• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

UK PoliGAF thread of tell me about the rabbits again, Dave.

Meadows

Banned
Nick Clegg's letter to Lib Dem commons/lords members re: health bill:

Nick Clegg/Shirely Williams said:
Dear Colleague,

The Health Bill currently in the House of Lords is now undoubtedly a better Bill because of the Liberal Democrats. A number of people deserve credit for improving this Bill. Firstly, and most important, are our Party members who made it clear at our conference in Sheffield in March last year that we would not accept a Bill that puts profits before patients. We secured a "pause" in the legislation, which led to a number of substantial changes to the Bill, for instance that competition could only be on quality and not on price. Since the "pause", there have been further changes, which owe a great deal to the hard work of our Health Minister, Paul Burstow and our parliamentary health committee led by co-chairs, John Pugh and John Alderdice. Second, our Liberal Democrat peers in the House of Lords, led superbly by Judith Jolly, have done an outstanding job scrutinising the Bill line by line.

With the help of the House of Lords Constitution Committee, several eminent Conservative peers, Labour's Lords team led by Baroness Thornton and Lord Hunt, and a determined group of cross-benchers, many members of the medical professions, an all-party consensus has now ensured that the Secretary of State will remain responsible and accountable for a comprehensive health service financed by taxpayers, accessible to all and free at the point of need.

This should guarantee the future of the NHS, one of Britain's greatest social achievements. In addition, led by Phil Willis and others, arrangements have been put in place to make the UK a world leader in medical research, to raise the status and protect the independence of the Public Health service, and to ensure that all profits from the treatment of private patients in Foundation Trust hospitals must benefit the NHS.

The Bill has now undergone more than 200 hours of scrutiny and had more than 1,000 amendments made to it, amendments that have put patients and the people who know them best at the very heart of the legislation. This is not the Bill that we debated as a party last March. Crucially, some elements of Labour's 2006 Health Act, which opened up the possibility of a US-style market in the NHS, have been radically changed, such as the gold plated contracts for the private sector, which allowed a Labour Government to pay private providers a total of £250million for operations that weren't even performed. We can also take pride in the fact that it was the Liberal Democrats who changed this Bill to ensure that no government will once again be able to favour the private sector over the public sector like the last Labour government.

The Bill also now has in place safeguards to stop private providers "cherry picking" profitable, easy cases from the NHS, and we have made sure that private providers can only offer their services where patients say they want them. We are also clear that no one should be allowed to spend public money without telling us how they are going to use it. That is why we have insisted that decisions about patient services and taxpayers' money must be made in an open, transparent and accountable way.

We now have a Bill that delivers on the issues that Liberal Democrats have campaigned on for years. For the first time, there will be real democratic accountability in the NHS through new Health and Wellbeing Boards that will give councils a real role in shaping local health services. Public health will finally be returned to its rightful place in local government. Integration between health and social care will become the norm rather than the exception.

However, given how precious the NHS is, we want to rule out beyond doubt any threat of a US-style market in the NHS. That is why we want to see changes made to this Bill that have been put forward by our Liberal Democrat team in the House of Lords to make sure that the NHS can never be treated like the gas, electricity, or water industry. First, we propose removing the reviews by the Competition Commission from the Bill to make sure that the NHS is never treated like a private industry. Second, we want to keep the independent regulator of Foundation Trusts, Monitor, to make sure hospitals always serve NHS patients first and foremost. Third, we will introduce measures to protect the NHS from any threat of takeover from US -style healthcare providers by insulating the NHS from the full force of competition law. We will also insist that anyone involved with a commissioning group is required to declare their own financial interests, so that the integrity of clinical commissioning groups is maintained. Finally, we will put in place additional safeguards to the private income cap to make sure that Foundation Trusts cannot focus on private profits before patients. These changes are needed, not just because of this Bill, but also to plug the holes left by Labour's 2006 Health Act that allowed private providers to make profits at the NHS' and taxpayers' expense. It was that Act that started the process of the marketisation of the NHS by allowing private providers to be paid on average 11% more than the NHS. These changes will ensure that competition and diversity in the NHS will always be done in the interests of patients and not profits.

Next month we will return to where this process all began a year ago when we meet at our party's Spring conference. Once these final changes have been agreed, we believe conference can be reassured that it has finished the job it started last March and the Bill should be allowed to proceed. We believe these changes will appeal to those in the House of Lords and the House of Commons who share our commitment to the NHS, and believe it can now embark on the reforms that matter: putting patients at the centre, working with local communities, and responding to the financial challenges of an ageing population.

That will demand a united effort not only from the NHS but from all of us who cherish it.

Then the essential work will begin to ensure that the necessary changes are introduced as smoothly as possible in full collaboration with everyone who works in the NHS. The real test will be to demonstrate tangible benefits to patients. After all, in the end, it is the interests of patients, which should count most of all.

Best wishes

Nick Clegg Baroness Shirley Williams
 
Goldman Sachs have sent over their report into the Britain's public finances ahead of next month's budget. They feel like we have achieved a 1.6% fiscal retrenchment this year of a total 9% required to get the finances back on an even keel, which is about a fifth of the way through the programme. They pointed out that the savings they included in the figure were continued savings, not one offs to boost the coffers like privatisation.

Good news all around, but we will know the final figure when the Chancellor presents the budget in a few weeks (21st March), our bank puts the figure at about 1.8% but that figure hasn't been updated for a few months now and the calculations will be redone by the end of next week in advance of the budget.
 

Haven't read the article yet (about to) but initial thoughts on reading that are: investigate crime - perhaps, but being profit oriented they might start to invent crimes or investigate frivolous cases, but actually allowing them to detain people? Whaaaat?

edit:

A 26-page "commercial in confidence" contract note seen by the Guardian has been sent to potential bidders to run all services that "can be legally delegated to the private sector". They do not include those that involve the power of arrest and the other duties of a sworn constable.

The breathtaking list of policing activities up for grabs includes investigating crimes, detaining suspects, developing cases, responding to and investigating incidents, supporting victims and witnesses, managing high-risk individuals, patrolling neighbourhoods, managing intelligence, managing engagement with the public, as well as more traditional back-office functions, such as managing forensics, providing legal services, managing the vehicle fleet, finance and human resources

eh?


I've no problem with some of those activities being outsourced as I've seen a lot of it done in the MOD for example... welfare support, business support, managing a vehicle fleet - in particular.

What I think needs to happen though is that any contractor taking such a contract to provide a police service, should be beholden to the IPC, the government and the people for the work they do. There should be mechanisms to make private companies pay for any screw ups -- to incentivise them to do the job properly.
 

Wes

venison crêpe
The breathtaking list of policing activities up for grabs includes investigating crimes, detaining suspects, developing cases, responding to and investigating incidents, supporting victims and witnesses, managing high-risk individuals, patrolling neighbourhoods, managing intelligence, managing engagement with the public, as well as more traditional back-office functions, such as managing forensics, providing legal services, managing the vehicle fleet, finance and human resources.

Everything shy of "the power of arrest and the other duties of a sworn constable." is how I've interpreted it.
 

Meadows

Banned
no.

just no.

The Lib Dems would literally lose my vote if this went through.

Some backroom stuff? Yeah, but G4S arresting people?

No. Fucking no. Absolutely not happening. I'd vote Labour rather than this happen.
 

PJV3

Member
I would like to see some joined up thinking from the government. Privatised police- privatised judiciary- privatised prisons, Could be a nice little earner.
 

Meadows

Banned
Did some research into this, only places I could find that give private police ANY powers of arrest are South Carolina (USA), some small parts of Boston, MA (USA) and some parts of South Africa.

This will never happen. Some backroom privatisation (computer systems, maybe even some of the vehicle upkeep) is fine, but powers of arrest. No. It'll be G4S as well, fucking monopolising bastards.
 

phisheep

NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Did some research into this, only places I could find that give private police ANY powers of arrest are South Carolina (USA), some small parts of Boston, MA (USA) and some parts of South Africa.

This will never happen. Some backroom privatisation (computer systems, maybe even some of the vehicle upkeep) is fine, but powers of arrest. No. It'll be G4S as well, fucking monopolising bastards.

Uh, meadows, did you miss the quote about this NOT including powers of arrest (and other powers specifically restricted to constables - which IIRC would include among others the power to order detention, to order extension of detention and to request (from magistrates) further extensions).

Nothing in this about arrest. Not at all.
 

Meadows

Banned
Uh, meadows, did you miss the quote about this NOT including powers of arrest (and other powers specifically restricted to constables - which IIRC would include among others the power to order detention, to order extension of detention and to request (from magistrates) further extensions).

Nothing in this about arrest. Not at all.

"Investigate crimes, detain suspects, develop cases"

Isn't detaining suspects an around about way of arresting them?

Apologies if I've misread.

and:

"respond to major incidents, manage major incidents"

No. No way. I DO NOT want G4S managing a terrorist incident. This is despicable.

My belief is that privatisation of a lot of things is near inevitable, but when I phone 999, I want an accountable, public owned service to respond to me. I'd say that at least that is fair enough.
 

phisheep

NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
"Investigate crimes, detain suspects, develop cases"

Isn't detaining suspects an around about way of arresting them?

Apologies if I've misread.

and:

"respond to major incidents, manage major incidents"

No. No way. I DO NOT want G4S managing a terrorist incident. This is despicable.

My belief is that privatisation of a lot of things is near inevitable, but when I phone 999, I want an accountable, public owned service to respond to me. I'd say that at least that is fair enough.

The specific quote from the article is

to run all services that "can be legally delegated to the private sector". They do not include those that involve the power of arrest and the other duties of a sworn constable.

Now, there's a whole bunch of things that only a sworn constable can do, and one of those is arrest people (except for the, now severely curtailed, right of citizens arrest that everybody has anyway). So I think there is just some poor wording here around 'detention' - I suspect it is probably to do with managing cells, keeping them clean and efficient and open and not letting people escape from them, but the powers to actually authorise that detention are reserved to constables, and usually to a custody sergeant who has specific responsibility for decisions on release and so on.

As to managing incidents, there's probably a lot that could sensibly be outsourced. But, say, deploying armed officers to a terrorist incident isn't one of them (and I think it would be unlawful to outsource that anyway). But there are all sorts of things that the police are called on to manage that really they do not need to do: traffic incidents, sports matches, anything where the prime function is to keep the public away rather than grapple an offender - so natural disasters and so on.

I don't have any big problem with these proposals as they stand. If someone seeks to change the law so that constable's functions can be outsourced then, yes, I'd be concerned. But there is no indication of that yet.
 

PJV3

Member
"Investigate crimes, detain suspects, develop cases"

Isn't detaining suspects an around about way of arresting them?

Apologies if I've misread.

and:

"respond to major incidents, manage major incidents"

No. No way. I DO NOT want G4S managing a terrorist incident. This is despicable.

My belief is that privatisation of a lot of things is near inevitable, but when I phone 999, I want an accountable, public owned service to respond to me. I'd say that at least that is fair enough.

I don't understand how this can happen without public agreement, i am baffled.
"The list of policing activities up for grabs includes investigating crimes, detaining suspects, developing cases, responding to and investigating incidents, supporting victims and witnesses, managing high-risk individuals, patrolling neighbourhoods, managing intelligence, managing engagement with the public"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/mar/03/police-federation-vice-chairman-warning
 

Meadows

Banned
Stupid Plaid Cymru.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-17232609

They focus on independence at their own peril, there is NO way that Wales will become independent within the next 30/40 years (and even beyond seems doubtful). What I want with Plaid is some good economic/rural policies, not independence.

Look what happened to the SNP when they shut up about independence, they got a majority.
 

phisheep

NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Stupid Plaid Cymru.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-17232609

They focus on independence at their own peril, there is NO way that Wales will become independent within the next 30/40 years (and even beyond seems doubtful). What I want with Plaid is some good economic/rural policies, not independence.

Look what happened to the SNP when they shut up about independence, they got a majority.

With you there (rather irritatingly I seem to be with you on most things - it kind of spoils the banter aspect).

I was a member of y Blaid back in the '70s, I met and talked with Dafydd Wigley and Dafydd Elis-Thomas around the time of the second reading of the 1978 devolution Bill, and was in the gallery of the Commons during the debate (and, to be fair, Kinnock was magnificently at his best - but I think it was pretty well all downhill from there).

The trouble I always had with y Blaid was their lack of a serious economic policy for Wales. They went far left in the '70s apparently because it was fashionable and didn't really recover from being on the coat-tails of a very second-rate Labour party for all that time. If instead of perpetual protesting, they'd concentrated on the economics and legalities of independence they might have made a go of it by now. But they didn't and can't.

Wales is WAY more difficult than Scotland to disentangle from England - and if y Blaid were serious they should at least have given some indication of the long term and short term costs and benefits of seccession, but they seem instead to be relying on uninformed opinion polls to sustain their current (not very good) status. Which is not exactly what you would want an ambitious party to be doing.

I understand why they exist, the history and so on. I appreciate what they've done (and for a political party, they have probably achieved more impact in ordinary daily life than any other party of the last century, purely in the language of signage in Wales - when trying to get out of a car park in Wales I look for the Allan, not the Exit). But I'm not at all comfortable that they know what they are doing now.
 

Meadows

Banned
I appreciate what they've done (and for a political party, they have probably achieved more impact in ordinary daily life than any other party of the last century, purely in the language of signage in Wales - when trying to get out of a car park in Wales I look for the Allan, not the Exit). But I'm not at all comfortable that they know what they are doing now.

Yeah, I love the signage and the campaign for the Welsh language. My parents moved to Llandudno when I was 18 (I'd just moved to York for uni, they've been there for a little over 2 years and love it!), so I obviously don't have the same grasp of the cultural situation, but having the Welsh language everywhere really makes it seem different and fun. (I've started looking for ARAF on the road instead of SLOW! Even when I'm in England!)


psisheep said:
Wales is WAY more difficult than Scotland to disentangle from England

I think that's where I fundamentally agree, life in North Wales (perhaps it's different in South Wales?) really revolves around our neighbours to either side, Dublin and Liverpool/Chester/Manchester. To make Wales independent without linking up the North/South culturally AND through infrastructure makes no sense.

I think that the tendency for Wales' infrastructure to go East-West (A55/M4) rather than North-South will ultimately ensure that independence is never on the table.

Although perhaps the story is different in South Wales?
 

Meadows

Banned
YES! Optimistic news!!!!!

Nissan are making 400 jobs in the North East of England!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17266087

SO GREAT TO HAVE MORE MANUFACTURING JOBS!!

*smiles*

*checks BBC News*

BREAKING NEWS:Rio Tinto Alcan shutting its aluminium smelter at Lynemouth, in Northumberland, with loss of 324 jobs

okay-face.jpg
 
YES! Optimistic news!!!!!

Nissan are making 400 jobs in the North East of England!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17266087

SO GREAT TO HAVE MORE MANUFACTURING JOBS!!

*smiles*

*checks BBC News*

BREAKING NEWS:Rio Tinto Alcan shutting its aluminium smelter at Lynemouth, in Northumberland, with loss of 324 jobs

okay-face.jpg

I swear literally every job announcement I see on BBC News is followed an hour later by redundancies :(

The unemployment situation really is getting beyond a joke, every month it gets worse and worse, with no end in sight.

SURELY there has to be something the government can do? they blatantly aren't doing enough. It's THE most pressing issue and you never hear of any actual work being done to get people into proper work.
 

Meadows

Banned
I dunno, I think Vince Cable is doing a pretty good job of pimping the UK to car firms/manufacturing.

But we ABSOLUTELY need to be getting more trade trips to China going. They work like a charm and the envoy always comes back with a fair few jobs.
 
I dunno, I think Vince Cable is doing a pretty good job of pimping the UK to car firms/manufacturing.

But we ABSOLUTELY need to be getting more trade trips to China going. They work like a charm and the envoy always comes back with a fair few jobs.

Yep, sweetening up the Chinese economy wise brings results. Stuff like getting them to agree to only sell actual scotch whisky instead of fake stuff brings massive benefits, even if it's not creating any jobs per se.

But on the home front, what about only giving tax breaks to companies who take on staff? We need to basically be forcing companies to employ people at this stage, or the economy will continue to stagnate.
 

phisheep

NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
I think that's where I fundamentally agree, life in North Wales (perhaps it's different in South Wales?) really revolves around our neighbours to either side, Dublin and Liverpool/Chester/Manchester. To make Wales independent without linking up the North/South culturally AND through infrastructure makes no sense.

I think that the tendency for Wales' infrastructure to go East-West (A55/M4) rather than North-South will ultimately ensure that independence is never on the table.

Although perhaps the story is different in South Wales?

Similar in South Wales, though I think it is more self-contained than the North is economically. But what I was more thinking about is the extent to which England and Wales are legally enmeshed - while Scotland retained its separate legal system and court structure for example. So Scotland has its own Charities Commission and Wales doesn't - and there's a great long list of similar things that would need to be pried apart somehow.
 

Meadows

Banned
Everyone needs to read this. Cable really fucking gets economics, it isn't the businesses that matter per se, it's the supply chains.

Glad he's fighting for the country.
 

Meadows

Banned
Some republican shit going down in Parliament

SNP confirm they would keep the Queen as head of state in the event of independence
 
I'm not really a fan of politics, but I do vote. I usually vote for the same party, but recently I've been wondering if I'm batting for the right team.

So UK PoliGaf, who should I vote for in the next election and why? Please don't bore me, I have a short attention span.
 
Some republican shit going down in Parliament

SNP confirm they would keep the Queen as head of state in the event of independence

They've actually annoyingly flip flopped on this recently, the policy used to be independence then a referendum on the monarchy, but now it's no referendum at all for some reason, although realistically in an independent Scotland it'd happen at some point.

Personally think we should wait until the queen dies before a referendum though.
 

Meadows

Banned
I'm not really a fan of politics, but I do vote. I usually vote for the same party, but recently I've been wondering if I'm batting for the right team.

So UK PoliGaf, who should I vote for in the next election and why? Please don't bore me, I have a short attention span.

Dunno yet, still about 3 years before the next election.

Personally, I'd imagine I'll vote Lib Dem.
 
I'm not really a fan of politics, but I do vote. I usually vote for the same party, but recently I've been wondering if I'm batting for the right team.

So UK PoliGaf, who should I vote for in the next election and why? Please don't bore me, I have a short attention span.

Usually around election time there's a website set up that asks many question on your economic, social etc beliefs (which you also mark in importance) and then matches you up to the party that corresponds with the most of your answers. It's not ideal but nice if you can't be bothered to read individual party manifestos.

Unfortunately a lot of people never get out of the tribal voting mindset and vote for the same party forever.
 

SmokyDave

Member
I'm not really a fan of politics, but I do vote. I usually vote for the same party, but recently I've been wondering if I'm batting for the right team.

So UK PoliGaf, who should I vote for in the next election and why? Please don't bore me, I have a short attention span.

Labour kill kittens. The others don't.
 

defel

Member
Im more likely to vote Lib Dems at the next election (voted Tories last time). Actually being in government definitely raises their credibility. Generally though Im of the opinion that it doesnt really matter who we vote for, whether its Labour, Lib Dems or the Conservatives, they all occupy a common center ground and ultimately will be forced down a common policy path that is shaped by future events out of Government control.
 

Bo-Locks

Member
Unfortunately a lot of people never get out of the tribal voting mindset and vote for the same party forever.

I swore that I would never get into this mindset, but I'm finding it tough. Labour disgust me. I certainly won't be voting for them at the next GE. They need a good 10 years out of the game to sort themselves out like the Cons after '97 before they become anything like a viable political party.
 

Yen

Member
Tom Elliott resigns as leader of the UUP.
-UUP doing much worse than DUP and have been since 2002
-Elliott takes over after 2010 GE. Decides to go hardline to get back votes - UUP become the hardline Unionists now the DUP are relative moderates, a complete reversal of pre-Andrews Agreement. Examples of his behaviour: calling Sinn Fein "scum", refuses to go to GAA or gay events
-Party is split over whether to go into opposition or whether to make a Unionist coalition. A senior MLA, David McNarry or Basil McCrea (can't remember) quit after he leaked *too much details* about secret talks over the DUP/UUP party. Since then his position has been weakened.

This concludes today's lesson.
 

louis89

Member
You sound like the people who criticise the decision to axe EMA. Because it is a scheme the intention of which is to provide some kind of support to people, it is impossible for there to be better, alternative ways of spending the money.

The government is closing the factories as recommended by an independent review by the chief executive of Disability Rights UK. Do you have information which shows that the conclusions drawn by the review are incorrect, and that this is the best way for the government to spend its disability employment budget?

Or are you just kind of assuming that this must be a bad idea?
 
You sound like the people who criticise the decision to axe EMA. Because it is a scheme the intention of which is to provide some kind of support to people, it is impossible for there to be better, alternative ways of spending the money.

The government is closing the factories as recommended by an independent review by the chief executive of Disability Rights UK. Do you have information which shows that the conclusions drawn by the review are incorrect, and that this is the best way for the government to spend its disability employment budget?

Or are you just kind of assuming that this must be a bad idea?

Because putting thousands of disabled people on the dole when there are no jobs is TOTALLY INSANE. It's not even like they're a private business, a state owned company making people who would find it much harder to find a job elsewhere unemployed while the economy is in dire straits is completely and utterly vile IMO.
 
Tom Elliott resigns as leader of the UUP.
-UUP doing much worse than DUP and have been since 2002
-Elliott takes over after 2010 GE. Decides to go hardline to get back votes - UUP become the hardline Unionists now the DUP are relative moderates, a complete reversal of pre-Andrews Agreement. Examples of his behaviour: calling Sinn Fein "scum", refuses to go to GAA or gay events
-Party is split over whether to go into opposition or whether to make a Unionist coalition. A senior MLA, David McNarry or Basil McCrea (can't remember) quit after he leaked *too much details* about secret talks over the DUP/UUP party. Since then his position has been weakened.

This concludes today's lesson.

Sometimes political parties die. The UUP seems to be a perfect example of one that probably should.
 
Top Bottom