The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )

[Bruce Wayne]

So what? Both previous and subsequent reports make the same findings. It is a clear and consistant finding.

The point is that at the time of Lansley driving through his unwanted reforms (while receiving a £22,000 donation from a private health company) there was clear evidence of the NHS already being the best health service in the world. The Tories ignored the advice from the medical profession, claimed parliamentary privilege so as to enable them to disobey the law of the land and so avoid revealing the risks of their reforms, cut spending on the NHS and have still managed to waste £3bn in doing so.

Well because none of them include any data from the last 5 years, so it makes it impossible to tell if standards have been maintained or not. It's quite possible that the performance has plummeted in that time, but I fail to see how we can make that call with any confidence without some evidence to back it up.

 

[The Esk]

Ah, fair enough. I wonder if it will be possible to get some data out before the election? Would seem the best way to begin to understand any impact of the last 4-5 years.

This data was published in April 2013, so there will probably be another 2 years data by the time of the election.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

This data was published in April 2013, so there will probably be another 2 years data by the time of the election.

That's a good start, although, as you know, changes on the scale of an organisation the size of the NHS can often take a really long time to fully take effect (for better or worse).

 

[Coach]

Well because none of them include any data from the last 5 years, so it makes it impossible to tell if standards have been maintained or not. It's quite possible that the performance has plummeted in that time, but I fail to see how we can make that call with any confidence without some evidence to back it up.

The Commonwealth Fund report is based on OECD Health Data to Nov 2013 and published in June 2014. Most normal people would consider that up to date.

 

[The Esk]

That's a good start, although, as you know, changes on the scale of an organisation the size of the NHS can often take a really long time to fully take effect (for better or worse).

True, but the figures show the significant improvements in NHS performance under Labour which I think was the original query?

 

[Bruce Wayne]

The Commonwealth Fund report is based on OECD Health Data to Nov 2013 and published in June 2014. Most normal people would consider that up to date.

Is it? I looked in the methodology section of their report, and it only made mention of a survey each year, from each country. In 2012 they surveyed clinicians, whilst in 2011 and 2013 they surveyed patients.

It doesn't say in the report how they include any other information, or the weighting they give it. As it is, it's peculiar that on one hand the US system is awful because they spend a truck load of money on healthcare (with minimal results), yet on the other hand, the UK system is bad because we can seemingly achieve equal/better results despite spending much less.

It seems that expenditure is a stick to beat people with, providing it's the right people. I mean if more money spent on healthcare was a guarantee of better results, the US would be a mile ahead of everyone. It isn't though, is it? Inputs do not equal outputs.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

True, but the figures show the significant improvements in NHS performance under Labour which I think was the original query?

As above though, we can't correlate that with higher spending. If it was as simple as saying "if we spend more on healthcare, we'll get better results", then the US would have the best healthcare in the world, which they patently don't. I'm not sure we can assign cause and effect here with any degree of confidence.

I mean, I'd be much happier if there was less partisanship on display as a whole. How likely is it for instance that staunch supporters of whatever party are ever going to say positive things about anything achieved under the rival party?

It seems for instance, that the academies are achieving some excellent early results (according to the Sutton Trust), which would suggest that both Labour and Conservatives were right to hand more power to schools to run their own affairs.

It seems hard to imagine either party, or their supporters, ever admitting as much though. That's a problem. It's a big problem.

It's simply not healthy for the opposition to spend 4 years of their lives doing nothing but bash whoever is in office at the time. It's not healthy for them, and it's certainly not healthy for the country.

Look at America. The most liberal Republican is still further right than the most conservative Democrat (and vice versa), so there is no chance of consensus building and we've seen Washington grind to a halt over their budget in the last year. It's madness, yet we seem to be creeping ever closer to that scenario here too.

For the record, and this can be vaulted all anyone likes, I couldn't really care less who provides a service. It doesn't matter whether it's Labour, Conservative, a profit making company or a charity. All that matters is that the service is a good one and that it's delivered in an affordable way.

 

[Coach]

Hahaha. Bruce Wayne - knows more than rigourous scientific surveys published in well respected journals and offers no opposing facts or reports as a counter argument.

Sorry the facts don't fit you narrative.

In case you haven't noticed the NHS is on strike today for the first time since 1982.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Hahaha. Bruce Wayne - knows more than rigourous scientific surveys published in well respected journals and offers no opposing facts or reports as a counter argument.

Sorry the facts don't fit you narrative.

In case you haven't noticed the NHS is on strike today for the first time since 1982.

You've lost me here completely. The two done by the Bournemouth academic had finished four years before 2009, whilst the other one was done by a think tank and wasn't published in any scientific journal whatsoever. It used self-reported data for the bulk of its findings, which is highly unreliable.

http://www.economist.com/news/brief...elf-correcting-alarming-degree-it-not-trouble

Reproduction of findings is a major issue in the research community, as none other than Daniel Kahneman happily admits (http://www.nature.com/news/nobel-laureate-challenges-psychologists-to-clean-up-their-act-1.11535).

A few years ago scientists at Amgen, an American drug company, tried to replicate 53 studies that they considered landmarks in the basic science of cancer, often co-operating closely with the original researchers to ensure that their experimental technique matched the one used first time round. According to a piece they wrote last year in Nature, a leading scientific journal, they were able to reproduce the original results in just six

Of course research is important, but it shouldn't be taken as gospel, and we should be sage enough to question what we read.

For your information, I would love the NHS to be better. My other half works in it, and the NHS is one of my clients. As my previous post said, I want the country to have the best healthcare possible. I couldn't care less which organisation provides that improvement.

It seems like you are only happy if the NHS spends more money, and that it's Labour that signs the cheque.

I review an awful lot of research papers for my job and there is sadly an awful lot of variation between them in terms of quality. I've also worked for enough organisations who have a narrative in mind and then magically produce 'research' that supports that very narrative. It kinda prompts one to question what you read a little.

As for your counter points thing, isn't that the problem here? You're entrenched in your position and use data that fits that position to back you up.

At the risk of repeating myself, I have no position. None at all. I don't vote, and certainly don't vote Tory. I asked you a question about health outcomes over the past few years, and you showed me one study that didn't even cover the last few years, and one from a think tank that used flimsy methods.

I don't have a counter argument because I'm not defending a position, I'm just trying to understand things more. I don't think bad evidence is going to help that understanding.

 

[Blue 1]

Well well, looks like Farage has been invited to take part in the televised leaders' debates.

Why not Natalie Bennett? The Greens are currently polling as well as the LibDems and have as many MP's as UKIP, which they won the proper way, too, in a General election, not by the defection of a sitting MP with an already huge majority.

There's no right-wing bias in our media, of course.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Well well, looks like Farage has been invited to take part in the televised leaders' debates.

Why not Natalie Bennett? The Greens are currently polling as well as the LibDems and have as many MP's as UKIP, which they won the proper way, too, in a General election, not by the defection of a sitting MP with an already huge majority.

There's no right-wing bias in our media, of course.

The media are popcorning. They know UKIP will generate discussion and interest for them, hence why they're included. I don't think there's any bias beyond their ratings.

 

[Blue 1]

The media are popcorning. They know UKIP will generate discussion and interest for them, hence why they're included. I don't think there's any bias beyond their ratings.

I agree, it still amounts to bias though.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I agree, it still amounts to bias though.

Only in the sense that they'll do whatever to get ratings. I don't think they would mind if it was a similarly controversial party on the left of centre that was grabbing headlines and winding people up.

 

[Blue 1]

In the EU elections the Greens returned three MEP's and 1.2 million votes (7.8% of the total)- more then the Lib Dems.

In the council elections the Greens were returning councillors in constituencies in which they have never done so before, and becoming the official opposition in Liverpool (where UKIP gained no council seats), Solihull, Islington, Lewisham and Norwich. They also increased their gains in Bristol, and gained councillors for the first time in Newcastle-Under-Lyme, Epping Forest, Babergh and the Wirral.

And they have an MP.

It is undemocratic to include Farage in these debates and not Natalie Bennett.

 

[Coach]

You've lost me here completely. The two done by the Bournemouth academic had finished four years before 2009, whilst the other one was done by a think tank and wasn't published in any scientific journal whatsoever. It used self-reported data for the bulk of its findings, which is highly unreliable.

http://www.economist.com/news/brief...elf-correcting-alarming-degree-it-not-trouble

Reproduction of findings is a major issue in the research community, as none other than Daniel Kahneman happily admits (http://www.nature.com/news/nobel-laureate-challenges-psychologists-to-clean-up-their-act-1.11535).



Of course research is important, but it shouldn't be taken as gospel, and we should be sage enough to question what we read.

For your information, I would love the NHS to be better. My other half works in it, and the NHS is one of my clients. As my previous post said, I want the country to have the best healthcare possible. I couldn't care less which organisation provides that improvement.

It seems like you are only happy if the NHS spends more money, and that it's Labour that signs the cheque.

I review an awful lot of research papers for my job and there is sadly an awful lot of variation between them in terms of quality. I've also worked for enough organisations who have a narrative in mind and then magically produce 'research' that supports that very narrative. It kinda prompts one to question what you read a little.

As for your counter points thing, isn't that the problem here? You're entrenched in your position and use data that fits that position to back you up.

At the risk of repeating myself, I have no position. None at all. I don't vote, and certainly don't vote Tory. I asked you a question about health outcomes over the past few years, and you showed me one study that didn't even cover the last few years, and one from a think tank that used flimsy methods.

I don't have a counter argument because I'm not defending a position, I'm just trying to understand things more. I don't think bad evidence is going to help that understanding.

Nyyyun nyun nyyyuu bad evidence.

My job.

My other half.

Nyyyun nyun nyyyuu

Lol.