house the barriers (when the actual building has a plaque commerorating its award for sympathetic architectural revedelopment. Network Rail and First Capital Connect are a joke, they waste billions and can't run a half decent railway. Yet people in need are treated so badly. We live in a sick society that needs to get its priorities right. These rail people get bonuses too and some are amazingly well paid - why? 150 years of trying and the railways are worse than ever. Reward for failure seems the thing in modern ">Britain.'" Also, to add to that, this government voted for the removal of the mobility component of DLA for adults in residential care even though they were fully entitled to it. They ended up having to do a complete U turn (like most other things they are proposing nowadays). Utterly dispicable. www.guardian.co.uk/society/joepu">www.guardian.co.uk/society/joepublic/2011/nov/30/u-turn-mobility-payments-just-start">www.guardian.co.uk/society/joepu ... just-start

Aplogies for the link, I blame Caroline Lucas for it was she who sent it.



[url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2099940/NHS-health-reforms-Extent-McKinsey--Companys-role-Andrew-Lansleys-proposals.htmlMackinsey appear to have an unduly active role in the planning of the NHS Bill[/url



Former McKinsey execs also seem to abound in the top echelons of Monitor, the NHS Regulator. McKinsey’s involvement in the Bill is so great that its executives attend the meetings of the ‘Extraordinary NHS Management Board’ convened to implement it. Sometimes McKinsey even hosts these meetings at its UK headquarters in Jermyn Street, Central London.



And while we're on about it, from the same rag:



[url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2099914/NHS-reforms-David-Cameron-lashes-Cabinet-stabbers-support-Andrew-Lansley.htmlWe shed blood on our NHS reforms: Table-thumping Cameron lashes out at Cabinet back-stabbers and vows there won't be a U-turn[/url



Shed blood? Not nearly as much as the electorate will be shedding once these proposals go through. And then there's the haemorrhaging of taxpayers' dosh into the coffers of cn[iu[/its lilke McKinsey.

Don't know if this has been mentioned already... news.sky.com/home/politics/article/16168815

Don't know if this has been mentioned already... news.sky.com/home/politics/article/16168815

Quote ="V6Chuk"Don't know if this has been mentioned already... news.sky.com/home/politics/article/16168815'" No. But it's a damned important statement.

Quote ="V6Chuk"Don't know if this has been mentioned already... news.sky.com/home/politics/article/16168815'" No. But it's a damned important statement.

Interesting on productivity how nobody questions whether the Armed Forces productivity ever falls.



Where is the accountability on them? How does the taxpayer know they get value for money?



All we ever get told is "the best in the world". By what standings?

Should productivity perhaps be calculated by reference to how many "enemy" they take out? If so, I reckon they're not as good as they used to be!



The USA certainly don't think our army is the best in the world. In fact, quite the opposite judging by Afghanistan.

Maybe it goes on how much we spend per kill in comparison to other armies and relative to the amount spent by opposing armies, which is obviously intrinsically linked. I am sure some has worked out an equation for it.

Quote ="Dally"Should productivity perhaps be calculated by reference to how many "enemy" they take out? If so, I reckon they're not as good as they used to be! The USA certainly don't think our army is the best in the world. In fact, quite the opposite judging by ">Afghanistan.'" Hmmm and plenty of Brits serving in Afghanistan think the US Army is technologically amazing but staffed by overly aggressive idiotic gun-toting maniacs and that the US Army should spend more time on avoiding blowing up innocent civilians and allied soldiers and less time slagging off another nations armed forces.

Quote ="Dally"Should productivity perhaps be calculated by reference to how many "enemy" they take out? If so, I reckon they're not as good as they used to be! The USA certainly don't think our army is the best in the world. In fact, quite the opposite judging by ">Afghanistan.'" Hmmm and plenty of Brits serving in Afghanistan think the US Army is technologically amazing but staffed by overly aggressive idiotic gun-toting maniacs and that the US Army should spend more time on avoiding blowing up innocent civilians and allied soldiers and less time slagging off another nations armed forces.

Quote ="Him"Hmmm and plenty of Brits serving in Afghanistan think the US Army is technologically amazing but staffed by overly aggressive idiotic gun-toting maniacs and that the US Army should spend more time on avoiding blowing up innocent civilians and allied soldiers and less time slagging off another nations armed ">forces.'" That just made me laugh, nod and applaud all at the same time. Which is some example of multi-tasking.

Quote ="Him"Hmmm and plenty of Brits serving in Afghanistan think the US Army is technologically amazing but staffed by overly aggressive idiotic gun-toting maniacs and that the US Army should spend more time on avoiding blowing up innocent civilians and allied soldiers and less time slagging off another nations armed ">forces.'" That just made me laugh, nod and applaud all at the same time. Which is some example of multi-tasking.

Quote ="Him"Hmmm and plenty of Brits serving in Afghanistan think the US Army is technologically amazing but staffed by overly aggressive idiotic gun-toting maniacs and that the US Army should spend more time on avoiding blowing up innocent civilians and allied soldiers and less time slagging off another nations armed ">forces.'" Another Little Englander speaks.

Quote ="Him"Hmmm and plenty of Brits serving in Afghanistan think the US Army is technologically amazing but staffed by overly aggressive idiotic gun-toting maniacs and that the US Army should spend more time on avoiding blowing up innocent civilians and allied soldiers and less time slagging off another nations armed ">forces.'" Another Little Englander speaks.

If Labour don't keep up the pressure on this pig's ear of a piece of legislation, they don't deserve anyone's vote

They haven't deserved anyone's votes since Wilson's days.

Quote ="Dally"Another Little Englander ">speaks.'" icon_lol.gif" alt="icon_lol.gif" title="Laughing" /> When I advance to reading the Daily Mail then you can class me as such. The British Army isn't perfect, it's underfunded, undermanned and too often has cliques of stupidity/over-aggression like those seen in the US Army. (deepcut, Abu ghraib etc) but I know the view of several serving British Army officers toward our cousins across the lake and it appears to be a view shared by many other nations. It's generalising obviously, but the US soldiers appear far more removed from reality and robotic (blindly parroting phrases obviously taught them in basic training) whereas British soldiers appear more "normal". There are obviously issues with PTSD but far too often in the US Army there are "incidents" with soldiers who haven't particularly seen any intense combat. Then there was that massacre a few years ago (I forget where it happened but the courts martial/inquiry has basically just cleared the US soldiers) where because one of their troop was killed they went on a rampage deliberately murdering innocent civilians. In their evidence some of the privates described how their training put them in that mindset. Now the Americans are going to have more incidents simply because they have far more troops out there than anyone else. And as I said, it's a generalisation. But there is certainly an issue with the "mental condition" of many US soldiers

Quote ="Dally"Another Little Englander ">speaks.'" icon_lol.gif" alt="icon_lol.gif" title="Laughing" /> When I advance to reading the Daily Mail then you can class me as such. The British Army isn't perfect, it's underfunded, undermanned and too often has cliques of stupidity/over-aggression like those seen in the US Army. (deepcut, Abu ghraib etc) but I know the view of several serving British Army officers toward our cousins across the lake and it appears to be a view shared by many other nations. It's generalising obviously, but the US soldiers appear far more removed from reality and robotic (blindly parroting phrases obviously taught them in basic training) whereas British soldiers appear more "normal". There are obviously issues with PTSD but far too often in the US Army there are "incidents" with soldiers who haven't particularly seen any intense combat. Then there was that massacre a few years ago (I forget where it happened but the courts martial/inquiry has basically just cleared the US soldiers) where because one of their troop was killed they went on a rampage deliberately murdering innocent civilians. In their evidence some of the privates described how their training put them in that mindset. Now the Americans are going to have more incidents simply because they have far more troops out there than anyone else. And as I said, it's a generalisation. But there is certainly an issue with the "mental condition" of many US soldiers

Quote ="Mintball"That just made me laugh, nod and applaud all at the same time. Which is some example of ">multi-tasking.'" Which is an example of acceptance of a prevailing view. If you get presented with the view of US soldiers being a bunch of gun-toting yahoos that will shoot indiscriminately and cause massive collateral damage, most people will accept this view, despite the fact that they have no actual experience of dealing with the US army. It is something we have been conditioned to believe. Its like we are conditioned to believe things about state provided services being inefficient and private sector being efficient. Most people will for instance say by default that there are too many civil servants and the civil service is inefficient and bureaucratic. And yet Whitehall is at its smallest in headcount since the Second World War and it administers a hugely difficult task of providing services to 60 odd million people. We are told to believe that the private sector is efficient and the state is inefficient but how many private sector companies have a few boom years and then go bust.....is this efficiency? The civil service can't be 'wound up' it has to carry on, when times are hard, it just has less money to use.

Quote ="Mintball"That just made me laugh, nod and applaud all at the same time. Which is some example of ">multi-tasking.'" Which is an example of acceptance of a prevailing view. If you get presented with the view of US soldiers being a bunch of gun-toting yahoos that will shoot indiscriminately and cause massive collateral damage, most people will accept this view, despite the fact that they have no actual experience of dealing with the US army. It is something we have been conditioned to believe. Its like we are conditioned to believe things about state provided services being inefficient and private sector being efficient. Most people will for instance say by default that there are too many civil servants and the civil service is inefficient and bureaucratic. And yet Whitehall is at its smallest in headcount since the Second World War and it administers a hugely difficult task of providing services to 60 odd million people. We are told to believe that the private sector is efficient and the state is inefficient but how many private sector companies have a few boom years and then go bust.....is this efficiency? The civil service can't be 'wound up' it has to carry on, when times are hard, it just has less money to use.