Political Penguin

Little Penguin has finally got round to rebuilding his website. Drop by, take a gander, say hi. He’s a little smarty pants trying to upstage his father by sticking bits of AJAX (that’s a technical web thing not the cleaner) in his site.

It’s been a strange week in comparison to normal. My enforced housebound status due to having my toenail removed on Monday has meant I haven’t got out. This has meant I’ve completed lots of jobs (mainly techie) that I’ve been meaning to do for a while and I’ve completely exhausted every one of my RSS feeds in terms of my media consumption.

Every blog I read has been read, every media feed I have has been read, I’ve polished off Zelda the Twilight Princess and gone back through it to find all the hidden stuff, built my Lego Star Destroyer and have found myself at a loose end.

This led me to hunt out some new stuff to consume. I rarely get round to reading the online sections of newspapers, save for the dear old Express and Swastiki for pure frustration at how bad journalism can get but I found myself at the Guardian’s comment is free section. More precisely at this article by Polly Toynbee.

Haven’t read anything by her for years, which may sound odd being a leftie politico type but it’s true. However it made me remember that I’d been planning to write a piece about the impact of consumer society values on expectations of public services. I wasn’t planning on concentrating on the health service in particular but it is a very good example.

I’m not going to reiterate what Polly Toynbee has written, just read her article to get the jist but what struck me most was the comments to her article. I managed to get about half way through before I gave up in despair at the number of people slagging off the NHS, moaning about how much taxes they pay for it or doing down what we have in the UK and comparing it to other countries that have ‘better’ health services.

So I thought I’d share a bit of my own personal experience of the NHS.

I don’t use the health service much, I’ve only ever had one procedure done and short of a few trips to the GP for a bit of professional opinion and the odd bottle of jollop that’s about it. The only procedure I’ve had is the one that took place on Monday to remove my ingrowing big toenail. I visited my GP about five weeks ago because it was painful, he diagnosed it, referred me for the operation that should have been in about four to six weeks so five weeks is pretty much on the money and I had it done. I went back today as the operations are carried out at my local clinic in the town, a walk of about 200 yards to have my dressing changed and that was it. I don’t know how much this procedure cost the NHS nor the cumulative cost of my few visits to the GP over the years but I’d hazard a guess hardly anything compared to the proportion of the taxes that I’ve paid into the system to pay for its running.

The strange thing about this, at least if you are to believe some of the comments on Toynbee’s article is that I’m quite happy about this situation. I am quite happy to pay taxes to run a service that I do not wish to use. I’m happy because I’m not able to predict and control everything in my life. I do not know that one day one the arseholes who speed past my house isn’t going to knock me over and I end up in A&E with the requirement for a lot of treatment. I don’t know if I may suffer from an illness like cancer or suddenly have a heart attack but I do know that I quite like the idea that if I do, then I don’t have to worry too much about it because I won’t have to suddenly fork over thousands of pounds to cover the cost or find out suddenly there’s a clause in my health insurance that “doesn’t cover that condition or illness”. Such as I don’t mind that from my own perspective up till now I’ve paid thousands into the system for other people’s care and treatment, because come the day I may need treatment for something serious, those very same people may be the ones paying in to cover for my treatment. Personally however, I’d be quite happy to pay into the system for the whole of my working life and never have to have had another procedure done other than the one I’ve just had.

There were also numerous comments about waiting times for procedures and of course of a negative nature so I thought I’d add a few examples. I waiting five weeks to have a minor bit of surgery done relating to a condition that caused me minor discomfort but nothing agonising. I’m reminded back to about 16 years ago when a relative of mine had the same condition. He waited over six months for his operation and apparently that was a reasonable time to expect to wait in those days to have an ingrowing toenail removed. I think I quite like the way things are now because despite my condition being a minor discomfort for the period of five weeks, I don’t think I would have fancied it for six months, not even taking into account how the condition can get progressively more painful the longer it is left.

Second example. My mother had a problem with her ear a few months back. She went to the GP who referred her to a specialist at New Cross hospital in Wolverhampton which took about a fortnight. He saw her and asked her if she’d like to come back the following day to have the procedure done. Not sure about how other people might see that, but having the procedure done the next day seems rather a good service by my standards.

I’ll touch on a bit of comparative health provision which always comes up in these arguments usually about why our health service isn’t ‘as good’ as for example the French, German or Nordic ones. I won’t go into the old debate of comparing it to the US system of individual health insurance as it’s been done to death apart from noting that purely from an administrative cost analysis our system wins hands down in terms of efficiency. It’s simple, one form to fill in, if you’re registered as living at an address in the UK you can get an NHS number and that’s about it. You don’t have to pay for treatment at the point of need and whether you’re taken sick in Wolverhampton, Edinburgh or Machynlleth you can get treatment at the nearest hospital without any hassle. I use that example deliberately as you will see in a minute.

Now I will admit to not knowing much about the French health service apart from it’s based on a combined system of people paying for it through taxation and private health insurance. Germany is pretty much the same which I do know a bit more about for obvious reasons. Is it better? Well yes if your measurement of comparison is in terms of the potential wait you may have for things to get done. Perhaps this is part of the national psyche of the Germans? They don’t tend to like to wait for things, something very evident in Mrs Penguin and with their combined state funded and private health insurance system they get a faster service than we do. Of course they pay for it, not only through higher taxes but also having to afford private health policies on top and we are back to the old adage of getting what you pay for. Whatever rubbish is spouted by the right of British politics we have it fairly good in the UK in terms of taxation, both personal and business. What we have is a health service that is effectively done on the cheap because of the conditions under which it is expected to run. Despite its detractors it’s a pretty damn efficient organisation, of course more could be done but given how we pay comparably less for our health service than our near neighbours on the continent we get a pretty good deal.

Moving on to the Nordic model of which I know more about, in particular of the Finnish system having lived there. Theirs is in essence more comparable to ours in that it’s a directly funded for by the tax-payer system unless things have radically changed since I last lived there.

However here’s why I used the example of our own where it doesn’t matter if you’re in Wolverhampton, Edinburgh or Machynlleth when you need treatment. Much as the Finnish health system could be considered better than our own, less waiting times, better facilities etc etc, it’s not a ‘national’ health service. It’s funding comes through local taxation which on one hand is good in terms of being able to tailor treatments to more specific local areas but if for example you live and pay taxes in Tampere and just happen to be visiting Helsinki when your appendix starts to burst and there have been some examples of this. The doctors in Helsinki have been known to ship the patient 120 miles north back to Tampere so that they pick up the cost.

Personally if I happen to be in Sheffield and my appendix starts to burst I’d quite like to be taken to the local hospital and it done as quickly as possible there than be shipped back to Wolverhampton and that of course raises the issue of what is the overriding priority? As much as the Nordic system is very good, it doesn’t preclude the possibility of costs and funding overruling clinical patient care. I’ll just add that there’s actually another type of health service structure in Finland that I haven’t mentioned, that for students which is completely different and funded through membership of the local student union which is compulsory and has to be paid for. I won’t go into too much detail but over there students unions are very much a part of the social welfare structure as opposed to the organisers of piss-ups at universities over here. (that is a deliberately flippant remark for humorous value, yes I know they do some very important student welfare stuff here too before someone complains but in comparison it is nothing to the extent that they do in Finland)

What’s the conclusion? Well much as we would all want our treatment done the next day, it’s quite clear that in Britain people are not willing to fork over the extra money in taxation to pay for it. We have a pretty good and efficient health service that operates on significantly less money than those in France, Germany and the Nordic countries so we can’t really complain that much. We are spending more on the NHS now than we were under the Tories and the improvements in service and significantly lower waiting times are there to see but for some reason people seem not to understand this expecting everything to be done yesterday and of course not willing to cough up the extra cash to achieve this aim. Something for nothing I think that is called and it’s a very childish perspective to take which perhaps is a sad reflection on the society in which we live.

[note] I’d originally titled this article “In pursuit of happiness” and intended to go on to other areas but I’ve decided to keep it more focused on health issues. I’ll do the more general theme another time.

I know I’m probably going to prick up the ears of some of my regular readers with the title of this post but please bear with me.

Here’s how the argument is going at the moment at least as far as one can judge from the mainstream media. He should go because he’s one of the lads, he shouldn’t be treated specially just because he’s a prince or he shouldn’t go because he’d be a target for insurgents and if they are aware he is there, blowing his head off might be a bit of a big prize for some groups. Equally this has been dismissed today by the army as being irrelevant because they won’t know where he is, and that is where I have a problem.

I fully accept the argument that he should be treated much as any other soldier. My own personal beliefs are that just because he’s a prince he is nothing special, no different from anyone else, no more important than the son or daughter of any other parent who might be sent off to fight in a foreign land. If you join the army it’s a distinct possibility that one day you’ll be sent somewhere dangerous and may well be killed. If you can’t accept that then you shouldn’t join up.

However, much as that may be my view that he is intrinsically nothing special, I fully accept that he’d be a nice little target for insurgents out to make a ‘big’ kill simply because of who he is. I accept that if he were to go then his whereabouts would not be readily available but this in part exacerbates the problem.

Here’s the scenario. Insurgents will be aware that Prince Harry will be knocking about somewhere in Iraq. There’s no way the army are going to put him somewhere he might actually get popped off, after all, they don’t want a dead prince on their hands (very bad PR and a major bottom-kicking from them up on high) so he’ll be holed up somewhere pretty cushy (from a security perspective), save for a few nice photo sessions of him walking around with the lads on patrol to keep the punters back home happy.

However his presence there may and I say may because it’s not guaranteed but a fair bet, that this will make British troops as a whole a more plush target, just on the off-chance that one of them might be a prince. Obviously we cannot say for sure, only an increase in body bags returning home would give us a definite answer to the question but if it means that we do not increase the risks of more of our lads coming home in body bags for what amounts to a nice bit of PR for the prince, the royal family and the army then I’m quite happy with that.

Yesterday morning I caught the ever so wonderful David Cameron on the BBC breakfast news doing a cosy sofa interview on the Tories strategy for combating anti-social behaviour.

It confused me but I think I get the gist of it now. Labour’s policy of ASBO’s is wrong because it abdicates responsibility and that the state isn’t the answer but people as in the general members of the public should be responsible along with businesses to create a civic society.

First thing of note. Apparently he doesn’t agree with ASBO’s on the Radio 4 interview, but sitting nice and comfy on the sofa when questioned about ASBO’s says he’s going to keep them. I though they were counter-productive? Why would you keep something that is acerbating the problem? Bit confused on that one still.

Nonetheless we do have a policy which makes a change, and the policy is, “it’s nothing to do with us guv, it’s your problem to sort out”. So let us get this straight, the policy is to have no policy because it’s not the position of the state to try and address problems like anti-social but up to the public.

However, this doesn’t mean that he’s encouraging people to go up to gangs of youths and tell them what they’re doing is wrong so how do you combat the issue? How exactly this is going to work is beyond me. He mentioned the issue of parents taking responsibility for their children which is always a good one of which I’ve not got that much of a problem with but it’s the parents who simply don’t care or desire to take any responsibility that are one factor of the problem. If they don’t take responsibility then how do you make them, because lets not forget, according to Dave, it’s not the states responsibility to deal with them so we can’t be thinking down the lines of fines, imprisonment or any other kind of state enforced repercussion.

Still unsure as to how this one’s going to work and here’s a major flaw in Dave’s thinking that shows through every time he pops up. He wants to come across as a libertarian, hey, he’s a Tory, it’s what their traditional ground is supposed to be. That the state should be leaving it up to the individual, that the state should not try to engineer societal factors, yet cannot get away from the desire to engineer societal change according to his or the Tories shared values through the levers of state power.

Little example. We’ve had the usual rhetoric that ‘people are best placed to decide what to do with their money’, it shouldn’t be taken off them through taxation to pay for silly little things like public services etc etc. Yet, and I know it’s vogue to have a go at Cameron over having no policies but there is one that they’ve been banging on about, that of re-instating the married couples tax allowance, and of course getting rid of tax credits.

This is of course the true paradox that the Tories find themselves in which shows them to be nothing more than hypocrites. They espouse individualism and claim the state has no business interfering in the affairs of people, yet would happily use the tax system to try and cajole people into establishing a certain lifestyle because it fits in with what they consider to be morally preferable.

The irony is that this leaves the Tories in a position where they are the ones seeking to use the state to get society to conform to their beliefs and Labour with the more pragmatic approach of focussing financial assistance to those who actually need it, people with children and in most cases mortgages. Not 50 somethings who’ve paid off their mortgages and who’s kids have left the nest.

So what have we learned from yesterday’s little appearances? Well, the Tories have a policy, and it is to have no policy that they would enact were they to be in Government because if it’s not the role of the state somewhere down the line to be giving direction. I’m going to have a little guess that there isn’t going to be some wonderful coming together of people, businesses and organisations to address the issue because there’s no backup in terms of organisation or financial incentive coming from the Government.

Of course a cynic could just say that yesterday achieved everything as far and Mr Cameron is concerned. Interview on Radio 4, interview on BBC breakfast news, plenty of exposure and media attention. Job done. Only problem being the simple inconsistencies in his argument make him look like a complete and utter twonk who hasn’t got a clue.

I had my big toenail pulled out today because it was ingrowing. It is sodding painful beyond belief and I’m sure will keep me off leafleting for the rest of the election campaign.

Here’s to a week of annoying Mrs Penguin because she knows I’m awful to be around when I’m sick or can’t do things.

Anyway, happy St. George’s day to everyone.

Did someone call little Cameron a name? Am I the only one that thinks this is just a smidgen on the two-faced side from someone who spent their response to the Budget calling Gordon Brown Stalin because he was so out-classed as a politician.

If he really can’t take it then perhaps the Tories should find a leader with a bit more gravitas than this lightweight. Or is it a case of the playground bully, happy to dish it out, can’t take it themselves?

Strange given Colin’s oh so principled views on such things but still no sign of a call for this particular LibDem to be booted out of his party. I know if he was a Labour Councillor, that’s what I’d be calling for.

sticking to the family related posts tonight.

I don’t know if other fathers go through this but following on from the birth of my son I have a strange urge to garden. It wasn’t there before to any large extent but now the garden is turned over to the production of wholesome food for the family.

What is more exciting is when the first shoots of the plants break through the surface of the soil and you know they’re on their way. So just to share my own amazement at the wonderment of nature here’s the radishes:

and the peas:

I think I should take a bit of a rest now. Been in the garden all day and might have picked up a little heat stroke.

Yes, iggle piggle. It’s not often that there is a situation that unites bloggers of varying political perspectives but I have to also include myself with Tom Watson, Dizzy and Mike Ion on this one.

For some strange reason my referrals have been going a bit hectic for ‘iggle piggle’ lately and I haven’t even mentioned them. I have to admit that despite having a young child like Tom and Dizzy our Little Penguin doesn’t seem too interested in childrens TV, preferring to only watch adverts, Taff on Pro Sieben and having an unhealthy interest in German soap operas.

Trying to get him into Sandmann.

I’ve commented before that I take a keen interest in advertising at least from the perspective of analysing it for which some are good and others are downright awful. Here’s an example of an awful advert at least in my opinion. It’s broadcast on German TV, not sure if it’s broadcast here as I watch next to no British TV these days.

When I first watched it I didn’t get it which is unusual for me as I’m usually quite hot at this sort of stuff but as I didn’t then that’s the first sign it’s a bad advert. If you want to sell someone something, it’s a good idea to explain it to them, unless of course you’re being deliberately vague and producing a meaningless advert that sometimes works as well.

Anyway, after a few attempts I got it. I already understood that it was trying to say that Renault cars are very safe but the imagery didn’t click. Eventually it did and I felt somewhat insulted but equally bemused at how this could possibly get by as an advertising strategy, at least outside of the confines of the French Republic.

If you don’t get it as I didn’t first time around here’s what it means. Sausage = German, Sushi = Japanese, cracker = who knows? Bread = French. There’s also a different version containing Pizza = Italian and Sandwich = presumably us lot in Britain and a hamburger = presumably the Yanks. So as all these bits of food hit the barrier and blow up or crumple to nothing, the sturdy bit of French bread has a bit of a dent but everything else is OK. So lets get this straight, Renault are saying that drive a German, British, Italian, American or Japanese car and it’s going to blow up the moment you hit something so drive a French one and you’ll be safe.

Now I could understand them broadcasting this in France, bit of the old national pride to build on, always good for loving up the local market, but to broadcast this in Germany and who knows where else and say that their countries cars are crap isn’t just insulting, it’s a truly awful way to try and sell a product.

The upshot of it is that the last car I’d wish to buy would be a Renault purely on the basis that they think I’m going to spend my money on their product while insulting my country. Admittedly we don’t really make that many cars in Britain any more, not British ones anyway but from Mrs Penguin’s perspective to insult German cars is a big no no. In all fairness we can’t stand Renault anyway but that’s purely down to what they do in Formula 1 but please do tell me which idiot thought it would be a good way to sell cars by insulting the people of countries that you’re trying to sell them to?