UKH

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/nov/24/hammond-backtracked-on-fund...

Nice to see the needs of people, in what are effectively life and death decisions, being made by petulant children.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Appalling.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

But he found £3bn for wasting on brexit

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


To be honest Stevens from the NHS sounds more like the whining, petulant toddler in this instance. I’d have thought his time would be better spent on delivering efficiencies rather than on bleating.

In reply to rj_townsend:

"Delivering efficiencies". Guffaw.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


Meaning?

NHS doesn’t know how to be more efficient and should be given every penny they ask for, or that they’re already completely efficient and don’t need to make any further improvement?

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

It would be nice to have some grown up debate about politics on here. Debate in which everything the Tories did wasn't always wrong about everything and they weren't always portrayed as evil and/or incompetent because any reasonable, fair minded adult should recognise that no party has a monopoly on the truth, competence or the best solutions to everything. In fact we'd be more likely to get grown up politics from our politicians if we had a more grown up electorate.
I'm not holding my breath though.

In reply to rj_townsend:


This misses the point really - which is that Hammond, Hunt and co. are governing in anger rather than making rational decisions. Hence their behaviour is childish. Whether Stevens was being childish in the first place is another question. In answer to that, it seems that he was being excluded from discussions about NHS money (in that article the OP linked to).

In reply to Bob Kemp:


Within that original link it seems to make clear that the decision to provide less money was made quite rationally, based on the rationale of “ascending to public blackmail”. Stevens’ naivety and amateur attempt at forcing the government’s hand caused this rift and the part I find most surprising is that he still has a job.

In reply to rj_townsend:


So rather than thinking the money would be well allocated, they thought they'd teach him a lesson? Fantastic, just really bloody fantastic. Well done them... FFS!

In reply to pec:


Why? Politics is petty and childish, what kind of debate is going to change that?

In reply to Stuart (aka brt):


That wasn't even what the Guarnaid said happened. And anyway, why the hell would one believe that the Gariand's version of events is any more accurate than the tittle tattle in any other newspaper?

In reply to Postmanpat:


"At the time of Stevens’s speech on 8 November, Hammond had already begun discussions with the health secretary, Jeremy Hunt, over his formal pre-budget request that the NHS in England be given a £3bn uplift for 2018-19.


But sources close to the talks say that both Hammond and Treasury officials felt that the NHS England chief executive’s move meant that the chancellor could not be seen to be acceding to what they saw as “overt public blackmail”.

Brinkmanship. So rather than doing the right thing, they played a political game. They could quite easily spun this as not being blackmailed. But you carry on cracking wise with the misspelling of the paper's name.

B*stards.

In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

>So rather than thinking the money would be well allocated, they thought they'd teach him a lesson?

Not that I'm a cynic...
Perhaps the money was never there to begin with. But by blaming him, Stevens looses all credibility with other NHS staff.
That will lead the way to him being ousted. A replacement, with support from the gov, will be installed. (One who will bend over and take the cuts.) The replacement, will be in power because of the tories and won't bite the hand that feeds him.

Hammond looks like 'da man' to the back benches, who all respect power. Hammond, is then seen a strong leader, when May finally implodes and is ousted.

In reply to Stuart (aka brt):


“At the point when everyone else was clamouring for more money, if he gave in then to the NHS’s claim for £4bn, what was he going to say to everyone else? If Stevens hadn’t intervened the NHS would have got more. Giving in to the NHS would have made it really hard to resist everyone else who wanted more money,” said one source with knowledge of events. "

He played the bigger picture. ie. that if he wants to control spending, which he regards as crucial, he cannot set a precedent of being seen to be pushed around in public. Every chancellor in history has to choose between all the different claims and priorities, but most claimants are wise enough to do it behind closed doors.

It may or may not have been the right judgement but, as pec has said, it rather pointless discussing this with people so tribal and one eyed that they won't even contemplate that it might not be so straightforward as they want it to be.

In reply to Postmanpat:


If only you could listen to your own advice...

In reply to Yanis Nayu:
What's worrying is that generally well rounded and presumably educated people are so easily manipulated that all the once decent newspapers are turning into tabloids; shame on the guardian for producing such crap and shame on anyone hearing what they want to hear so they can be appauled and not actually reflecting on the content of the article. I generally find the guardian's journalism to be decent and generally have nothing but distaste for Hammond's budget but that article is pure third hand conjecture.

But sources close to the talks say"
- i.e. they weren't even involved, this is the closest the article comes to referencing who these sources are

But Hammond, who informed sources claim was “left in an impossible position” by Stevens.
- case closed then?

"...If Stevens hadn’t intervened the NHS would have got more. Giving in to the NHS would have made it really hard to resist everyone else who wanted more money” said one source with knowledge of events.
- I'm sure half of westminster had knowledge of events, did they just accost a civil servant in the canteen?

Another official said: "Stevens blew the gaff a bit; he blew it up. If he hadn’t done that the chancellor and the Treasury would have taken the NHS more seriously and given it more money. They don’t take well to public shroud-waving.”
- hardly a compelling sentance, sounds like something someone said drunk in a pub. He blew the gaff a bit? Blew it up did he? Hardly watergate material is it.

This is all just peoples opinion written in a style which portrays it as factual. Maybe I've missed a big chunk of the article but as far as I can see that is the four most compelling pieces of evidence cited. It just reads like something the "nasty Tories" would do and therein lies it's headline grabbing and outrage inducing appeal, just like the anti-Corbyn articles read like something the "naive socialist" would do. British journalism is not in the healthiest of states.

In reply to Postmanpat:


From your earlier post... "And anyway, why the hell would one believe that the Gariand's version of events is any more accurate than the tittle tattle in any other newspaper?" But now you're citing it.

Of course not, but I would be interested to know what Jeremy Hunt's role was in all this. I suspect he is the real 'child'.

Which is probably what Stevens thought about Hammond and co...

In reply to Bob Kemp:

>
Exactly: to make the point that even in the article itself, from an anti Tory organ, there are different interpretations of what happened, not just the one that the haters choose to adopt.
>

>
No prejudice there then!!

In reply to Sharp:


Well said!

In reply to Postmanpat:



Think my irony meter just exploded.

W

In reply to Sharp:

'Source' is press speak undoubtedly. It's usually acknowledged by more calm heads that that means it's reliable. If it's not true then I'd expect the Tories to be calling the paper on it. I'll wager that doesn't happen.

You state that the source wasn't even part of talks, which it doesn't say one way or the other.

In reply to Postmanpat:



No, not prejudice - just an assessment based on the evidence of his track record to date. Plenty of evidence there too, not all from the Guardian!

In reply to pec:
That little speach would come across better if you hadn’t shown yourself to be spectacularly partisan on these forums.

Let’s just deal with this issue. Assuming this story is true, do you think deciding funding for life and death services is best done on the basis of how angry a government minister is at a civil servant?

Personally, I would consider it a demonstration of someone being unfit for office, regardless of the party.

In reply to Sharp:

All the newspapers do this 'sources said' thing. It's because nobody wants their name on the record. It doesn't necessarily make the sources untrue, it's just harder to verify. Given that governments tend towards secrecy it's essential that newspapers are able to tap in to unattributed sources. Sometimes it's rubbish, sometimes it uncovers material that's crucial to a functioning democracy - as in Watergate. We have to learn to make considered judgements about the quality of the material. I try to do that.

In reply to Bogwalloper:


Bollocks. Somebody just has to provide the other side of the story from time to time. You're confusing "not another leftie drone" with "likes the Tories".

In reply to Postmanpat:


What other side? The paper has a 'source'. You might not like that it being all a bit vague, but since the Tories haven't come out against it, that speaks volumes. As stated above, the papers have to be very careful about naming names.

In reply to The New NickB:



But that isn't even what the story says is it? It says he was furious but not that this was the reason for his decision. My quote above, from the article, explains the rationale.

In reply to Stuart (aka brt):


It was a general reply to bogwallopers post, not specific to the NHS issue. See my other posts for the why yours is a partisan and one eyed interpretation of a partisan article.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Yes, of course he wasn’t angry!

As you said earlier. Bollocks!

In reply to Bob Kemp:


What is the evidence for him not fighting for funding from the Chancellor (s)?

In reply to Postmanpat:


OK I'll take that first point.

Talking specifically, do you think that if what is reported is true*, then it's not a travesty?

* And no one from the Treasury is calling it bollocks?

In reply to The New NickB:



Bollocks. He was very angry, in fact "furious". But it doesn't tell us that it was his anger that made him reduce the amount to be spent on the NHS. Read it more carefully (as oyu should have done with my last post). What it implies is that he was "furious" because going public made it difficult form him to do what he planned to do.

In reply to Stuart (aka brt):



>
Well apparently the Treasury folk were equally furious. Indeed Hammond persuaded them to pay more than they wanted. You have chosen to interpret the article as saying that Hammond was furious at Stephens for going public and therefore decided to cut the amount he paid out of spite. This is ,arguably, what the clickbait headline implies. But the text and quotes within the article suggest that he was furious because Stephens going public made it difficult to pay the amount he wanted to.

I think he probably should have gone ahead and diverted whatever the original amount was anyway but I can see why he didn't. So, in my view, a misjudgment but not a travesty.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Made it difficult! Seriously? Jesus, he's probably an intelligent bloke, I'm sure he could have spun it.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I’m perhaps assuming more intelligence from Phillip Hammond than you are. Maybe he is as stupid as you seem to be suggesting? I suspect not.

In reply to Stuart (aka brt):


I'm simply relaying the gist of the article. As I've said, I would regard it as a poor judgment, but then again neither of us is the Chancellor, endless bombarded with departmental demands for extra funds and trying to enforce a process and discipline as opposed to caving in to whoever shouts loudest.

In reply to The New NickB:


But not as stupid as the Treasury officials. I can easily imagine these officials, who have been through many more budgets than him, arguing that they've seen this sort of game being played before and that if he caves in he will lose all credibility with departmental heads next time around. So, he chose to override them and strike a compromise.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Poor judgement could be costing people's lives.

In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

And not spending on something else will also have bad consequences.All Chancellors, all the time, can be accused of costing peoples' lives by not spending on the NHS or other things. The bigger picture, which we pay chancellors to take,
is that if the budgetary process is corrupted then funds will be mispent on an ongoing basis and this will also cost lives.

Simply shouting "petulant" and "bastards" reflects a simplistic and biased view of the issues at work.

In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

Hammond seems one of the saner ministers. I’m struggling to believe either that he cut a budget out of revenge, or that he would really feel Stevens’ comments would have any long term consequences - nhs spending is hardly a vote limit set anyway.

In reply to Postmanpat:



Pat, the bigger picture here is that Hammond was within a hair's breadth from pulling the trigger on some major financing of the NHS. He didn't because of not wanting to be seen as caving into demands.

I'm absolutely sure that the public at large would have seen this as nothing but a good thing to do and an exceptional case in terms of Treasury spending.

I think there are bad consequences and there a bad consequence...

In reply to Stuart (aka brt):




He was possibly going to allocate £4bn and actually allocated £2.8bn (not in year one). To be honest this is not "major financing". It's a short term blood transfusion.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Can I quote you? "Bollocks" was it?

It reflects nothing of the sort and if you prefer to condescend and presume that no one can process what's going on at a deeper level, then crack on.

In reply to Stuart (aka brt):


Your headline and OP was presaged not any any indication of having thought about it or even having read the article closely, but on feeling the need to let off steam and employing the usual hackneyed abuse to do so. Pec pointed this out. I agree.
I don't doubt that you can think it through, just that you initially chose not to.

"Bollocks" by the way, was a reaction to a personal attack, not about the issue under discussion.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Except I did, and 'chose' to react in such a way to what is a pretty diabolical situation.


Noted but still a valid observation.

In reply to Stuart (aka brt):


By describing senior Treasury officials and the Chancellor as petulant children for doing something that the article didn't say the did.

Hmm.OK.

The rugby is exciting.

In reply to Postmanpat:



Not me guv. Unless you're casually lumping us all in the same boat.


Apparently so.

In reply to Stuart (aka brt):


My mistake.Sorry.

In reply to Postmanpat:

No worries.

In reply to The New NickB:


Spectacularly partisan, really? Well I guess it depends on where you're looking from but whilst I won't deny I generally come from a right of centre perspective I think you'll struggle to justify the accusation of being "spectacularly partisan" across my whole posting history rather than jumping on the odd comment here and there.
Nor am I an uncritical admirer of all things Tory. Many of my posts are actually quite nuanced but judging by some of the replies I get there seems to be a disconnect between the words I actually write and the words other people read. But then what can you expect when the starting point of half the people you're debating with is "all Tories are c*nts"?
Of course sometimes you can get into an argument and you end up backed into corner in which it becomes hard to make nuanced points but that's a reflection of how much of a left wing echo chamber these forums can be when you're one of the few people trying to put an opposing point of view. If you don't get why that should be I suggest you find a forum where half the people on it think all Lefties are c*nts and most of the rest sympathise with that view and see how you get on.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Pocket lining scum bags. I hate them all.

In reply to pec:

Well said.

In reply to Postmanpat:


I suspect you know how it feels

In reply to pec:


A telling straw man.


A telling peddling of a myth.

In reply to pec:


I don’t think all Tories are c*nts.

I don’t think you are as nuanced or balanced as you think you are.

This is far from a left wing echo chamber, with summo, Big ger, David Martin, Moley, Dave Cumberland, David riley, Baron and others contributing right of centre viewpoints on political threads. The fact you claim it is, and suggest that 50% of poster think that “all Tories are c*unts” tells us plenty about your views, but little useful about the forum.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


I never said you were but that's the default of a lot of people on here.


I never claimed to be balanced, though that said, I have sometimes defended Labour politicians because unlike so many on here I am able to divorce my view of a persons politics from my view of their competence, morality and personality.


Of course there are some right wingers on here but for every one of them there are 10 lefties.

Try this challenge, randomly select 10 political threads on here and add up the number of personal insults against Tory politicians Vs Labour and then tell me its not a left wing echo chamber.

In reply to pec:

Bit unfair. Whoever is currently making the (self serving) decisions will always come in for the most flack. And that's true whether they're Blue, Red, Yellow or green.

I'm personally staggered that anyone feels the need to defend ANY of them, seeing as they are all the worst kind of human beings.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:



The irony is strong in this one.

In reply to pec:


You may well have- but it would be helpful could point me to one. I may well have missed it, but I can’t remember you doing this.



No, you are the one claiming something exists; it’s for you to provide evidence to support you’re contention, not the other way around. If you want to do a statistical analysis of political threads for their insulting content then that would be very interesting; make sure you don’t exclude ones where Jeremy Corbyn, Diane Abbott, or Tony Blair are mentioned, as their names are pretty sure to provoke a release of venom.

I think you are just plain mistaken about this being an echo chamber

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_chamber_(media)

Inside a figurative echo chamber, official sources often go unquestioned and different or competing views are censored, disallowed, or otherwise underrepresented.

Views supportive of Brexit, or the free market, and critical of ‘political correctness’ are not in short supply here. We have posters that use alt right associated terms like ‘snowflake’ and ‘virtue signalling’ without irony. There are even posters who assert that anthropogenic climate change is a myth. Nothing is disallowed, nothing goes unquestioned.

Yes, there is a majority of left leaning posters; but not by much- add Coel hellier, thomasadixon to the list of active and eloquent right of centre, plus the large number of generally centre ground posters, and the idea that there are 10 left wingers for every right of centre contributor, and that this a left wing echo chamber is just absurd. Indeed, it’s entirely the opposite of the truth- the length and intensity of debate on many threads is the very definition of a space where ideas are tested rather than uncritically accepted-to the point that you appear to be veering off into Trumpian ‘alternative fact’ territory...