I'd hope that BBC News would have reported those figures correctly, which is that while it is true that people admitted at the weekend have a higher chance of dying during the next 30 days (they don't die "on a Sunday" specifically), the reason for that higher rate of mortality is not readily apparent. It could easily be - for example - that the kind of people who get admitted to hospital over the weekend are _already_ more urgently and seriously ill than people who get admitted during the week.
But outside of Radio 4's excellent 'More or Less' and 'Inside Health', you won't find this kind of considered, intelligent view of things represented in any places where lots of people are looking, because it seems that such information might be too challenging for people to be trusted to hear and understand.
The points which you raise were highlighted on Marr's interview with Hunt on Sunday and the point is made frequently on Daily Politics.
The irony is, is that this "incredibly unpopular Government that we are lumbered with" is leading the opposition by ten points and if a general election happened today, according to electoral calculus, the Tories would have an 84 seat majority with around 43% of the vote. Seems the public really hate them doesn't it?
They have a lead primarily because the opposition is (and has been for some time) completely and utterly shit - to the extent that they're toxic to the voters. It should by no means be interpreted as a vote of support for the current Government.
Words have never been known to change the minds of the UK public. Words can only confirm and coalesce what the public are already thinking.
And I just don't see that the public are keen on the BBC any longer. At least, the public who are under 40.
Sadly, it's the end of an era for television.
Yep, I agree with you. The BBC is important, to all of us, but we all have different ways of assessing it's importance and of course what services we expect and use from it.
They have a lead primarily because the opposition is (and has been for some time) completely and utterly shit - to the extent that they're toxic to the voters. It should by no means be interpreted as a vote of support for the current Government.
How do you know the public don't support much of the Governments policies? If you look around you, asides from the usual angry left, there isn't that many people "up in arms" like DS posters would have us believe. Believe it or not, there are millions of people who happily support the Tories and their policies. Do you not ever consider that? If they didn't, the Tories would have disappeared years ago.
The reason that the BBC is constantly 'under attack' by Governments is all tied to the way it is funded and where it gets its budget from. The licence fee is at the gift of Government, not the people, and hence the licence fee is the tool by which the Government pulls the puppet strings of the BBC to keep them in line.
Keep the BBC independent and universal via subscription funding direct from the people to the BBC, freeing the corporation from political control and giving them the ability to control their income directly.
See how easy this stuff is?
Nice try, but contradictory and unacceptable Ant. Universality and independence re: the BBC are non-negotiable and paramount to it's values. That is achieved via the licence fee or the broadcasting levy. The BBC is a public service, remember that. Subs/ads aren't (and will never be) the answer.
Nice try, but contradictory and unacceptable Ant. Universality and independence re: the BBC are non-negotiable and paramount to it's values. That is achieved via the licence fee or the broadcasting levy. The BBC is a public service, remember that. Subs/ads aren't (and will never be) the answer.
But the contradiction lies in your post! You claim the BBC is for all of us, yet you refuse to accept that there are other ways to fund it. If it's for all of us, then surely negotiation from the Government (our elected representatives) is vital in order to satisfy the entire population? Or is it more that it is your way is the only way and sod everybody else?
Subscription funding will never happen, not unless you want the BBC to do nothing but chase profits - and the commercial broadcasters won't allow that.
And, of course, with your prime reason for being to make profits then your programming changes.
The irony is, is that this "incredibly unpopular Government that we are lumbered with" is leading the opposition by ten points and if a general election happened today, according to electoral calculus, the Tories would have an 84 seat majority with around 43% of the vote. Seems the public really hate them doesn't it?
The private sector by the way, do not get off "Scot Free". If they fail, they fold and cease trading. They do not get propped up with public money, unless it's a bank. But gosh, the Government who rescued them was a Labour one wasn't it? The Tories are trying to sell it and get the money back to plough back into the economy. Those bastard Tories! With regards to a 7 day NHS: well being told to sit in a hospital waiting room for four hours to see one duty GP is hardly a 7 day NHS. My sister was rushed to Royal Berks Hospital on a Friday back in 2012. She was put into the Clinical Decision Unit to await a doctor to see her. She was seen on the following Tuesday due to skeleton staff working. She was disgnosed with Transverse Myolitis on the following Thursday and all the while was stuck in the CDU. Yeah, that's a proper 7 day NHS service isn't it? That might be good enough for you, but it isn't good enough for those who need the service improved. Don't get ill on a Friday and go to hospital. You wouldn't like it.
Given the inaccuracy of The Polls last year, I wouldn't put to much on them if I were you.
Who bailed out the banks during 2008 because of their poor behaviour? Have they paid their dues as a result of their poor behaviour or are they back to their old ways?
Has the Steel sector been 'bailed out' in the same way?
The NHS needs money and it needs staffing properly. What it doesn't need is constant change and tampering.
Subscription funding will never happen, not unless you want the BBC to do nothing but chase profits - and the commercial broadcasters won't allow that.
And, of course, with your prime reason for being to make profits then your programming changes.
Who are you replying to? I ask because I'm not particularly in favour of a subscribed BBC. I am a supporter of a public funded BBC. But, I am open to debates and discussions regarding how the BBC could effectively be funded in the future.
Words have never been known to change the minds of the UK public. Words can only confirm and coalesce what the public are already thinking.
And I just don't see that the public are keen on the BBC any longer. At least, the public who are under 40.
Sadly, it's the end of an era for television.
Clearly you are anti the BBC given your negativity.
I see no evidence at all of what you describe. Millions tune into BBC television, radio and online every week...more than any other broadcaster. The BBC get's a lot right and we would be a much poorer country (in terms of money and culture) without it. The commercial sector/the private sector just doesn't cut it I'm afraid.
Given the inaccuracy of The Polls last year, I wouldn't put to much on them if I were you.
Who bailed out the banks during 2008 because of their poor behaviour? Have they paid their dues as a result of their poor behaviour or are they back to their old ways?
Has the Steel sector been 'bailed out' in the same way?
The NHS needs money and it needs staffing properly. What it doesn't need is constant change and tampering.
Polls are more or less accurate now. They learned by their mistakes.
The banks were bailed out because if they weren't the whole economy would have crashed and we were already on the verge of bankruptcy. I agree with Labour's policy, as did the Tories. The Tories are going to sell the shares the state has on the banks as soon as it's economically safe to do so.
The steel sector is different. The British Steel industry have basically overpriced their products so that it's now cheaper to buy from China. I buy the cheapest because that's what I can afford. If the British Steel industry wanted to survive they would have been more competitive. The truth is, the Steel Industry is not likely to make or break our economy in the way the fall of major banks would.
It is by tampering with and changing oreganisations that guarantees their longevity. Stand still and the world evolves around you and you get left behind - and forgotten about.
Absolutely right. The BBC is the last bastion of standards. We all need to fight for it. It is our voice in the world, the institution which makes a huge contribution to our national and cultural life, all at a very low cost.
Think of a world (for a moment) where we are just left with ITV, Channel 5 and worse lower down the EPG. Scary and depressing ay.
I think you'll find most people, myself included, want the BBC to be kept as it is and value it. But absolutely stupid over the top posts like this one do your argument no favours.
But the contradiction lies in your post! You claim the BBC is for all of us, yet you refuse to accept that there are other ways to fund it. If it's for all of us, then surely negotiation from the Government (our elected representatives) is vital in order to satisfy the entire population? Or is it more that it is your way is the only way and sod everybody else?
You don't get a public service funded by subs. That is the contradiction.
Independence (both commercial and political) plus universality is only achieved by the licence fee or the broadcasting levy.
Our public services don't belong to the Tories, they belong to all of us. What needs to be established is an independent Public Service Board which represents ALL voices. It should decide funding matters etc for all our public services going forward.
Who are you replying to? I ask because I'm not particularly in favour of a subscribed BBC. I am a supporter of a public funded BBC. But, I am open to debates and discussions regarding how the BBC could effectively be funded in the future.
Primarily Antbox, but anyone can read it if they wish
I'm not sure that all that many are actually keen on Conservative policies - many experts in PR think the reciting of the phrase "long term economic plan" effectively won the last election for them. And it's not as if the economy is doing very well, every target has been missed and it's reported today that Osbourne is going to slash public services further.
I'm not saying that Labour would be doing any better, but the Conservatives had a much better campain, under the masterful guidance of Lynton Crosby. He's a master of simple phrases that don't really match the policies.
Another one is "making work pay", independent research has concluded that this is not the case with Universal Credit.
I'm not sure you can equate a General Election victory with a vast fondness for policies, such lot of a campaign these days is meaningless PR designed to hide real policies.
Polls are more or less accurate now. They learned by their mistakes.
The banks were bailed out because if they weren't the whole economy would have crashed and we were already on the verge of bankruptcy. I agree with Labour's policy, as did the Tories. The Tories are going to sell the shares the state has on the banks as soon as it's economically safe to do so.
The steel sector is different. The British Steel industry have basically overpriced their products so that it's now cheaper to buy from China. I buy the cheapest because that's what I can afford. If the British Steel industry wanted to survive they would have been more competitive. The truth is, the Steel Industry is not likely to make or break our economy in the way the fall of major banks would.
It is by tampering with and changing organisations that guarantees their longevity. Stand still and the world evolves around you and you get left behind - and forgotten about.
Wizzy, some of your posts make for quite interesting reading but the BIB, seriously? Who are you trying to persuade/convince? I will never trust them again regardless of what they say.
You either bail out or you don't. Selective bailing out just smacks of politics.
BIB...I disagree. Constant change and upheaval is destabilising and de-moralising. I say, leave the public services to get on with their job...providing our public services.
You don't get a public service funded by subs. That is the contradiction.
Independence (both commercial and political) plus universality is only achieved by the licence fee or the broadcasting levy.
Our public services don't belong to the Tories, they belong to all of us. What needs to be established is an independent Public Service Board which represents ALL voices. It should decide funding matters etc for all our public services going forward.
Regardless of share of vote, the Tories were elected on our behalf. So, what happens to the public services is because the Tories have a mandate to make it happen. You might not like it, but I do. I hate it when Labour get elected (and in 2005 they got elected by a smaller vote share than the Tories did this year - but that's our system) and make the public services more important than everyone and everything else. But I look at it like this: More people voted for them so they have/had a mandate to do what they think is best.
Yes, they are OUR public services, but we entrust those public services to the politicians we elect. So in effect they DO belong to the Tories because that's what was voted for. Deal with it.
Primarily Antbox, but anyone can read it if they wish
I'm not sure that all that many are actually keen on Conservative policies - many experts in PR think the reciting of the phrase "long term economic plan" effectively won the last election for them. And it's not as if the economy is doing very well, every target has been missed and it's reported today that Osbourne is going to slash public services further.
I'm not saying that Labour would be doing any better, but the Conservatives had a much better campain, under the masterful guidance of Lynton Crosby. He's a master of simple phrases that don't really match the policies.
Another one is "making work pay", independent research has concluded that this is not the case with Universal Credit.
I'm not sure you can equate a General Election victory with a vast fondness for policies, such lot of a campaign these days is meaningless PR designed to hide real policies.
Yes, I don't disagree regarding the fondness of policies - most people don't know one policy from the next. It was obvious Osborne was going to slash public services further - he has a black hole to fill since the tax credits cuts were reversed. He made it clear that the money from that would need to be found from somewhere., But, I digress.
Regardless of share of vote, the Tories were elected on our behalf. So, what happens to the public services is because the Tories have a mandate to make it happen. You might not like it, but I do. I hate it when Labour get elected (and in 2005 they got elected by a smaller vote share than the Tories did this year - but that's our system) and make the public services more important than everyone and everything else. But I look at it like this: More people voted for them so they have/had a mandate to do what they think is best.
Yes, they are OUR public services, but we entrust those public services to the politicians we elect. So in effect they DO belong to the Tories because that's what was voted for. Deal with it.
The problem is, they govern for themselves and their voters. They don't govern for the whole country.
Most people didn't vote for them, that is the truth and the problem.
Remember, the BBC and all our other public services belong to the UK. They don't belong to the tories. They need to remember it.
An example of the BBC lying to its audience? Of course, there are a huge number. There are very big cases we all know about such as the continual statements that Gilligan was correct that Dr Kelly said the dossier was faked, and the BBC only admitted it was a lie on the day the inquiry opened.
But a very recent small one, was that a discussion was being held on Statins on the 24 hour news programme, and the BBC newsreader announced that statins were 'expensive'. It was later established that in fact they are very low cost, about 30 pence each for generic statins.
That sort of thing happens constantly, where the BBC say anything which furthers their agenda.
Yes, they are OUR public services, but we entrust those public services to the politicians we elect. So in effect they DO belong to the Tories because that's what was voted for. Deal with it.
Saying we entrust public services to the politicians does not mean they belong to the politicians. Nobody would ever vote for a party that held such a view.
An example of the BBC lying to its audience? Of course, there are a huge number. There are very big cases we all know about such as the continual statements that Gilligan was correct that Dr Kelly said the dossier was faked, and the BBC only admitted it was a lie on the day the inquiry opened.
Where to start with this one... It's true that the reporter paraphrased Dr Kelly when he said the dossier had been "sexed up" (Dr Kelly never used those exact words) but there are very few people in the world now who don't believe the report was basically accurate - the dossier had been exaggerated by the Government.
But a very recent small one, was that a discussion was being held on Statins on the 24 hour news programme, and the BBC newsreader announced that statins were 'expensive'. It was later established that in fact they are very low cost, about 30 pence each for generic statins.
That sort of thing happens constantly, where the BBC say anything which furthers their agenda.
The BBC has an agenda to make statins look expensive? Who'd have thought??
Seriously though - I'm not aware of this particular report so can't comment on exactly what was said by the newsreader, but from what you're saying it sounds like a simple mistake. No one's perfect and everyone makes mistakes from time to time - but mistakes are not lies.
Saying we entrust public services to the politicians does not mean they belong to the politicians. Nobody would ever vote for a party that held such a view.
Well, as we, the public, do not have the capability or knowledge as to how to finance and maintain public services, we elect politicians to do it for us. We elect politicians based on the ideology that suits us. Therefore, as these politicians are actually members of the public who use the same services as we do, who pay the same taxes we pay, who have the same bills to pay each week, the public services belongs to them too. Do you think Tories are somehow not deserving of using public services? They're not evil and twisted people. They're just people who have contrary viewpoints to your own. I never said that The Tories held that view. It is just an obvious realism.
Well, as we, the public, do not have the capability or knowledge as to how to finance and maintain public services, we elect politicians to do it for us. We elect politicians based on the ideology that suits us. Therefore, as these politicians are actually members of the public who use the same services as we do, who pay the same taxes we pay, who have the same bills to pay each week, the public services belongs to them too. Do you think Tories are somehow not deserving of using public services? They're not evil and twisted people. They're just people who have contrary viewpoints to your own. I never said that The Tories held that view. It is just an obvious realism.
I never suggested the politicians are "somehow not deserving of using public services" - what a strange conclusion to draw from my comments. When I say public services do not belong to politicians, I mean it in the same way that if you owned a pub/hotel and then hired a manager to run it, the pub/hotel does not belong to them - they simply run it for you.
And as to whether or not politicians pay the same taxes we pay and have the same bills to pay each week that we do - well, I wouldn't be at all surprised if we found out that wasn't quite as true as we'd like it to be.
Comments
And I just don't see that the public are keen on the BBC any longer. At least, the public who are under 40.
Sadly, it's the end of an era for television.
The points which you raise were highlighted on Marr's interview with Hunt on Sunday and the point is made frequently on Daily Politics.
Yep, I agree with you. The BBC is important, to all of us, but we all have different ways of assessing it's importance and of course what services we expect and use from it.
How do you know the public don't support much of the Governments policies? If you look around you, asides from the usual angry left, there isn't that many people "up in arms" like DS posters would have us believe. Believe it or not, there are millions of people who happily support the Tories and their policies. Do you not ever consider that? If they didn't, the Tories would have disappeared years ago.
Nice try, but contradictory and unacceptable Ant. Universality and independence re: the BBC are non-negotiable and paramount to it's values. That is achieved via the licence fee or the broadcasting levy. The BBC is a public service, remember that. Subs/ads aren't (and will never be) the answer.
But the contradiction lies in your post! You claim the BBC is for all of us, yet you refuse to accept that there are other ways to fund it. If it's for all of us, then surely negotiation from the Government (our elected representatives) is vital in order to satisfy the entire population? Or is it more that it is your way is the only way and sod everybody else?
And, of course, with your prime reason for being to make profits then your programming changes.
Given the inaccuracy of The Polls last year, I wouldn't put to much on them if I were you.
Who bailed out the banks during 2008 because of their poor behaviour? Have they paid their dues as a result of their poor behaviour or are they back to their old ways?
Has the Steel sector been 'bailed out' in the same way?
The NHS needs money and it needs staffing properly. What it doesn't need is constant change and tampering.
Who are you replying to? I ask because I'm not particularly in favour of a subscribed BBC. I am a supporter of a public funded BBC. But, I am open to debates and discussions regarding how the BBC could effectively be funded in the future.
Clearly you are anti the BBC given your negativity.
I see no evidence at all of what you describe. Millions tune into BBC television, radio and online every week...more than any other broadcaster. The BBC get's a lot right and we would be a much poorer country (in terms of money and culture) without it. The commercial sector/the private sector just doesn't cut it I'm afraid.
Polls are more or less accurate now. They learned by their mistakes.
The banks were bailed out because if they weren't the whole economy would have crashed and we were already on the verge of bankruptcy. I agree with Labour's policy, as did the Tories. The Tories are going to sell the shares the state has on the banks as soon as it's economically safe to do so.
The steel sector is different. The British Steel industry have basically overpriced their products so that it's now cheaper to buy from China. I buy the cheapest because that's what I can afford. If the British Steel industry wanted to survive they would have been more competitive. The truth is, the Steel Industry is not likely to make or break our economy in the way the fall of major banks would.
It is by tampering with and changing oreganisations that guarantees their longevity. Stand still and the world evolves around you and you get left behind - and forgotten about.
You don't get a public service funded by subs. That is the contradiction.
Independence (both commercial and political) plus universality is only achieved by the licence fee or the broadcasting levy.
Our public services don't belong to the Tories, they belong to all of us. What needs to be established is an independent Public Service Board which represents ALL voices. It should decide funding matters etc for all our public services going forward.
Primarily Antbox, but anyone can read it if they wish
I'm not sure that all that many are actually keen on Conservative policies - many experts in PR think the reciting of the phrase "long term economic plan" effectively won the last election for them. And it's not as if the economy is doing very well, every target has been missed and it's reported today that Osbourne is going to slash public services further.
I'm not saying that Labour would be doing any better, but the Conservatives had a much better campain, under the masterful guidance of Lynton Crosby. He's a master of simple phrases that don't really match the policies.
Another one is "making work pay", independent research has concluded that this is not the case with Universal Credit.
I'm not sure you can equate a General Election victory with a vast fondness for policies, such lot of a campaign these days is meaningless PR designed to hide real policies.
Wizzy, some of your posts make for quite interesting reading but the BIB, seriously? Who are you trying to persuade/convince? I will never trust them again regardless of what they say.
You either bail out or you don't. Selective bailing out just smacks of politics.
BIB...I disagree. Constant change and upheaval is destabilising and de-moralising. I say, leave the public services to get on with their job...providing our public services.
Regardless of share of vote, the Tories were elected on our behalf. So, what happens to the public services is because the Tories have a mandate to make it happen. You might not like it, but I do. I hate it when Labour get elected (and in 2005 they got elected by a smaller vote share than the Tories did this year - but that's our system) and make the public services more important than everyone and everything else. But I look at it like this: More people voted for them so they have/had a mandate to do what they think is best.
Yes, they are OUR public services, but we entrust those public services to the politicians we elect. So in effect they DO belong to the Tories because that's what was voted for. Deal with it.
Yes, I don't disagree regarding the fondness of policies - most people don't know one policy from the next. It was obvious Osborne was going to slash public services further - he has a black hole to fill since the tax credits cuts were reversed. He made it clear that the money from that would need to be found from somewhere., But, I digress.
The problem is, they govern for themselves and their voters. They don't govern for the whole country.
Most people didn't vote for them, that is the truth and the problem.
Remember, the BBC and all our other public services belong to the UK. They don't belong to the tories. They need to remember it.
An example of the BBC lying to its audience? Of course, there are a huge number. There are very big cases we all know about such as the continual statements that Gilligan was correct that Dr Kelly said the dossier was faked, and the BBC only admitted it was a lie on the day the inquiry opened.
But a very recent small one, was that a discussion was being held on Statins on the 24 hour news programme, and the BBC newsreader announced that statins were 'expensive'. It was later established that in fact they are very low cost, about 30 pence each for generic statins.
That sort of thing happens constantly, where the BBC say anything which furthers their agenda.
The BBC has an agenda to make statins look expensive? Who'd have thought??
Seriously though - I'm not aware of this particular report so can't comment on exactly what was said by the newsreader, but from what you're saying it sounds like a simple mistake. No one's perfect and everyone makes mistakes from time to time - but mistakes are not lies.
Well, as we, the public, do not have the capability or knowledge as to how to finance and maintain public services, we elect politicians to do it for us. We elect politicians based on the ideology that suits us. Therefore, as these politicians are actually members of the public who use the same services as we do, who pay the same taxes we pay, who have the same bills to pay each week, the public services belongs to them too. Do you think Tories are somehow not deserving of using public services? They're not evil and twisted people. They're just people who have contrary viewpoints to your own. I never said that The Tories held that view. It is just an obvious realism.
And as to whether or not politicians pay the same taxes we pay and have the same bills to pay each week that we do - well, I wouldn't be at all surprised if we found out that wasn't quite as true as we'd like it to be.
Buy TV
Plug it in
Switch it on
Tune it in
Watch TV.
Yes, not legal, but free.
removed