Oh dear

[GodalmingYellow]

It would be a wheeze drafting up Boris' Manifesto, wouldn't it ?

1) Soap and toilet paper to be permanently available in the Ladies toilets in the South Stand

2) Jake Wright to be his running mate (Boris would not be able to count on GY's vote in that event)

3) Compulsory purchase of the Stadium from Firoka for 1p

etc etc

I'm warming to Jake Wright. Slowly.

[scooter]

( damn post size limit a defining moment in your education.

Uniform is from Asda or similar apart from the sweatshirts which have a logo and aren't that expensive.

We are obviously lucky, but the main reason for the success of the school is a visionary and highly professional head teacher who motivates her team and the pupils superbly, she makes good use of available resources, including PTA raised funds ( but these have been part of school funding since I was at primary in the sixties and are a way of involving parents with the school .

As for the NHS as I said we have had limited need for it's services, childbirth, GP services ( same day appt normally available if you call before 9am, the occasional trip to A &amp E for sprains etc and the death of a parent, generally the experiences have been OK and I would suggest better than if the NHS had been under Tory stewardship.

Maybe New Labour just son't like Surrey

[Ancient Colin]

I've really been trying to stay out of it, really I have. For me, the depressing thing in the election is the low level of the debate and discussion - which relies on soundbites and anecdotes and personal opinions, rather than any depth of analysis. And most of the &quotdebates&quot are pointless anyway, since everyone has their entrenched positions, won't shift from them and disregard all information to the contrary. So personal anecdotes carry hugely greater weight than any sort of objective numbers.

Take the NHS, for example. We all have varied experiences, mine has been hugely positive (sorry, GY, including having a knee operation within three months of seeing my GP) but ... so what? What do the numbers say about real increases in investment, numbers of operations (of different types), outcomes, mean waiting times, and so on. The individual experience is hugely important to the individual, but it is the aggregate change that is important.

The newspapers, the traditional media don't go into depth, the new media (which could, in principle) drive an even more trivial agenda. As an example, take the Newsnight discussion with Hammond, Cable and Byrne on the IFS report. A number of statements were made - notably by Hammond - that were simply wrong. Others were contestable. But Wark clamped down on any discussion or contention: the assertions were what was wanted, not analysis. Same was true of the discussion of crime on Today. It started well enough with a reporter talking about best available statistics: but then the politicians were allowed to make assertions about the state of the world that were incompatible with that - and were not challenged. So it can be said &quotwe all know violent crime is increasing&quot ... and people will believe that because it chimes with what they think ... when it is not true and should be challenged.

So I'm very depressed. Not least in the fact that the &quotconvert the opinion polls into seats&quot models seem to me to be deeply flawed, ignoring the differential impacts across constituencies and, in particular, marginals, and I suspect that there will be a Bullingdon Club reunion in Downing Street on May 7th.

[Myles Francis]

How do you know that the PPC does not have 100 other very successful businesses? These are important points, despite your protestations to the contrary, as the declaration of failed businesses may not be accurate, and thereby the case you put for lack of candour may be unreasonable.

Perhaps unwittingly, you have stumbled across the point. The answer to the highlighted question is &quotI don't&quot.

Now, isn't it a bit odd that that is my answer? After all, we're talking about a successful businessman here - surely there would be some trumpeting of his successes? Well, no, it would appear not. The only companies he appears to have been linked with have not done well. He has been challenged on this, and the answers he gave seem to have been less than accurate.

If he had 100 other very successful businesses, surely he would've said so? Used the situation to paint himself as a decent entrepreneur who, yes, has had his failures, but on the whole is a success?

There IS evidence of business failure - the records are there at Companies House for all to see. To date, there has not been presented any evidence of business success. All the while you are challenging me to present evidence of the claims, yet the starting point - that he is a successful businessman - is allowed to go unchallenged?

[Sackcloth Ox]

I've really been trying to stay out of it, really I have. For me, the depressing thing in the election is the low level of the debate and discussion - which relies on soundbites and anecdotes and personal opinions, rather than any depth of analysis. And most of the &quotdebates&quot are pointless anyway, since everyone has their entrenched positions, won't shift from them and disregard all information to the contrary. So personal anecdotes carry hugely greater weight than any sort of objective numbers.

Take the NHS, for example. We all have varied experiences, mine has been hugely positive (sorry, GY, including having a knee operation within three months of seeing my GP) but ... so what? What do the numbers say about real increases in investment, numbers of operations (of different types), outcomes, mean waiting times, and so on. The individual experience is hugely important to the individual, but it is the aggregate change that is important.

The newspapers, the traditional media don't go into depth, the new media (which could, in principle) drive an even more trivial agenda. As an example, take the Newsnight discussion with Hammond, Cable and Byrne on the IFS report. A number of statements were made - notably by Hammond - that were simply wrong. Others were contestable. But Wark clamped down on any discussion or contention: the assertions were what was wanted, not analysis. Same was true of the discussion of crime on Today. It started well enough with a reporter talking about best available statistics: but then the politicians were allowed to make assertions about the state of the world that were incompatible with that - and were not challenged. So it can be said &quotwe all know violent crime is increasing&quot ... and people will believe that because it chimes with what they think ... when it is not true and should be challenged.

So I'm very depressed. Not least in the fact that the &quotconvert the opinion polls into seats&quot models seem to me to be deeply flawed, ignoring the differential impacts across constituencies and, in particular, marginals, and I suspect that there will be a Bullingdon Club reunion in Downing Street on May 7th.

I thought you were trapped in Miami. If things are as bad as you reckon, why in earth did you come back?

[Ancient Colin]

I thought you were trapped in Miami. If things are as bad as you reckon, why in earth did you come back?

Well, I had to get back to be depressed by the playoffs, init?

[GodalmingYellow]

How do you know that the PPC does not have 100 other very successful businesses? These are important points, despite your protestations to the contrary, as the declaration of failed businesses may not be accurate, and thereby the case you put for lack of candour may be unreasonable.

Perhaps unwittingly, you have stumbled across the point. The answer to the highlighted question is &quotI don't&quot.

Now, isn't it a bit odd that that is my answer? After all, we're talking about a successful businessman here - surely there would be some trumpeting of his successes? Well, no, it would appear not. The only companies he appears to have been linked with have not done well. He has been challenged on this, and the answers he gave seem to have been less than accurate.

If he had 100 other very successful businesses, surely he would've said so? Used the situation to paint himself as a decent entrepreneur who, yes, has had his failures, but on the whole is a success?

There IS evidence of business failure - the records are there at Companies House for all to see. To date, there has not been presented any evidence of business success. All the while you are challenging me to present evidence of the claims, yet the starting point - that he is a successful businessman - is allowed to go unchallenged?

This one has gone on way too long. The point I was making was simply that it would be unfair to criticise someone as a result of an apparent, yet unevidenced state of affairs. I'm not making any other points or trying to defend this PPC, nor am I saying your accusation is wrong. However, I can't see that anything other than hearsay has propped up this case. If the position is as has been reported, then you would be perfectly right to feel cheated by the lack of transparency in selection.

[GodalmingYellow]

I've really been trying to stay out of it, really I have. For me, the depressing thing in the election is the low level of the debate and discussion - which relies on soundbites and anecdotes and personal opinions, rather than any depth of analysis. And most of the &quotdebates&quot are pointless anyway, since everyone has their entrenched positions, won't shift from them and disregard all information to the contrary. So personal anecdotes carry hugely greater weight than any sort of objective numbers.

Take the NHS, for example. We all have varied experiences, mine has been hugely positive (sorry, GY, including having a knee operation within three months of seeing my GP) but ... so what? What do the numbers say about real increases in investment, numbers of operations (of different types), outcomes, mean waiting times, and so on. The individual experience is hugely important to the individual, but it is the aggregate change that is important.

The newspapers, the traditional media don't go into depth, the new media (which could, in principle) drive an even more trivial agenda. As an example, take the Newsnight discussion with Hammond, Cable and Byrne on the IFS report. A number of statements were made - notably by Hammond - that were simply wrong. Others were contestable. But Wark clamped down on any discussion or contention: the assertions were what was wanted, not analysis. Same was true of the discussion of crime on Today. It started well enough with a reporter talking about best available statistics: but then the politicians were allowed to make assertions about the state of the world that were incompatible with that - and were not challenged. So it can be said &quotwe all know violent crime is increasing&quot ... and people will believe that because it chimes with what they think ... when it is not true and should be challenged.

So I'm very depressed. Not least in the fact that the &quotconvert the opinion polls into seats&quot models seem to me to be deeply flawed, ignoring the differential impacts across constituencies and, in particular, marginals, and I suspect that there will be a Bullingdon Club reunion in Downing Street on May 7th.

I'm not a fan of stats in big debates, because pretty mcuh anything can be shown if you choose the right criteria. In big debates unless the debate is going to last several days continuously, then inevitably you have to talk about policy, vision and direction, rather than specifics.

I'm glad you had better service from the NHS than Surrey can offer. That Surrey ran out of money for the NHS, during a period of record &quotinvestment&quot tells us enough about this Governemnt's running of the service.

Talking about investment is irrelevant if the money doesn't produce results and is wasted on targets and beaurocracy and is only spent on sections of society targeted by political motivation.

Talking about increases in numbers of operations is irrelevant if more people needed the service and couldn't access it.

Talking about good service is great for you personally, but if others do not receive the same or similar service, then there is failure.

You should try the Daily Politics debates. They've been pretty good, if a little short on time, with some decent cross examination.

[Ancient Colin]

I'm not a fan of stats in big debates, because pretty mcuh anything can be shown if you choose the right criteria. In big debates unless the debate is going to last several days continuously, then inevitably you have to talk about policy, vision and direction, rather than specifics.

Well, we've debated that one at length. Many things are measurable by standard and robust statistical measures. What I object to is assertions that are incorrect or not founded on any reasonable evidence.

I'm glad you had better service from the NHS than Surrey can offer. That Surrey ran out of money for the NHS, during a period of record &quotinvestment&quot tells us enough about this Governemnt's running of the service.

No it doesn't. It tells you about the management of the local health service.

Talking about investment is irrelevant if the money doesn't produce results and is wasted on targets and beaurocracy and is only spent on sections of society targeted by political motivation.

Can you substantiate the &quottargeted by political motivation&quot claim? Can you substantiate the &quotbureaucracy&quot claim? Maybe if Surrey had invested more on management they wouldn't have &quotrun out of money&quot. Targets produce perverse results and unintended consequences, I agree. On the other hand, how do you &quoteliminate waste&quot without benchmarks? And yes investment has to be smart investment. But more investment is, presumably, better than less investment.

Talking about increases in numbers of operations is irrelevant if more people needed the service and couldn't access it.

So you would rather have fewer operations? Or a limitless number of operations (which seems to go against your views on government spending)? Of course more operations is a relevant statistic of improvement.

Talking about good service is great for you personally, but if others do not receive the same or similar service, then there is failure.

That's back to individual versus aggregate. My point about my service is just that my experience (across three separate areas) is different to yours, not that yours isn't valid. At issue though is has there been a general improvement (and does that improvement justify whatever extra investment put in)? That can't be measured by anecdotes or individual experiences.

[GodalmingYellow]

I'm not a fan of stats in big debates, because pretty mcuh anything can be shown if you choose the right criteria. In big debates unless the debate is going to last several days continuously, then inevitably you have to talk about policy, vision and direction, rather than specifics.

Well, we've debated that one at length. Many things are measurable by standard and robust statistical measures. What I object to is assertions that are incorrect or not founded on any reasonable evidence.

I'm glad you had better service from the NHS than Surrey can offer. That Surrey ran out of money for the NHS, during a period of record &quotinvestment&quot tells us enough about this Governemnt's running of the service.

No it doesn't. It tells you about the management of the local health service.

Talking about investment is irrelevant if the money doesn't produce results and is wasted on targets and beaurocracy and is only spent on sections of society targeted by political motivation.

Can you substantiate the &quottargeted by political motivation&quot claim? Can you substantiate the &quotbureaucracy&quot claim? Maybe if Surrey had invested more on management they wouldn't have &quotrun out of money&quot. Targets produce perverse results and unintended consequences, I agree. On the other hand, how do you &quoteliminate waste&quot without benchmarks? And yes investment has to be smart investment. But more investment is, presumably, better than less investment.

Talking about increases in numbers of operations is irrelevant if more people needed the service and couldn't access it.

So you would rather have fewer operations? Or a limitless number of operations (which seems to go against your views on government spending)? Of course more operations is a relevant statistic of improvement.

Talking about good service is great for you personally, but if others do not receive the same or similar service, then there is failure.

That's back to individual versus aggregate. My point about my service is just that my experience (across three separate areas) is different to yours, not that yours isn't valid. At issue though is has there been a general improvement (and does that improvement justify whatever extra investment put in)? That can't be measured by anecdotes or individual experiences.

There seems to be an awful lot of the unfounded assertions that you object to, in your replies. There is also rather a lot of making assumptions about what I believe and putting words into my mouth.

There is simply too much there to respond to on this forum, so I'll give you just one reply, on the allegation of political motivation, which is de facto impossible to prove, but everyone can make their own mind up:

Surrey as a county is weighted 9.1% higher than national average for costs. Surrey is weighted as having an elderly population of 2% more than national average. Both of these factors a fundamental to the determination of costs of providing NHS services. Yet Surrey receives 15.3% less NHS funding per head of population, than the national average.

There is only so far that each pound can stretch, no matter who the managers are.

[Myles Francis]

I'm glad you had better service from the NHS than Surrey can offer. That Surrey ran out of money for the NHS, during a period of record &quotinvestment&quot tells us enough about this Governemnt's running of the service.

Conversely, I have almost nothing but praise for the service we have received from the NHS in Surrey - and we, as a family, have had cause to make pretty heavy use of its services over the past couple of years.

[tomoufc]

This makes alot more sense than anything I've seen on TV about the election:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/co ... 57040.html

[Ancient Colin]

I think the only point I have probably ascribed views is on the number of operations: I am happy to withdraw the first two sentences of that bit. I would argue that all the other comments are generic points, about proces.

Re: political motivation. I do not know how health budgets are allocated. To assert political motivation you need to show a mechanism: that the chosen allocation method has been deliberately manipulated to penalise (for example) Southern shire counties relative to (for example) Northern industrial towns. What is that mechanism? Is there any evidence of its existence?

My guess (and it is a guess, not knowledge) is that there is a technocratic, statistical model that attempts to assess expenditure need by health authority and allocate funding on that basis. It may produce outcomes that may be perverse or that may be fair using other criteria (health is related to economic wealth for example). If that is the case then political manipulation would require politicians to be intervening, either to alter model outcomes or to change the imputs in a politically motivated way.

[tomoufc]

Sod it it's 2 and a bit hours till kick-off.
COME ON YOU YELLOWS!

And I don't mean the Lib Dems!

[GodalmingYellow]

I think the only point I have probably ascribed views is on the number of operations: I am happy to withdraw the first two sentences of that bit. I would argue that all the other comments are generic points, about proces.

OK fair enough.

Re: political motivation. I do not know how health budgets are allocated. To assert political motivation you need to show a mechanism: that the chosen allocation method has been deliberately manipulated to penalise (for example) Southern shire counties relative to (for example) Northern industrial towns. What is that mechanism? Is there any evidence of its existence?

My guess (and it is a guess, not knowledge) is that there is a technocratic, statistical model that attempts to assess expenditure need by health authority and allocate funding on that basis. It may produce outcomes that may be perverse or that may be fair using other criteria (health is related to economic wealth for example). If that is the case then political manipulation would require politicians to be intervening, either to alter model outcomes or to change the imputs in a politically motivated way.

Are you expecting me to have a secret tape of Gordon Brown pressuring DoH officials? If I had such a thing I would have gone to the papers for the cash long ago. In the example I gave earlier, it is very difficult to understand how that reduced funding could have arisen without political intervention.

I know you don't believe politicians to be that scurrilous, or perhaps that civil service officials don't bend that easily, but my understanding of the system leads me to be somewhat more cynical than you and I genuinely wish that wasn't the case.