Who Trusts Labour?

[Martyn Sadler]

2 hours ago, Griff9of13 said:

I was going to ask the same question. I've worked within Scottish government agencies (NHS Scotland and HIE) and they, from what I've seen, are way ahead of their English counterparts in terms of efficiency and effectiveness. 

That's an interesting point to make.

Can you give us some examples of how you can recognise their greater efficiency and effectiveness.

[Griff9of13]

1 hour ago, Martyn Sadler said:

That's an interesting point to make.

Can you give us some examples of how you can recognise their greater efficiency and effectiveness.

Supply agreements. Instead of competitive tendering project by project supply agreements are written with suppliers to provide all services in a particular area for a specified length of time under a certain value. This means that projects can be undertaken without the costly and time consuming (for both parties) tendering process. This doesn’t mean a blank check for suppliers; there is still a robust governance process and projects have to be costed and those costs will be robustly challenged. 

The Once for Scotland initiative. This means that anything developed for one entity has to be capable of being used by a similar entity at no additional material cost. For example; a system developed for one health board would have to be able to be used by another health board without wholesale rework. This eliminates reinventing the wheel (and charging for it) for each place where it’s used.
 

[Martyn Sadler]

1 hour ago, Griff9of13 said:

Supply agreements. Instead of competitive tendering project by project supply agreements are written with suppliers to provide all services in a particular area for a specified length of time under a certain value. This means that projects can be undertaken without the costly and time consuming (for both parties) tendering process. This doesn’t mean a blank check for suppliers; there is still a robust governance process and projects have to be costed and those costs will be robustly challenged. 

The Once for Scotland initiative. This means that anything developed for one entity has to be capable of being used by a similar entity at no additional material cost. For example; a system developed for one health board would have to be able to be used by another health board without wholesale rework. This eliminates reinventing the wheel (and charging for it) for each place where it’s used.
 

That all makes a lot of sense.

Why, in your experience, is that system not adopted in other parts of the UK?

It seems logical and simple enough for it to be a relative no-brainer.

[ckn]

6 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

That all makes a lot of sense.

Why, in your experience, is that system not adopted in other parts of the UK?

It seems logical and simple enough for it to be a relative no-brainer.

I'll give you one example.  Prior to the 2010 general election there was a single Microsoft licensing agreement for all English NHS organisations, working out at a discount that recognised the size of the 900,000 strong NHS.  It was clunky and imprecise but was the biggest discount Microsoft had ever given in the UK, the English NHS declared Microsoft licenses worth £270m but paid only £65m under the deal.  It had lots of side benefits as well such as friends & family Microsoft licensing at cost.  Andrew Lansley came along within two months of the 2010 election with his "Liberating the NHS" white paper and cancelled the deal.

What that meant immediately was that every NHS Trust and organisation was liable for their own licensing but based on their scale, it went from a massive discount based on 900,000 users to virtually no discounts beyond enterprise license standards because it was 1000-2000 size organisations.  THEN the VAT rules meant that NHS organisations were paying about the same price as if they'd gone to their local PC World and paid full retail value without being able to reclaim VAT.  Seriously, I know entire hospital trusts that pay more for licensing Microsoft software than I do as a private individual and all because of central government rules implemented since 2010.

It, again, added massive procurement burdens, added grossly unnecessary costs and an administrative management burden that adds 9 figure annual burdens to the NHS, all so that it's easier to portion up the NHS into little bits rather than one big NHS capable of operating at scale.

Now, take that and recognise that was done for every major Engish NHS-wide software procurement.

Here's a clinical systems example: because of the "reforms", hospitals often have to deal with four separate GP clinical systems that don't talk to each other, don't talk to the hospital systems and can't easily transfer information unless you know the specific chicken sacrificing rites to make interoperability work.  Free market "reforms" mean that every GP gets to choose what they want whether it talks to anything else or not, I know more than a few major hospitals where core parts of the hospital cannot communicate electronically and have to manually write out patient notes if patients are internally transferred.  Clinical leaders cannot simply say "don't be daft" any longer to stuff that simply isn't fit for purpose because it'll be over-ruled and subject to legal challenge.

On the "Once for Scotland" thing, I saw an absurd thing at three NHS hospital Trusts trying to work together who were all charged full-rates for configuration of some systems, the consultancy deliberately configured the system to the literal truth of the requirements in such a way that they had to be called back in again at £1500p/d per consultant to then reconfigure the system to talk to other hospitals because they "interpreted" a requirement as meaning something wildly different from what was meant by requirements naive clinicians.  If there were a "Once for England" rule then this wouldn't have happened as they'd have been forced to retrofit it at their own cost and probably pay damages for the clinical disruption.

[Griff9of13]

46 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

That all makes a lot of sense.

Why, in your experience, is that system not adopted in other parts of the UK?

It seems logical and simple enough for it to be a relative no-brainer.

You need to ask someone who makes those decisions. I don't and can only, like Craig, point to the way it works not why.

[Oxford]

5 hours ago, JonM said:

It's the choice between one lot who want to drive the bus off a cliff and another lot who've forgotten where the keys to the bus are.

Not only that this will be the most one sided (fixed) victory ever, based on a few illogical ideas, a smattering of prejudice and some canny changes in the constituency boundaries ...... making one vote a purely fictitious exercise and the other vote empty rhetoric ..... brilliant, Brexit2 or Brexit Rides Again or Son of Brexit.

[JonM]

Just now, Oxford said:

 some canny changes in the constituency boundaries

Are there any changes? I thought the early election had meant that we're still using the old constituencies - which favours Labour.

[Oxford]

Just now, JonM said:

Are there any changes? I thought the early election had meant that we're still using the old constituencies - which favours Labour.

I could be mistaken I thought they'd already happened but that'll be the only thing that favours labour if so. I looked at the manifesto promises of each today and found myself favouring Labour for the first time in a while .... but there was far too much fairness to get it past the British electorate. If this was America they'd lynch them as communists and elect some one highly inappropriate to make sure they never made a comeback.

 

[Bedford Roughyed]

 

[cookey]

As an alternative to the national polls,you can also view the betting odds on the GE,including the individual odds on each constituency.The latest odds make interesting reading.

Con seats    385

Lab seats    176

L Dem seats  13

Overall Tory majority,100.

 

Have to admit that the source is a little biased,it comes from the Mirror Online.This compares with a predicted Tory majority of 112 when the GE was called.Bradford South is even money!

 

 

[Maximus Decimus]

1 hour ago, cookey said:

As an alternative to the national polls,you can also view the betting odds on the GE,including the individual odds on each constituency.The latest odds make interesting reading.

Con seats    385

Lab seats    176

L Dem seats  13

Overall Tory majority,100.

 

Have to admit that the source is a little biased,it comes from the Mirror Online.This compares with a predicted Tory majority of 112 when the GE was called.Bradford South is even money!

 

 

The Lord Ashcroft poll has a similar number.

[bowes]

This election is very unusual. The Lib Dems have lost half their voters from last time (roughly a quarter each switching to the Conservatives and Labour) but have almost replaced them with new hardline Remain voters switching from those parties (almost exclusively in London and the Home Counties). 20% of Labour Leave voters look like switching to the Conservatives, whilst 10% of Conservative Remain voters look like switching to Labour (a further 10% of Conservative Remain voters are switching to Lib Dems as touched one before). UKIP could easily lose 80% of their 2015 vote (likely to split 60-65% Conservative and 15-20% Labour) and Labour are likely to pick up half the Green vote. There are also likely to be young people turning out for the first time to vote Labour.

My summary of this:

Labour to rack up bigger majorities in inner city constituencies with inner London, Bristol, Manchester and Nottingham being good results for them.

The Conservatives to win about 40 mostly working class Leave voting consituencies from Labour

Labour to increase their vote share in the south, but gain very few seats outside the big cities. They are likely to go from 3rd or 4th to 2nd in a lot of constituencies.

The Conservative to pick up about ten heavily Unionist seats from the SNP in Scotland

[cookey]

Yep,that's a fairly accurate summary bowes.

To be honest,dont worry John,Labour are actually slightly odds on in Brad S.

 

[JohnM]

On 5/3/2017 at 3:24 PM, Martyn Sadler said:

That all makes a lot of sense.

Why, in your experience, is that system not adopted in other parts of the UK?

It seems logical and simple enough for it to be a relative no-brainer.

however...BMA head warns NHS in Scotland 'struggling to cope'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-38438070

Note: Scotland can increase taxes to pay for its NHS if it wishes.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-35866776

[LeeF]

On 3 May 2017 at 5:05 PM, JonM said:

Are there any changes? I thought the early election had meant that we're still using the old constituencies - which favours Labour.

No changes for this election so the Labour bias remains

[Cherry and White]

ORB poll for Telegraph has CON lead down to just 6%

CON 44 (-2) LAB 38 (+4) LD 7 (=) UKIP 5 (-2)

[Maximus Decimus]

46 minutes ago, Cherry and White said:

ORB poll for Telegraph has CON lead down to just 6%

CON 44 (-2) LAB 38 (+4) LD 7 (=) UKIP 5 (-2)

Why are you only mentioning this of the 4 polls released tonight?

[Cherry and White]

look on the other thread.

[Bob8]

10 hours ago, Maximus Decimus said:

Why are you only mentioning this of the 4 polls released tonight?

Indeed.  I share your irritation.

For perspective, Labour have just reached the same approval rating that Donald Trump has managed.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

If the Labour party wanted to win, the last thing they would do is shove Diane Abbott into the spotlight (even if they are lumbered with Corbyn).

[Griff9of13]

44 minutes ago, Bob8 said:

Indeed.  I share your irritation.

For perspective, Labour have just reached the same approval rating that Donald Trump has managed.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

If the Labour party wanted to win, the last thing they would do is shove Diane Abbott into the spotlight (even if they are lumbered with Corbyn).

We were talking about this last night in the pub. I suggested that if it were up to me I'd have packed her of on a month long, all expenses paid holiday somewhere far, far away. ?

[Bob8]

27 minutes ago, Griff9of13 said:

We were talking about this last night in the pub. I suggested that if it were up to me I'd have packed her of on a month long, all expenses paid holiday somewhere far, far away. ?

Last year, I would descrbe Clinton's domestic unpopularity by comparing her to Diana Abbott.  That was meant to show the absurdity of wanting Clinton as a figurehead of your party.  I still think it is absurd.

[Scubby]

3 hours ago, Griff9of13 said:

We were talking about this last night in the pub. I suggested that if it were up to me I'd have packed her of on a month long, all expenses paid holiday somewhere far, far away. ?

Maybe not Ireland 

[Mark S]

It doesn't look like she will be around for long which ever way the election goes. Jezza made a sly comment about it in his 'interview' with Peston.

[Wolford6]

Corbyn came across as really shifty on the Peston show this morning. Never gave a straight answer if he could find some obfuscation instead.

[DoubleD]

How can anyone vote for these idiots 

https://mobile.twitter.com/Jamin2g/status/871812244014862336/video/1