For what it's worth, I think that Labour have made great progress in this country, and it's rather silly to focus purely on their failures to deliver. SureStart and Connexions, organisations within which I conducted extensive placements and research, are big steps forward. But, at the same time, it's wrong to ignore failures.
cat wrote:Well, the Euro is a pretty worthless argument... and I think you are slightly misinterpreting the point of a manifesto; it's not to set a series of targets and a deadline by which they should be met.
I agree that a manifesto
shouldn't be used in that way, but that's how Labour chose to write pats of theirs, and how I understand the Conservatives will be structuring the whole of theirs for the forthcoming election. This doesn't seem a logcial strategy to take if you can't meet the deadlines you set.
cat wrote:The Tories would launch a referendum campaign just so we never ended up with it...
Yes they would, and that would be wrong. I agree with you completely. I'm not claiming that one party is better than another, I'm just pointing out that Labour haven't delivered on all of their promises.
I also think blaming the Labour party for the events in Soham is seriously dodgy territory, and you would be wise to avoid going there.
I'm certainly not blaming Labour for the events in Soham, and I'm sorry if that's how you read my comment - it certainly wasn't the way I intended it. I'm just pointing out that Labour have introduced a vastly expensive system that is of questionable worth when it doesn't work in very serious cases, of which the events in Soham were simply the most high profile.
cat wrote:Hospital waiting times are down
Hospital waiting lists are shorter, but times aren't actually down, at least in the experience of the clinicians I work with. They are simply measured differently, and the figures fudged.
cat wrote:A large number now perform 'on the day' appointment systems, where you go in/phone that morning and see someone that day, rather than book in advance. Much more sensible, and is being extended across the country as more surgeries wake up.
A perfect example of such fudging. This system was introduced so that auditors phoning up asking when they would next be able to see a doctor would be told 'tomorrow' - waiting times instantly slashed. In practice, though, it disenfranchises many people, particularly those from lower socioecomic backgrounds, and those with disabilities, who may not have a phone line to call their surgery first thing in a morning. Whereas, previously, they could pop into the surgery at their convenience and make an appointment, they are now unable to do this. Equally, it causes problems for those with chronic illnesses who need regular appointments. The vast majority of the GPs I work with would much prefer to return to the old system of having 'emergency' appointments seen on the day in the morning, and a normal appointments system operating in the afternoon. But they aren't able to do this, because then they are audited as having a longer waiting time, and thus are paid less.
cat wrote:The medical records system is currently undergoing a massive - and, yes, very expensive and time consuming reform process.
Yes, a process which I have personally taken part in. And one which a great many doctors have reservations about. And one that doesn't involve any kind of smart card, as promised.
cat wrote:That's not through bad management
Actually, it is in part. The NHS insisted on starting digitising records before the format had been finally decided upon, meaning that records that have already been computerised have to be gone through again to record additional information.
cat wrote:To expect the entire NHS records system to be on computer in the space of four years - which is not what the manifesto says - is stupid
Indeed it is. And that's not what I expect. Rather, I expect them to be doing something to do with smartcards. Which they're not.
