El Pibe

More the NHS doesn't work because it's balkanised and people are myopic. "I suspect that in loose affiliations of private companies the politics would swiftly be overcome and a company step in to deliver that role" I suspect that's cloud-cuckooland wishful thinking. Have you considered a job as a Tory policy maker at all ;)

Possibly the most poorly argued opinion piece I have ever read

For starters I'm not sure it self-evidently is. As I've pointed out before, purchasing policy is so decentralised it's often at departmental level. I worked on a data gathering project which was attempting to find out who was paying how much for what. Apart from the enourmous distrust with which individual managers met any enquiry into their business, what little we could glean was that even within a single trust there could be huge unit price discrepancies on the same damn product. If the NHS were to get an overall procurement strategy and leverage the huge economies of scale and negotiating power available to it, I think the savings could conservatively be put in the billions and vastly outweigh anything to be gained by these reforms. Ironically the quango tasked with the exercise was axed by the incoming tories quangogeddon as a cost-saver. Whoops!!

blimey. that's marvellous, I've never seen yahoo pipes before. I'd only add that adding a 'unique' widgetty thing based upon title & description might be good as I can see quite a few repeated entries there. Other than that very minor quibble, hat's off to you 5imon!!

You may put those words in my mouth if you want Huguenot, but in my experience the risks are based on the goals being unachievable such that they will ONLY result in spiralling costs and missed deadlines (and usually faliure), and though it might be a bitter political pill to swallow someone needs to fess up and start savagely cutting back on what they want to achieve and focus on what CAN be achieved. Public, private makes no difference, I've witnessed this in banks, in media, in the MOJ and in the NHS appropriately enough, though on a scale far smaller than Lansley's impending debacle. This NHS exercise smacks to me as archetypal in trying to make the hand fit the glove rather than vice-versa. Doomed I tell ya, doomed!! It's funny that you accuse others of of unsubstantive criticism, but your support seems equally so to me.

it's no coincidence that the sun is shining.

and was it a glossy remanke of Battle Royale or did it have some other point to make other than the demonisation of children and the absurdity of the public hunger for outrageous entertainment.....and schoolgirls in knee high socks?

I've worked on two types of projects. Those with chunks of red on the risk register that remain red because noone is willing to face the political implications of addressing them. It eventually bites you on the arse to some degree or other. The other type is where stuff that should be red is massaged to yellow or green because someone isn't willing to face the political implications of admitting to the fact that it's red. This bites you on the arse every time and heads usually roll. I am of course the annoying person at the coal face who sits in meetings being ignored as I say 'its red, its red' and ultimately 'i told you so' ;) It's in the nature of big projects that there are only these two options. This feels like the latter to me because it is an innately political project.

I think the last one is the most damning. It looks to me like another half baked move based upon short term pressures that'll saddle the taxpayer with a long term financial burdens that it will be too costly to pull out of. See trains, tubes, schools, mod purchasing, IT systems ad nauseum...... And as usual lots of people will say I told you say but it'll be far too late to do anything about it. I wonder how long before Lansley quits for a fat health industry directorship somewhere? Depressing frankly.

Don't even think about taking your camera to the park Damien, if you do you're a braver man than I *sharpens pitchfork*

I actually agree with you Loz that the scattershot approach undermines their argument where there is a strong case to be made. You only have to be a regular reader of Private Eye to realise that cronyism and conflicting vested interests absolutely riddles politics across a broad range of issues. Topically today in the building industry as the plannig guidelines are reduced from a thousand pages to 50 opening the door for my chums to make lots of cash, bye bye the few remaining playing fields and the beautiful countryside outsiude Stevenage growth.

Can I just say a big thank you to Ruairi firstly for the above freely offered advice, and subsequently for the passive report, calculations and patient advice to myself and La Piba. We now have a much clearer picture of where we're headed with all of this. If anyone else is thinking of doing similar things and is thinking of talking to someone, he now officially has the El Pibe seal of approval ;)

Have just read about how Hunger games is some big film or other. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-17507922 I can't help but wonder what the fuss is all about. Am I missing something or is it just a glossy remake of Battle Royale?

It is interesting times in judging how [post-leveson] emboldened politicians will really feel in the face of an onslaught from Murdoch's papers. I'd love them to hold their nerve but my instincts tell me that politicians feel the precariousness of their political fortunes somewhat too keenly for that. Does anyone remember the yes prime minister RPG on the old Spectrum? I seem to recall it really cast you in the role of doing everything in order to effect some positive press as your party got the knives out if your popularity rating fell below a threshold for too long. It's probably as relevant today (as indeed was it's inspirational source material) as it ever was. I wonder if it's out there on an emulator somewhere. *ETA - for the bit-curious: http://www.hotud.org/component/content/article/46-simulation/22304*

Regardless of how much he knew (and I'm betting that it was plenty) the Sun is going to run and run with this and make sure this Tory government will be as tainted with sleaze as the last one (although this is much more of a new labour flavour of sleaze than your traditional tory variety, but I digress). Murdoch didn't much like Cameron and was already quietly doing him down and praising Boris before the Leveson enquiry. Expect a relentless attack with a huge helping of schadenfreude from Murdoch.

Thinking about it, how thankful are we for slim night-sky pickings in London?! I feel a tad agoraphobic if I can see more than about 8 stars overhead!!

I imagine that'd be the case because no unemployed british cleaners have the wherewithal and vim to learn another language and get off their arses and go tto the bits of the EU where there is work to be had. She clearly did all this and now, as a single mum, is entitled to a bit of support. I'd rather she was spending time bringing up her children right rather than working all the hours god sends to pay for the childcare and desperately make ends meet. I'm sure she'd love to go back home and have the support of her family, but maybe dad is English and is leaning on her to stay in the country, difficult to judge without any knowledge of the situation.

Just to clarify DF's point, that's the Moon's own shadow you're seeing, not Earth's.

Do not feed the trolls.

Mid you, people who are having a bottle or two of pouilly fum? with dinner most nights a week who some of those with early onset liver disease.

I've always said it'll be a generational thing. We start going to the pub at 15/16 years of age, and it wasn't until I was in my mid thirties that the need to neck a load of booze prior to the tyranny of the 11 O'Clock cut-off was finally lifted. That means it's only people between the ages of 15/16 - 20 who currently have never known that. They will still be exposed to the drinking mores of the majority who still have that mentality and drink at that pace until 1. The tories are considering repealing the legislation and bringing us back to the World War 1 imposed 11pm curfew, which I think is a stupid waste of the changes that are slowly bedding in. It'll be another 15 years before this is really taking hold and better habits are seeping across generations. I for one would like the opportunity for a tipple after 11 in the meantime, and not have to suffer thanks to the lowest common denominator behaviour at chucking out time. Remember it was the police who originally begged for the changes as they were sick of the trouble caused at 11. Ok they just pushed the trouble back 2-3 hours, they weren't to know that EVERYONE would power on through to the end of the night rather than the envisaged staggered p[artings across the night. But I reckon give it long enough and we'll start behaving a little bit better, bit by bit as a nation of drinkers.

Hmm, and whilst some of these are tenuous, taken as a whole it begins to hum a little.

AS substantive criticisms go, there are quite a few placed in this article. Worth reading: http://www.dcscience.net/?p=5058 including an organogram from the FT before http://www.dcscience.net/nhs-prev-s.jpg after http://www.dcscience.net/nhs-new-s.jpg and describes the growth of NHS statutory organisations from 163 to 521 (not sure where the streamlining and cost saving are to be found there) These two points from a linked to Telegraph article also seem to cause concern: I can't help but feel that the Tories are just trotting down the privatisation route with no particular strategy or purpose in mind. It can't be to save money as this certainly looks more expensive to me. Of their road strategy announced the other day I simply couldn't work out how Cameron was justifying that we would get 'more for our money' when he's clearly proposing privatising the supply of roads without an introduction of tolls. 'our money' will obviously be going to feed profits, so how on earth are we getting more for it than now, and we can certainly kiss goodbye to provision according to a national strategy rather than having a few companies providing improvements or even competitive services for on few choice trunk routes. Sounds daft to me. Forgive me if i alight from the fence on the side of the naysayers on this. This just sounds like another expensive PFI deal to me that the tax payer will be footing the bill for god knows how long to come.

People drinking for pleasure rather than for effect (though these two concepts are not inseperable after several weeks on alcohol free beer I can tell you!!) tend to pay a premium, well above that of the cheap stuff, for something potable, so it's unlikely to affect anyone drinking a nice chablis, a microbrewery ale or a decent scotch.

"Such a definition could well apply to you Otta" That was very History Today wasn't it, like a well educated "No, I think you'll find that it is you who sullies others' olfactory sense with an odour of fecal matter"