Data viz: whom did the UK government invite to emergency talks about the health reform bills?

Discuss

31 Responses to “Data viz: whom did the UK government invite to emergency talks about the health reform bills?”

  1. Gordon McMillan says:

    Is Cameron really Darrel Issa? Has anyone seen both of them in the same place at the same time?

  2. AbdulAlhazred says:

    Correlation is not causation! You would be a fool to draw any conclusion from this limited survey! Clearly this research is funded by the opposition and lobbyists!
    Sorry, just trying to think of the counter-points to this graph.. “Look, what’s that over there!”?

    • Tribune says:

      Your forgot to say that pedophiles, nazis and pirates were not invited and imply something about a connection between them and the other groups not invited.

  3. DevinC says:

    Hey, hey – we shouldn’t draw any conclusions until this data has been analyzed, regressed, graphed on a log-log scale, pregressed, proofread, folded, spindled and possibly mutilated, submitted to a peer-reviewed journal, accepted with a request for major edits, majorly edited, submitted again, looked over by the editorial board, reviewed by independent experts paid in popcorn, analyzed again, returned back to the editorial board, line edited, proofread again, and finally printed in a quarterly journal with a circulation of 4 and 1/2.

  4. yeahyeahwhtever says:

    The government represents who and on whose behalf?
    Politicians are elected to do what?

    • The government represents whoever paid their party the most. 
      Politicians are elected so they can have money and power.

      Hope that answers your questions.   ;)

      • heng says:

        Actually, I don’t think politics in the UK is that nefarious. Of course it goes on a bit, but mostly the sums of money involved make it a bit pointless.

        The real problem in politics is that the people that seem to achieve power are of the mindset that they seek to manufacture their own reality. Things become about trying to prove that they were right in their original assertions about policy. U-turns are seen as a sign of incompetence and politicians that take a position of not being sure are seen as weak and dithering. The central tenets of the scientific process of withholding judgement and building evidence are completely alien to most politicians. Julian Huppert is often heralded is the sole scientist in the House of Commons. The *only* one.

        The media have a huge part to play in perpetuating this problem, but I’m convinced the core issue is not one of corruption so much as of not having any skills in the scientific process and a lack of intellectual honesty.

    • euansmith says:

      There’s only one question they need to answer, “Asphinctersayswhat?”

  5. grs says:

    Chi-squared, because the data is already in squares.

  6. nichomach says:

     I think this is a little unfair; after all, we all know that in an evidence gathering exercise it’s vitally important to gather the *right* evidence, right?  Right?  I mean, it’d be completely unhelpful to have a lot of whingeing from the moaning minnies who  actually do stuff in the Health Service….

  7. BBNinja says:

    Let’s be realistic.  The government does not represent THE PEOPLE.  They represent themselves and whoever pays the most.  

  8. phead says:

    Given that every orginisation listed there normally acts in the interests of its members over patients, I’m not sure I want any of them invited.

  9. Max says:

    I wonder how many of those “Royal college” head honchos have a private medical plan… I can imagine that nobody making decisions about the NHS actually use it.

    • Anyone who can afford to not use the NHS doesn’t use it.  I’m not saying it’s a bad thing; but ultimately the only people that really benefit from it are those that don’t pay for it – those that are paying for it would get far better value from private healthcare.

      Unless you really like waiting a long time for medical procedures; in which case the NHS is awesome (this isn’t a cliche, you will wait, and you will suffer).

      • NelC says:

        If you’re a British citizen who pays taxes, you pay for the NHS. Also, the long waiting times meme is, in actual fact, a cliché — if you claim that it’s universal for all procedures.

        • EvilTerran says:

          I think, when Nathan wrote “the only people that really benefit from it are those that don’t pay for it”, he meant “only people on the dole need the NHS”. Or some other such gross oversimplification.

      • chgoliz says:

        Many people in the US would happily take long wait times over not getting treated at all, or having to declare bankruptcy because of one illness or accident in the family.

        And I agree with Nelson.C (having lived in the UK myself): the “long wait time for treatment” claim is fear-mongering without a lot of truth behind it (in most cases).

      • Dave Convery says:

        Three weeks ago my mother’s cancer was detected. Today she’s at home recuperating having been diagnosed, consulted, had the operation, all on the NHS. I’m sure that’s not universal, but I can’t help but find your argument at least a little vapid faced with that experience.

      • What, like the Royal Family?  I’m sure they could afford to go private.  But when the clot hits the artery, they run to the NHS.  And they don’t even pay taxes.

  10. asuffield says:

    Come on guys, don’t be unreasonable here. When you’re arranging a meeting to discuss your political campaign, you don’t invite the opposition.

    What next? “Cameron launches campaign; does not invite Milliband. Suspicion that they aren’t actually on the same side!”

    Yes, there is a real split in the UK on the question of whether or not the NHS bill is a good idea. Yes, some people disagree with you and hold a legitimate opinion about this which is different from yours. We can debate the issues without attempting to dehumanise people who do not sign up to our most strongly held personal beliefs; this is what distinguishes us from religious zealots who are incapable of anything but violence.

    There is nothing wrong with you campaigning against the bill and there is nothing wrong with Cameron campaigning for it.

    • NelC says:

      You’re confusing political campaigning with the business of running the country, which is what the guy should be doing right now. If nearly everybody affected by the new law objects to it, then the guy running the country should be listening to those objectors, not surrounding himself with yes-men.

      • asuffield says:

        No, I disagree completely. We do not elect politicians to public office to act as impartial brokers of other people’s opinions. We elect them to be partial and to advance their own agenda over those of others.

        His job when in government is to advance the beliefs of his party. My guy’s job when in government is to do the same. We vote in the person whose beliefs we wish to see advanced. That is the very essence of democracy.

        Cameron is heading the campaign in favour. That is his job as leader of the Conservative party. I don’t have to agree with him, but I do have to respect his right to hold an opinion different from my own and campaign for that position.

        • espritdecorpse says:

          Really? ‘His job when in government is to advance the beliefs of his party’. What about when the ‘beliefs’ are in direct opposition to platform upon which he stood (the NHS is ‘safe in my hands’), that the first time he tried to push this through he had to back down (which one has to assume means substantial disagreement within the party ranks as well as any ‘natural’ opposition) in favour of a period of contemplation, reflection and consultation. Who do you think should be consulted? Experts? The people who use the service? The people who comprise 90% of those who work for and run the NHS and have expressed deep concern (in spite of their being fairly conservative organisations, BMA and RCN and even GPs who could make a lot of money out of it)? No, let’s leave it to Dave. And his mates with vested interests. And companies such as ATOS and UNUM who, out of the kindness of their hearts, have been helping successive governments draw up policy. Is that really the ‘very essence of democracy’?

          And saying there is a ‘there is a real split in the UK on the question of whether or not the NHS bill is a good idea’ makes it sound like it is fifty-fifty when, in reality, you’d even be struggling to get support even from rabid Daily Mail commenters.  Also might I remind you that the Conservative Party has no direct, democratic mandate to force through its obscene ideological agenda, they are only in power because they managed to form a pitiful coalition with their neutered enablers, the LibDems who will have gone from having a small, meek voice to no voice at all by the time the next election rolls around.

          • asuffield says:

            What about when the ‘beliefs’ are in direct opposition to platform upon which he stood

            Then the people who voted for him were perhaps unwise in their choice. Or maybe they’re okay with it. Go ask them, I didn’t vote for him.

            Who do you think should be consulted? Experts? The people who use the service? The people who comprise 90% of those who work for and run the NHS and have expressed deep concern (in spite of their being fairly conservative organisations, BMA and RCN and even GPs who could make a lot of money out of it)? No, let’s leave it to Dave.

            Your proposal is unwise and inappropriate. We certainly should not leave it all to him.

            Nonetheless, regardless of the extent to which you disagree with him, he has every right to meet with people who agree with him and organise his campaign.

        • NelC says:

          And when the people we elect show unacceptable degrees of partisanship, we protest, tell our MPs to get their fingers out, write critical articles, and get the partisanship curtailed. That, also, is democracy.

          Cameron, and any other PM (or MP, for that matter) has two hats to wear, that of party leader (or party member) and that of representative of their constituency. When they’re asking for our vote, they are campaigning; when they’ve got the job, they are representing. Cameron’s constituency is the whole of the UK, including those in the leftmost column of the above table, not just his party or those who voted for him (or for the Lib Dems). If he’s campaigning now, then he’s got his hats confused, and he needs to be booted.

          Also, you may remember that when he was supposed to be campaigning, he was all reassuring about how the NHS was safe in his hands. Politicians often play a bit fast and loose with the truth, but when they are so clumsy about lying, you have to wonder how fit they are for the job. If he’s campaigning now, he’s doing a damn piss-poor job of it.

    •  Smarmy shiny faced arse of a man.

      Not a major suprise he lied, after all he is a politician and a consertive one at that. They kind of have a history of shafting public services

Leave a Reply