RugbyRebels

Puja wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2024 7:48 pm

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2024 5:07 pm

Stom wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2024 4:14 pm Way to hide the news… Badenoch is the new leader of the Tories…

Which version of right wing candidate would you have preferred? I’m not a fan of Badenoch but I’d prefer her to Jenrick who seems desperate to be Farage without the pint

Badenoch is a true believer though, which I regard as far more dangerous than the "ordering a demagogue from Temu" of Jenrick. I shudder to think of her being anywhere near power, although thankfully she hopefully won't be.

It'll be bad enough with her getting the platform to complain and whinge regularly and publically.

Puja

Well, they don't call her Goodenoch.

cashead wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2024 6:58 am

Puja wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2024 7:48 pm

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2024 5:07 pm

Which version of right wing candidate would you have preferred? I’m not a fan of Badenoch but I’d prefer her to Jenrick who seems desperate to be Farage without the pint

Badenoch is a true believer though, which I regard as far more dangerous than the "ordering a demagogue from Temu" of Jenrick. I shudder to think of her being anywhere near power, although thankfully she hopefully won't be.

It'll be bad enough with her getting the platform to complain and whinge regularly and publically.

Puja

Well, they don't call her Goodenoch.

Despite her other faults, she does have a hilarious name.

Genius move by Streeting - league tables for hospitals:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... ors-bosses

It makes no sense for this to be public - what is the public going to do with this info?* If they are able, it'll just mean the best informed will try to get treated at the best performing hospitals, without knowing whether the hospital is better or if it's just in an area where the population is healthier. And why should the NHS treat the better informed better than anyone else?

And then, the better performing hospitals will get extra money. Brilliant - identify the areas where resources are needed the least and allocate more resources to them. The exact opposite of what is needed.

Obviously, hospitals should be monitored and compared, but there's no point in making it public. NB I hope this is already being done - if not, then of course this would be very important. The reasons for better and worse performers need to be determined carefully. If a hospital performs poorly because it's in an area where health is poor, or it is poorly resourced, then it needs more resources, and if necessary the local area needs better resources (isn't prevention the big plan?). If it is because it's being badly managed or there are medical failings, then staff need to be trained, fired, whatever, as appropriate.


* athough I can imagine what the newspapers will do with it

As the assisted dying bill approaches Parliament, I would urge all of my friends to (re)watch this documentary from one of the greatest humanists of our time.

If you then choose to write to you MP after doing so, and balancing against other opinions, facts and concerns - that is entirely up to you.

In my personal opinion, strenuous checks and balances are obviously required, but the right to choose should be there.



#YourBodyYourRules

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 10:45 am Genius move by Streeting - league tables for hospitals:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... ors-bosses

It makes no sense for this to be public - what is the public going to do with this info?* If they are able, it'll just mean the best informed will try to get treated at the best performing hospitals, without knowing whether the hospital is better or if it's just in an area where the population is healthier. And why should the NHS treat the better informed better than anyone else?

And then, the better performing hospitals will get extra money. Brilliant - identify the areas where resources are needed the least and allocate more resources to them. The exact opposite of what is needed.

Obviously, hospitals should be monitored and compared, but there's no point in making it public. NB I hope this is already being done - if not, then of course this would be very important. The reasons for better and worse performers need to be determined carefully. If a hospital performs poorly because it's in an area where health is poor, or it is poorly resourced, then it needs more resources, and if necessary the local area needs better resources (isn't prevention the big plan?). If it is because it's being badly managed or there are medical failings, then staff need to be trained, fired, whatever, as appropriate.


* athough I can imagine what the newspapers will do with it

I'm assuming the bolded bit is the main point - public obloquy for the loser, because it isn't that hospitals' performances are constrained in any way, they're just not trying hard enough and need more motivation.

I'm beginning to come to the conclusion that Streeting is an absolute fucking imbecile.

Puja

Puja wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 5:27 pm

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 10:45 am Genius move by Streeting - league tables for hospitals:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... ors-bosses

It makes no sense for this to be public - what is the public going to do with this info?* If they are able, it'll just mean the best informed will try to get treated at the best performing hospitals, without knowing whether the hospital is better or if it's just in an area where the population is healthier. And why should the NHS treat the better informed better than anyone else?

And then, the better performing hospitals will get extra money. Brilliant - identify the areas where resources are needed the least and allocate more resources to them. The exact opposite of what is needed.

Obviously, hospitals should be monitored and compared, but there's no point in making it public. NB I hope this is already being done - if not, then of course this would be very important. The reasons for better and worse performers need to be determined carefully. If a hospital performs poorly because it's in an area where health is poor, or it is poorly resourced, then it needs more resources, and if necessary the local area needs better resources (isn't prevention the big plan?). If it is because it's being badly managed or there are medical failings, then staff need to be trained, fired, whatever, as appropriate.


* athough I can imagine what the newspapers will do with it

I'm assuming the bolded bit is the main point - public obloquy for the loser, because it isn't that hospitals' performances are constrained in any way, they're just not trying hard enough and need more motivation.

I'm beginning to come to the conclusion that Streeting is an absolute fucking imbecile.

Puja

He's in good company in parliament.....

Puja wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 5:27 pm

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 10:45 am Genius move by Streeting - league tables for hospitals:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... ors-bosses

It makes no sense for this to be public - what is the public going to do with this info?* If they are able, it'll just mean the best informed will try to get treated at the best performing hospitals, without knowing whether the hospital is better or if it's just in an area where the population is healthier. And why should the NHS treat the better informed better than anyone else?

And then, the better performing hospitals will get extra money. Brilliant - identify the areas where resources are needed the least and allocate more resources to them. The exact opposite of what is needed.

Obviously, hospitals should be monitored and compared, but there's no point in making it public. NB I hope this is already being done - if not, then of course this would be very important. The reasons for better and worse performers need to be determined carefully. If a hospital performs poorly because it's in an area where health is poor, or it is poorly resourced, then it needs more resources, and if necessary the local area needs better resources (isn't prevention the big plan?). If it is because it's being badly managed or there are medical failings, then staff need to be trained, fired, whatever, as appropriate.


* athough I can imagine what the newspapers will do with it

I'm assuming the bolded bit is the main point - public obloquy for the loser, because it isn't that hospitals' performances are constrained in any way, they're just not trying hard enough and need more motivation.

I'm beginning to come to the conclusion that Streeting is an absolute fucking imbecile.

Puja

Possibly. Although he is a dyed in the wool Blairite, funded by private health and mates with Alan Milburn, which might make him look that way.