Current Affairs The Far Left

[Tubey]

I can't imagine any politician worth their salt praising Venezuela's government. It's been known for a long time, since mid-2000s, that Chavez was a corrupt authoritarian.

Thanks Hugo Chavez for showing that the poor matter and wealth can be shared. He made massive contributions to Venezuela & a very wide world.

- Jeremy Corbyn, March 5 2013.

Has also been highly reluctant to criticise Maduro. Because of course he has - he's peas in a pot with his ilk.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

still, after nearly ten years of deliberate neglect
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jul/14/nhs-holds-on-to-top-spot-in-healthcare-survey

when you get sick, do you want the NHS looking after you, or Carillion?

The way you frame the question betrays your feelings on the matter though, doesn't it? I mean today there has been news about the enormous deficits trusts throughout the NHS are running. Now you might say that is an example of insufficient funding, and you may be right, but the fact that the deficits are roughly double what the trusts themselves predicted they would be also suggests that the way these trusts are run is not great either.

I mean you compare the NHS with Carillion, as though that is the only option available. There are numerous incredible facilities and services around the world that are run by private bodies, from Aravind Eye Hospital in India to Johns Hopkins in the United States. Indeed, there is sadly tremendous variance across trusts within the NHS, and indeed even within trusts depending upon which day you happen to be treated. This notion that public = perfect and private = money grabbing swines is not particularly helpful, as to be honest, this notion that the NHS is being deliberately run-down so it can be sold off. Healthcare around the world faces fundamental pressures at the moment that will necessitate a root and branch change in what we can expect from it, and how service is delivered. There isn't a health system in the world that is managing that pressure smoothly, and the NHS is far from unique.

 

[abelard]

The way you frame the question betrays your feelings on the matter though, doesn't it? I mean today there has been news about the enormous deficits trusts throughout the NHS are running. Now you might say that is an example of insufficient funding, and you may be right, but the fact that the deficits are roughly double what the trusts themselves predicted they would be also suggests that the way these trusts are run is not great either.

I mean you compare the NHS with Carillion, as though that is the only option available. There are numerous incredible facilities and services around the world that are run by private bodies, from Aravind Eye Hospital in India to Johns Hopkins in the United States. Indeed, there is sadly tremendous variance across trusts within the NHS, and indeed even within trusts depending upon which day you happen to be treated. This notion that public = perfect and private = money grabbing swines is not particularly helpful, as to be honest, this notion that the NHS is being deliberately run-down so it can be sold off. Healthcare around the world faces fundamental pressures at the moment that will necessitate a root and branch change in what we can expect from it, and how service is delivered. There isn't a health system in the world that is managing that pressure smoothly, and the NHS is far from unique.

I was responding to @peteblue's suggestion that the public sector is incapable of doing anything well, and that the private sector is always better.

The NHS is under a tremendous amount of competing pressures. One of these is a lack of funding. By some £4 billion, according Simon Stevens. Restoring funding levels would be the quickest and easiest way of improving the situation. There is no doubting the urgency; 1 in 10 nurses are quitting each year, and today we learn that 2 in 5 GPs apparently plan to quit in the next five years.

As its consistently steller performance in relative efficiency tables suggests, there is a limit to what can be further acheived through greater efficiency - despite liberal ideologues' breathless chorus that more can always be done with less. Most of the recent reforms have been haphazard, ill-conceived, and at cross purposes - and motivated more by funding pressures than the sense that they will improve service - as this very instructive (and long) article outlines (I would hope you've already read this, Bruce): https://www.lrb.co.uk/v40/n07/james-meek/nhs-sos

But even beyond properly funding it, the surest way to improve NHS quality and sustainability is to implement policies which make Britain a healthier nation to begin with, approaching par with the rest of Europe. This too, is contrary to the last ten years of government policy.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I was responding to @peteblue's suggestion that the public sector is incapable of doing anything well, and that the private sector is always better.

The NHS is under a tremendous amount of competing pressures. One of these is a lack of funding. By some £4 billion, according Simon Stevens. Restoring funding levels would be the quickest and easiest way of improving the situation. There is no doubting the urgency; 1 in 10 nurses are quitting each year, and today we learn that 2 in 5 GPs apparently plan to quit in the next five years.

As its consistently steller performance in relative efficiency tables suggests, there is a limit to what can be further acheived through greater efficiency - despite liberal ideologues' breathless chorus that more can always be done with less. Most of the recent reforms have been haphazard, ill-conceived, and at cross purposes - and motivated more by funding pressures than the sense that they will improve service - as this very instructive (and long) article outlines (I would hope you've already read this, Bruce): https://www.lrb.co.uk/v40/n07/james-meek/nhs-sos

But even beyond properly funding it, the surest way to improve NHS quality and sustainability is to implement policies which make Britain a healthier nation to begin with, approaching par with the rest of Europe. This too, is contrary to the last ten years of government policy.

It's nothing if not inherently complex. A number of senior leaders within the NHS have admitted that if we were building a health system from scratch today, we wouldn't build one that is anything close to what we have. It would utilise the various new technologies that have emerged in recent years to focus much more on keeping the population healthy than mending it when it's sick. Perversely, we kinda have the opposite now, and GPs will send people away and only refer them to exploratory treatment when the person's condition is so bad as to demand it. Nipping things in the bud early is seldom the case.

Of course, we can only ever start from where we are rather than where we'd like to be, and this is the fundamental problem. It's next to impossible to change the service when it's running to stand still as it is. Any change requires a degree of 'slack' or spare capacity that simply doesn't exist. Sadly I don't believe for a minute that should that £4bn of extra funding be found it will change this, it will just plug the gap that at the moment exists as a deficit. There was a report by the King's Fund earlier in the year looking at how much is spent on new technologies, and it's a tiny fraction of the overall budget.

As you say, reducing demand via healthier lifestyles, especially as so much spending is devoted to chronic conditions that are caused by poor lifestyles, would be a good thing to do, but devolving all responsibility for that to the state seems a bit of a cop out to me. You might say that's to be expected from an Economist reader, but I can only comment from experience. In my neck of the woods there are free gyms in parks and housing estates. The local leisure centre provides free periods for all residents, and free usage whenever for unemployed folk. There is so much information on healthy diets, and contrary to the popular myth, healthy food is cheaper than junk food.

Any extra work from the state would require that transition towards preventative care that I mentioned above. In many parts of India, for instance, they do just this, with 'health coaches' assigned to villages to help people live healthily. They'll advise on diet, exercise and other lifestyle related things. They'll offer smoking cessation support or mental health advise. They're typically much lower skilled than doctors, which coupled with both preventing illness from developing and tackling it earlier, makes service provision much cheaper than the traditional 'wait until things are terrible and then throw the most expensive resources you can at the problem' approach.

Getting from A to B however is something the NHS has long struggled with, and it's not something that I believe a few extra quid will solve. It's only hidden because no other health system in the world is tackling those problems with any greater degree of success.

 

[Tubey]

There is so much information on healthy diets, and contrary to the popular myth, healthy food is cheaper than junk food.

Yes and no.

Yes, you can buy a bag of carrots and have the same nutritional intake as junk food by eating those carrots instead, but realistically nobody is going to buy a bag of carrots and just eat them. It's not the 1800s.

So even if we go for the idea that fresh fruit and veg are cheaper (some indeed are), you have to consider that fresh food goes off quicker and takes more time to prepare, meaning you spend more time shopping and cooking. Not regarding that as a key factor in why junk food is prevalent in the lower classes is to disregard the reality on the ground where people don't have the time to eat perfectly.

That's why you get the contrasting studies, because some literally compare apples and oranges, whereas others have a degree of realism.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/11149644/Healthy-diet-costs-three-times-that-of-junk-food.html

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...poor-diets-asda-tesco-study-iea-a7607461.html

For a 'normal' lower class family, eating healthy is a challenge, both in terms of time and financially due to the danger of waste. It's easy to sit on a pedestal on such an issue because you can do something.

 

[Number_25]

It's nothing if not inherently complex. A number of senior leaders within the NHS have admitted that if we were building a health system from scratch today, we wouldn't build one that is anything close to what we have.

Given the fact that the vast majority of 'leading' politicians have little determination, spine and vision - this is probably true.

@Tubey is correct though. It's easy to sit pretty in your massive house, and complain about working class people not being able to manage their health. People geniunely don't have a clue what poverty does to a person.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Yes and no.

Yes, you can buy a bag of carrots and have the same nutritional intake as junk food by eating those carrots instead, but realistically nobody is going to buy a bag of carrots and just eat them. It's not the 1800s.

So even if we go for the idea that fresh fruit and veg are cheaper (some indeed are), you have to consider that fresh food goes off quicker and takes more time to prepare, meaning you spend more time shopping and cooking. Not regarding that as a key factor in why junk food is prevalent in the lower classes is to disregard the reality on the ground where people don't have the time to eat perfectly.

That's why you get the contrasting studies, because some literally compare apples and oranges, whereas others have a degree of realism.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/11149644/Healthy-diet-costs-three-times-that-of-junk-food.html

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...poor-diets-asda-tesco-study-iea-a7607461.html

For a 'normal' lower class family, eating healthy is a challenge, both in terms of time and financially due to the danger of waste. It's easy to sit on a pedestal on such an issue because you can do something.

Yes, I've no doubt there are non-financial reasons involved, and indeed that financial reasons cause many of those (lack of time etc.) Hence why I mentioned in my post the concept of health coaches to work in communities to help people do things better. That requires a fundamental reorientation of healthcare towards prevention rather than cure though, which is not easy to do.

Given the fact that the vast majority of 'leading' politicians have little determination, spine and vision - this is probably true.

@Tubey is correct though. It's easy to sit pretty in your massive house, and complain about working class people not being able to manage their health. People geniunely don't have a clue what poverty does to a person.

I don't live in a big house and have lived in poverty so have a bit of an idea, but yes, my example is only relevant to me alone.

 

[abelard]

Any extra work from the state would require that transition towards preventative care that I mentioned above. In many parts of India, for instance, they do just this, with 'health coaches' assigned to villages to help people live healthily. They'll advise on diet, exercise and other lifestyle related things. They'll offer smoking cessation support or mental health advise. They're typically much lower skilled than doctors, which coupled with both preventing illness from developing and tackling it earlier, makes service provision much cheaper than the traditional 'wait until things are terrible and then throw the most expensive resources you can at the problem' approach.

That would be a good idea.

A similar program worked wonders in Venezuela too - which is of course why it would be a complete political non-starter here. Imagine the shreiking headlines and anguished discussion posts. We don't have the political maturity required for this sort of meaningful reform. As the past few years have shown us, even people who pride themselves on being eminently evidence-based and impartial start panicking about "stains", at the first invocation of "populism" in the headline of some corrupt PR cesspool like the Telegraph.

 

[neil999]

Yes and no.

Yes, you can buy a bag of carrots and have the same nutritional intake as junk food by eating those carrots instead, but realistically nobody is going to buy a bag of carrots and just eat them. It's not the 1800s.

So even if we go for the idea that fresh fruit and veg are cheaper (some indeed are), you have to consider that fresh food goes off quicker and takes more time to prepare, meaning you spend more time shopping and cooking. Not regarding that as a key factor in why junk food is prevalent in the lower classes is to disregard the reality on the ground where people don't have the time to eat perfectly.

That's why you get the contrasting studies, because some literally compare apples and oranges, whereas others have a degree of realism.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/11149644/Healthy-diet-costs-three-times-that-of-junk-food.html

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...poor-diets-asda-tesco-study-iea-a7607461.html

For a 'normal' lower class family, eating healthy is a challenge, both in terms of time and financially due to the danger of waste. It's easy to sit on a pedestal on such an issue because you can do something.

Its also difficult to make healthy food palatable if you dont have the knowledge, equipment and seasoning etc

i doubt big jim has some red wine vinegar and bay leafs in the back of his cupboard...

 

[zzr45]

That would be a good idea.

A similar program worked wonders in Venezuela too - which is of course why it would be a complete political non-starter here. Imagine the shreiking headlines and anguished discussion posts. We don't have the political maturity required for this sort of meaningful reform. As the past few years have shown us, even people who pride themselves on being eminently evidence-based and impartial start panicking about "stains", at the first invocation of "populism" in the headline of some corrupt PR cesspool like the Telegraph.

I don’t quite think that you get that people in the UK value the rights of the individual and it ‘twas ever thus.

 

[abelard]

I don’t quite think that you get that people in the UK value the rights of the individual and it ‘twas ever thus.

lol

https://www.ft.com/content/f2632c6e-4e1d-11e8-a7a9-37318e776bab

"The nine middle-aged men sitting round the table in the Holiday Inn were stumped. They had just been asked to name the chancellor of the exchequer.

“I can see him now, slim build…”, said one.

“Old guy,” said another.

“He’s rich.”

“Oh, God who is he?”

Eventually, they were given the right answer: Philip Hammond.

BritainThinks, a research and strategy group, held three separate focus groups last month in Southampton and Barnet, involving mostly self-employed or white-collar “swing” voters. They wanted to find out what people think about politics in 2018 — and, in particular, how they feel about the Labour party’s policies under Jeremy Corbyn.

BritainThinks also carried out a survey this month of more than 2,000 eligible voters as part of its research, which showed that just two in five people could name Mr Hammond as the current chancellor.

But the majority surveyed supported Mr Corbyn’s manifesto pledges, including plans to increase taxes, strengthen workers’ rights, crack down on executive pay and nationalise utilities.

For example, 55 per cent of respondents “strongly” agreed that taxes should be higher for people earning over £70,000 a year. Just 9 per cent of respondents “strongly” disagreed.

Thirty-nine per cent of respondents “strongly” backed a 20:1 cap on the ratio between an employer’s highest and lowest-paid workers, while just 8 per cent “strongly” opposed one.

In the focus group in Southampton, the men were also keen on a cap on the difference between the pay of executives and their employees, and the nationalisation of the water, energy and rail industries.

But when asked whether the policies belonged to the Conservative or Labour party, three quickly replied in succession: “Conservative”.

When the men were told that the policies belonged to Mr Corbyn’s Labour party, not Theresa May’s Conservatives, they went cold, with one calling them “rubbish”.

“Their sums don’t add up,” said another participant, adding: “Although we haven’t seen the sums. We’re assuming they’re not going to add up.”

 

[Bruce Wayne]

That would be a good idea.

A similar program worked wonders in Venezuela too - which is of course why it would be a complete political non-starter here. Imagine the shreiking headlines and anguished discussion posts. We don't have the political maturity required for this sort of meaningful reform. As the past few years have shown us, even people who pride themselves on being eminently evidence-based and impartial start panicking about "stains", at the first invocation of "populism" in the headline of some corrupt PR cesspool like the Telegraph.

Even when politically palatable, it's not easy I'm afraid. A few years ago a mission went out to India from the NHS to look at these kind of things. Various reports were written, heads nodded about how it's a good thing, but nothing ever really happened. A few pilots here and there that never amounted to anything. Sadly that's all too common. One NHS wag told me that there are more pilots in the NHS than in British Airways. Not an easy beast to change unfortunately.

 

[zzr45]

lol

https://www.ft.com/content/f2632c6e-4e1d-11e8-a7a9-37318e776bab

"The nine middle-aged men sitting round the table in the Holiday Inn were stumped. They had just been asked to name the chancellor of the exchequer.

“I can see him now, slim build…”, said one.

“Old guy,” said another.

“He’s rich.”

“Oh, God who is he?”

Eventually, they were given the right answer: Philip Hammond.

BritainThinks, a research and strategy group, held three separate focus groups last month in Southampton and Barnet, involving mostly self-employed or white-collar “swing” voters. They wanted to find out what people think about politics in 2018 — and, in particular, how they feel about the Labour party’s policies under Jeremy Corbyn.

BritainThinks also carried out a survey this month of more than 2,000 eligible voters as part of its research, which showed that just two in five people could name Mr Hammond as the current chancellor.

But the majority surveyed supported Mr Corbyn’s manifesto pledges, including plans to increase taxes, strengthen workers’ rights, crack down on executive pay and nationalise utilities.

For example, 55 per cent of respondents “strongly” agreed that taxes should be higher for people earning over £70,000 a year. Just 9 per cent of respondents “strongly” disagreed.

Thirty-nine per cent of respondents “strongly” backed a 20:1 cap on the ratio between an employer’s highest and lowest-paid workers, while just 8 per cent “strongly” opposed one.

In the focus group in Southampton, the men were also keen on a cap on the difference between the pay of executives and their employees, and the nationalisation of the water, energy and rail industries.

But when asked whether the policies belonged to the Conservative or Labour party, three quickly replied in succession: “Conservative”.

When the men were told that the policies belonged to Mr Corbyn’s Labour party, not Theresa May’s Conservatives, they went cold, with one calling them “rubbish”.

“Their sums don’t add up,” said another participant, adding: “Although we haven’t seen the sums. We’re assuming they’re not going to add up.”

That’s incredibly tangential. There’s a difference between supporting ‘socialist’ common sense style policy and not being too keen on a nanny state style ‘expert’ coming in to tell people what they can and can’t eat and what they should be doing with their spare time.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

lol

https://www.ft.com/content/f2632c6e-4e1d-11e8-a7a9-37318e776bab

"The nine middle-aged men sitting round the table in the Holiday Inn were stumped. They had just been asked to name the chancellor of the exchequer.

“I can see him now, slim build…”, said one.

“Old guy,” said another.

“He’s rich.”

“Oh, God who is he?”

Eventually, they were given the right answer: Philip Hammond.

BritainThinks, a research and strategy group, held three separate focus groups last month in Southampton and Barnet, involving mostly self-employed or white-collar “swing” voters. They wanted to find out what people think about politics in 2018 — and, in particular, how they feel about the Labour party’s policies under Jeremy Corbyn.

BritainThinks also carried out a survey this month of more than 2,000 eligible voters as part of its research, which showed that just two in five people could name Mr Hammond as the current chancellor.

But the majority surveyed supported Mr Corbyn’s manifesto pledges, including plans to increase taxes, strengthen workers’ rights, crack down on executive pay and nationalise utilities.

For example, 55 per cent of respondents “strongly” agreed that taxes should be higher for people earning over £70,000 a year. Just 9 per cent of respondents “strongly” disagreed.

Thirty-nine per cent of respondents “strongly” backed a 20:1 cap on the ratio between an employer’s highest and lowest-paid workers, while just 8 per cent “strongly” opposed one.

In the focus group in Southampton, the men were also keen on a cap on the difference between the pay of executives and their employees, and the nationalisation of the water, energy and rail industries.

But when asked whether the policies belonged to the Conservative or Labour party, three quickly replied in succession: “Conservative”.

When the men were told that the policies belonged to Mr Corbyn’s Labour party, not Theresa May’s Conservatives, they went cold, with one calling them “rubbish”.

“Their sums don’t add up,” said another participant, adding: “Although we haven’t seen the sums. We’re assuming they’re not going to add up.”

You commented in the EU thread about them looking down upon Italian voters for seemingly not knowing what they were voting for, yet appear to be doing the same thing here yourself. It's pretty well established that most voters are not clued up at all on any of the things upon which they are asked to vote, but it's surely wrong to pick and choose when to take notice of that and when not to?

For the record, I wouldn't expect voters to be clued up on these things either. They don't have anywhere near enough information to do so, or the time (and probably the inclination) to explore things in sufficient depth. It's not their job after all, so we shouldn't expect them to, but it does rather undermine the apparent power of democracy when voters are so ignorant.

 

[abelard]

You commented in the EU thread about them looking down upon Italian voters for seemingly not knowing what they were voting for, yet appear to be doing the same thing here yourself. It's pretty well established that most voters are not clued up at all on any of the things upon which they are asked to vote, but it's surely wrong to pick and choose when to take notice of that and when not to?

For the record, I wouldn't expect voters to be clued up on these things either. They don't have anywhere near enough information to do so, or the time (and probably the inclination) to explore things in sufficient depth. It's not their job after all, so we shouldn't expect them to, but it does rather undermine the apparent power of democracy when voters are so ignorant.

I'm not looking down on them. And as I'm sure I've made pretty clear, I think people who are immaculately educated and who never miss the latest issue of the Economist are just as susceptible to this sort of conditioning, if in more subtle ways.

I was using that passage as an example of how, contra what the above poster, and the S*n and Mail et al would like us to believe, there is actually considerable popular support in Britain for a better regulated and more egalitarian society. It is not by accident that there's so much misinformation directed towards discrediting these ideas, on the aggregate behalf of those whose quarterly dividends might drop by a few percentage points should they come to pass.

The FT story is much more a reflection of the quality of public information in this country than the character of its average voter. Edward Bernays is nodding with satisfaction beyond the grave.