ED209 wrote:Torydems pleading that the tendering process started under labour might as well say that the nhs started under labour and be done with it. That line is on a par with their apologists claiming that they aren't responsible for their benefits assessment fiasco because labour previously awarded a contract to ATOS before they did. The torydems awarded the contract to circle but more to the point they are responsible for the environment in which the hospital has been operating, and ultimately failed.

The fact is that the process which started under Labour deliberately preclude the option for non-private providers to tender for the contract. Labour started the process and Labour made it an impossibility for anyone but a private provider to take over the running of Hinchingbrooke.

As far as the contract goes, the question is was it awarded to the best provider - and if so, what would the others have been like.

The rest of it is WTF is being done to the nhs (and social care, the lack of which is being cited by circle as the reason for failure) by the torydems. If they wasted a little less of those billions of pounds on their top-down reorganisation, who knows, maybe we'd have fewer failed (and failing) hospitals.

ED209 wrote:As far as the contract goes, the question is was it awarded to the best provider - and if so, what would the others have been like.

Where "best" = provider who can make the most promising looking financial projections, which didn't stand up terribly well to scrutiny by the NAO once the contract had been awarded.

The whole thing is a shambles and makes neither party look good.

ED209 wrote:The rest of it is WTF is being done to the nhs (and social care, the lack of which is being cited by circle as the reason for failure) by the torydems. If they wasted a little less of those billions of pounds on their top-down reorganisation, who knows, maybe we'd have fewer failed (and failing) hospitals.

Oh I agree. The reorganisation has been hugely costly and delivered little or no meaningful benefit. If Labour get in, I'm sure they'll put everything to rights through another reorganisation that is hugely costly and delivers little or no meaningful benefit. The did three the last time they were in power, I'm sure they can squeeze at least one in during a 5 year term.

Sendraks wrote:

ED209 wrote:As far as the contract goes, the question is was it awarded to the best provider - and if so, what would the others have been like.

Where "best" = provider who can make the most promising looking financial projections, which didn't stand up terribly well to scrutiny by the NAO once the contract had been awarded.
....

Not in the sense that I use it, which is 'best' in the sense that will there still be a hospital there in a few years time rather than a fucking hole to be bailed out.

I'm reasonably confident that they managed to identify which bid had the highest value - although that is far from certain from what we have seen from these innumerate torydem fucks - and leaves the question over whether the contract went to the highest bidder anyway or the one that the filth had the most interest in:

Sendraks wrote:

ED209 wrote:The rest of it is WTF is being done to the nhs (and social care, the lack of which is being cited by circle as the reason for failure) by the torydems. If they wasted a little less of those billions of pounds on their top-down reorganisation, who knows, maybe we'd have fewer failed (and failing) hospitals.

Oh I agree. The reorganisation has been hugely costly and delivered little or no meaningful benefit. If Labour get in, I'm sure they'll put everything to rights through another reorganisation that is hugely costly and delivers little or no meaningful benefit. The did three the last time they were in power, I'm sure they can squeeze at least one in during a 5 year term.

If they do, it will because they have a democratic mandate to do so. Because it is a stated policy as they go into the election and if elected, the public will have demanded it.

In contrast to the torydems who explicitly promised 'no reorganisation' even as andrew lansley (greedy andrew lansley tosser) was putting the finishing touches to it.

ED209 wrote:If they do, it will because they have a democratic mandate to do so. Because it is a stated policy as they go into the election and if elected, the public will have demanded it.

If the Labour party manifesto actually says "we'll do a pointless and costly reorganisation of the NHS" then fair enough. The public will not be voting for Labour with any kind of honest appreciation of what their policy entails.

ED209 wrote:In contrast to the torydems who explicitly promised 'no reorganisation' even as andrew lansley (greedy andrew lansley tosser) was putting the finishing touches to it.

Indeed and what makes it worse is that to anyone in the know, it was clear what Lansley was going to do if he became SofS Health regardless of what the manifesto said.

Emmeline beat me to it. Nice to know everyone's on the ball.

But of course, this is the whole point. The Tories don't understand anything that doesn't involve making their rich friends even richer. They don't understand the idea of doing something because it's right, as opposed to doing something because it makes a shitload of wonga to be squirrelled away in tax-avoidance offshore accounts. the Tories quite simply don't understand doing anything because it's decent and humane. Decency and humanity are completely alien to their mindset, which is based entirely upon "how much money can we allow our crooked rich friends to make, in exchange for seven-figure non-executive directorships when we're finally kicked out of office?"

Which is why the Tories should not only be kicked out of office, but on the basis of their manifest venality and corruption, kicked into the nearest prison. Because they are manifestly venal, corrupt and evil.

NHS is basically pretty efficient, in fact most organisations that have been around for a while do eventually tend to approach an optimum way of doing things (private or public)

Basically when people say throwing money at a problem doesn't fix it generally its because they aren't throwing enough. Not to say there is unlimited money but 'making things more efficient' is just what politicians or businessmen say when they havent got a clue

ED209 wrote:Not in the sense that I use it, which is 'best' in the sense that will there still be a hospital there in a few years time rather than a fucking hole to be bailed out.

There was already a hole needing to be bailed out before Circle came in. A sizeable hole created while Labour was in power. The mess at Hinchingbrooke is just as much their making as it is the Tories.

Makes a mockery of Tory ideological apologetics about the private sector being the magic solution to public service woes though, doesn't it?

Calilasseia wrote:Makes a mockery of Tory ideological apologetics about the private sector being the magic solution to public service woes though, doesn't it?

Indeed it does.
Makes a mockery of Labours apologetics about them as well or any other political party for that matter. I understand the Lib Dems are keen on private sector fuckwittery also.

ED209 wrote:Torydems pleading that the tendering process started under labour might as well say that the nhs started under labour and be done with it.

It isn't Torydem pleading (which is a fucking idiotic thing to say in response to any of my posts) I'm just stating facts. Of course we'll never know which private sector company Labour would've awarded the contract to, but the tendering process prevented an alternative. The then SofS, Andy Burnham, wasn't happy about it, but then he wasn't happy with a lot of the private sector-centric dogma the Milburn era lumbered him with.

Well Ed Miliband isn't Tony Blair, and Andy Burnham isn't Alan Milburn. Neither are Blairites, both are distinctly left-of-centre in the Labour Party, so my hopes for a future Labour government are significantly more positive than they might have been.

chairman bill wrote:...both are distinctly left-of-centre in the Labour Party...

Being "left-of-centre" in todays Labour party does not actually make someone even remotely left-wing.

Sendraks wrote:

ED209 wrote:Torydems pleading that the tendering process started under labour might as well say that the nhs started under labour and be done with it.

It isn't Torydem pleading (which is a fucking idiotic thing to say in response to any of my posts)...

What the fuck?

@jeremy_hunt wrote:Disappointing news on Hinchingbrooke,but @andyburnhammp must stop playing politics - he signed off decision to allow private sector operator

A duck's call doesn't stop being a duck's call just because you start quacking it as well.

ED209 wrote:What the fuck?

Don't play dumb. You know full well that I am no apologist for the ToryDems, but that doesn't preclude me from being critical about Labour either.

Patrick McLoughlin the Transport Secretary was on the Sunday Politics today and defended the forty per cent minimum ballot that shall be required for public sector workers before they choose to strike if the Tories win in May. Though he himself was elected by only thirty eight per cent of the voters. Only fifteen per cent of Tories were elected by more than forty per cent anyway. He tried to get round it by saying that there were six candidates in his constituency at the last General Election so therefore it is not comparable. Does he not realise that that does not mean that all six have to have some share of the vote For he could have got more than forty per cent irrespective of how many candidates there were. Logic is not his strong point

Sendraks wrote:

ED209 wrote:What the fuck?

Don't play dumb. You know full well that I am no apologist for the ToryDems, but that doesn't preclude me from being critical about Labour either.

Lol, if I was talking about you I would have said you. I said 'torydems pleading' not 'torydem pleading' which doesn't even make sense until you take it out of context, which you did. So sit down and put your shirt back on, eh.

You should also notice that the minister responsible starting pointing the finger at labour in his very first public statement on the subject, beating you to it by some considerable margin. This'll be some of that grown up politics we keep hearing about, no doubt

ED209 wrote:
You should also notice that the minister responsible starting pointing the finger at labour in his very first public statement on the subject, beating you to it by some considerable margin. This'll be some of that grown up politics we keep hearing about, no doubt

Oh when we knew this was coming earlier this week, we also knew Jezza would be likely to start the mud slinging. Health Orals on Tuesday should promise to be particularly amusing, if only for another worthy display of pigeon chess on the part of the Tories.

Well in general their response to everything is to prance around naked while shouting about 'the mess inherited from the last labour government'. For approaching 5 solid years....