tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post1720529218856040783..comments2023-10-27T07:50:27.411+01:00Comments on Next Left: You can't have localism without postcode lotteriesTom Hampsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05917325958130851128noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-69654942649039890782009-08-06T16:02:36.855+01:002009-08-06T16:02:36.855+01:00Ta for your responseTa for your responseNewmaniahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11922161971821380803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-19072963699091640412009-08-06T13:43:37.416+01:002009-08-06T13:43:37.416+01:00As long as you can choose to go to any public serv...As long as you can choose to go to any public service in the country and the government pays for travel costs, post code lotteries are not really a bad thing. <br /><br />Though you don't want variation in schools as it's not feasible to travel long distances to one._______https://www.blogger.com/profile/12750073111707564700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-71311551645209711802009-08-06T13:14:54.336+01:002009-08-06T13:14:54.336+01:00Newmania
Sorry, that wasn't the intent of my ...Newmania<br /><br />Sorry, that wasn't the intent of my post. The point was that there is a trade-off to be openly scrutinised and discussed, but that this rarely happens and so we get conflicting calls which are difficult to reconcile. Parris' column seems to me to capture this well.<br /><br />You suggest you recognise that trade-off, being somewhat sceptical about the localism argument. So I wasn't being particularly critical of Shapps' argument or evidence about IVF services, but was pointing out that it depends on a willingness to reign in local variation. <br /><br />It might be, if we had that more engaged discussion of the trade-off, that health would turn out to be the area where there is the strongest public sense that local variation should be rather limited, against national guaranteed minimum standards, and probably in areas like the approach taken to public health and preventive services.<br /><br />There are those who would contest the idea of IVF as meeting need or being publicly supported at all. Personally, I am broadly sympathetic to the argument which you make for some public provision of that. In that case, there is a question of how resources are distributed, and whether this should or should not be subject to local variation.<br /><br />But there might be less emphasis on that, and more support for local priorities and varied provision, in for example culture and sporting provision.Sunder Katwalahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06671411534003530927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-12446816545852436242009-08-06T12:02:45.365+01:002009-08-06T12:02:45.365+01:00That's what most advocated of decentralisation...That's what most advocated of decentralisation and localism don't so often talk about, the different standards inherent in it, or 'postcode lottery' as the phrase goes.<br /><br />Cameron is very adept at saying one thing an then another, so expect some more on thisBearded Socialisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17177734192167273165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-79496450648027389222009-08-06T11:10:46.148+01:002009-08-06T11:10:46.148+01:00Newmania,
i don't see where you're getting...Newmania,<br />i don't see where you're getting trivialisation of the issue from.<br /><br />right at the top he says <br />"IVF is just too important an issue for different provision."<br /><br />this post is merely pointing out the real possibility that post-code lotteries are set to increase under cameron. more fodder for the mail no doubtroymhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11040387761432476794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-44876562240689725432009-08-06T09:28:01.760+01:002009-08-06T09:28:01.760+01:00I think thats rather smart arsed really. IVF is an...I think thats rather smart arsed really. IVF is an issue without any obvious parallels. My wife and I went through cycles of IVF one intermediate procedure paid for by the NHS and then we were on our own. This was a cost of £10,000 or so which we did not have and was an ordeal to come up with. Of course we could have chosen not to have a family , ta , but then heres your problem. Why should working people who get very little form the State be denied just about the only major thing they ever ask for from the NHS when between us we would be paying for about £1000,000 of healthcare insurance over our lives. <br />This obvious injustice is felt deeply especially by women whose working patterns sought or not often make early children difficult and the withdrawal from the deal already underway carries on. Is this what you want ? <br />The use of the “Post Code Lottery “ is only to draw attention to the fact that people are placed in n invidious position to one or another extent , for many its amounts to a £10,000 one time tax based on the roll of a dice and that a mile away others avoid the axe only heightens the sense of injustice <br />OK Personally I am unconvinced by the minor sub theme of localism which has after all been tested to destruction by the likes of Enver Hodge and Hit Man Hatton but this is a very different context but is it not possible to have localism for some things , planning for example , and not others .....why yes I think that might actually be possible even for dim witted bureaucrats. <br /><br /><br />IVF , women’s lifestyles and the fairness or otherwise of the middleclass welfare state ( small thought it is ) are a large and serious problem you are not interested in because it chiefly effects women with careers . Your post trivialises the issues throws silly partisan pies and fails entirely to address what is a real and growing cause for dissatisfaction. A few focus groups and Polls and you may just get it , better be quick.Newmaniahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11922161971821380803noreply@blogger.com