Was told by letter to arrive at a health centre at a particular time for junior's inoculations. Queued at GP's reception desk, was told it's in the clinic which was in a different part of the building. Queued at reception there, was told that junior wasn't on their computer, so we'd have to go back to the GP's reception and get that sorted. Queue again at the GP's, to be given two forms. One was the standard NHS form, and the other was the standard GP questionnaire. The second included questions like how much junior smokes and drinks, whether junior has a full time carer, and lots of questions about medical history when there is no medical history. Ten minutes to fill all that out. Queue again to hand it back, to be told they're very busy but they'll enter it into the computer as soon as they can. This took ages because the receptionist kept having to deal with other patients and answer the phone. Back to the clinic, queue again. 1hr40min after arriving, junior got the jabs.
That's nearly two hours (spent milling around ill possibly contagious people) I'll never get back.
How did they generate the appointment letter without junior being on their database?
Surely so many resources must be squandered because of processes like the above that nobody takes ownership of and improves. Smaller queues, less demand on receptionists, more of my time for earning money, an emptier car park, less time around sick people, which in turn leads to fewer sick people, etc.
Tuesday, 28 February 2017
Monday, 27 February 2017
HS2 briefly
From HS2.org.uk, "HS2 will create around 25,000 jobs and fuel economic benefits worth over £103 billion to the UK.” The claimed cost is £55billion, and this implies a benefit cost ratio of 1.87.
If it’s a good idea, but sadly doesn’t involve enough direct recoupable benefits for entirely private funding, then external benefits should still be extremely easy to find. A BCR of 1.87 that is also flimsy doesn’t look good. I assume the BCR doesn’t account for the fact that raising the tax to pay for it will do damage - the tax wedge. I think a fair BCR which takes into account the tax wedge would show that the project will make us poorer.
Regarding the jobs created, at 55 billion / 25,000 = £2.2M per job, I’d make a pure guess that that £2.2M of tax is at least one private sector job prevented or destroyed, again due to the cost of the tax. Furthermore, regarding the north/south divide, which half suffers more when there's extra tax? My money would be on the north.
The only convincing reason for HS2 seems to be that it would inevitably release greenbelt land for housing. But I can’t bring myself to think spending fifty billion plus for a side effect is sensible. The boring answer for the north/south divide seems to be decentralisation with tax-cutting powers, and building many many more houses. Evidence from around the world seems to suggest that high speed rail links are not the answer to regional imbalances.
With all three main parties in favour at the last election, you could say the electorate never had much of a choice.
I can see why governments pursue bad popular ideas (votes), and unpopular good ones (lack of choice usually, dressed up as good leadership), but I can't fathom why an unpopular bad idea has progressed so far.
If it’s a good idea, but sadly doesn’t involve enough direct recoupable benefits for entirely private funding, then external benefits should still be extremely easy to find. A BCR of 1.87 that is also flimsy doesn’t look good. I assume the BCR doesn’t account for the fact that raising the tax to pay for it will do damage - the tax wedge. I think a fair BCR which takes into account the tax wedge would show that the project will make us poorer.
Regarding the jobs created, at 55 billion / 25,000 = £2.2M per job, I’d make a pure guess that that £2.2M of tax is at least one private sector job prevented or destroyed, again due to the cost of the tax. Furthermore, regarding the north/south divide, which half suffers more when there's extra tax? My money would be on the north.
The only convincing reason for HS2 seems to be that it would inevitably release greenbelt land for housing. But I can’t bring myself to think spending fifty billion plus for a side effect is sensible. The boring answer for the north/south divide seems to be decentralisation with tax-cutting powers, and building many many more houses. Evidence from around the world seems to suggest that high speed rail links are not the answer to regional imbalances.
With all three main parties in favour at the last election, you could say the electorate never had much of a choice.
I can see why governments pursue bad popular ideas (votes), and unpopular good ones (lack of choice usually, dressed up as good leadership), but I can't fathom why an unpopular bad idea has progressed so far.
Monday, 13 February 2017
Jeremy Corbyn
Old post in drafts folder...
Clearly this isn't just about Labour's lacklustre remain campaign. The PLP never thought Corbyn could win an election, and they were hoping he'd go before the next one. The next election is probably going to happen sooner rather than later, so they need to force matters.
Labour already properly tried the unions' choice, Ed Miliband, and he soundly lost the 2015 election. So it's not very likely that someone even more anoraky and student-socialist is going to do any better. More socialist narrative and denial about the overspending of the New Labour years isn't going to win elections.
What won elections was New Labour not Old Labour, economic credibility, keeping the movement's crazies in the attic: Blair. The country needs a credible alternative to the Tories to keep them honest. Without a strong Labour, the working class will turn to UKIP, who are opportunist populist plonkers. Blair and people in his mould can also be blamed for turning people off mainstream politics but that's something to worry about when other more important problems are solved.
One very stupid thing Miliband did was selling Labour leadership votes for £3. This is why Corbyn won by such a landslide. Everyone who left Labour because it wasn't lefty enough, or any narrow-minded Tory, could pay £3 and vote for Corbyn. Who is going to pay £3 to vote for someone more mainstream like Burnham? His supporters are very likely to be full members. This was only ever going to move the party to the left.
I think the Tories really want Corbyn in charge for an election. A team will pour over every commons vote, every article he's ever written, and speech given. There will be never ending questions along the lines of asking him to distance himself from past unfashionable views, which he won't do. Some of the characters involved in Momentum should be an embarrassment to a credible future PM but will be a goldmine to the Tories.
The membership need to ask themselves if they want a party that's electable or whether they just want someone to preach to the converted and to pat the membership on the back. If they re-elect Corbyn then there's going to be more revolt in the PLP, and things will get nastier. De-selections, etc.
P.S. This was an interesting read: http://www.newstatesman.com/2016/08/explaining-love-jeremy-corbyn
Clearly this isn't just about Labour's lacklustre remain campaign. The PLP never thought Corbyn could win an election, and they were hoping he'd go before the next one. The next election is probably going to happen sooner rather than later, so they need to force matters.
Labour already properly tried the unions' choice, Ed Miliband, and he soundly lost the 2015 election. So it's not very likely that someone even more anoraky and student-socialist is going to do any better. More socialist narrative and denial about the overspending of the New Labour years isn't going to win elections.
What won elections was New Labour not Old Labour, economic credibility, keeping the movement's crazies in the attic: Blair. The country needs a credible alternative to the Tories to keep them honest. Without a strong Labour, the working class will turn to UKIP, who are opportunist populist plonkers. Blair and people in his mould can also be blamed for turning people off mainstream politics but that's something to worry about when other more important problems are solved.
One very stupid thing Miliband did was selling Labour leadership votes for £3. This is why Corbyn won by such a landslide. Everyone who left Labour because it wasn't lefty enough, or any narrow-minded Tory, could pay £3 and vote for Corbyn. Who is going to pay £3 to vote for someone more mainstream like Burnham? His supporters are very likely to be full members. This was only ever going to move the party to the left.
I think the Tories really want Corbyn in charge for an election. A team will pour over every commons vote, every article he's ever written, and speech given. There will be never ending questions along the lines of asking him to distance himself from past unfashionable views, which he won't do. Some of the characters involved in Momentum should be an embarrassment to a credible future PM but will be a goldmine to the Tories.
The membership need to ask themselves if they want a party that's electable or whether they just want someone to preach to the converted and to pat the membership on the back. If they re-elect Corbyn then there's going to be more revolt in the PLP, and things will get nastier. De-selections, etc.
P.S. This was an interesting read: http://www.newstatesman.com/2016/08/explaining-love-jeremy-corbyn
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)