Jump to content

Gaspode

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,825

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Gaspode

    The coronabrexit thread. I mean, coronavirus thread

    in The Jim Smith Room

    Posted

    18 minutes ago, Crewton said:

    That was on 22nd November 1995, after 16 years of Conservative government. And here we are after 12 years of another Conservative Government with people making the same point. In total, 30 years of Conservative out of the last 43, so why is the NHS still burdened with an excess of bureaucracy? How many major reforms have they undertaken in that time? Of course, it's not just the Conservatives who've overseen that period, but why is it that a Party who routinely rail against waste and bureaucracy cannot seem to get a grip on the issue?

    BTW, I don't recall anyone on here claiming that efficiency in the NHS couldn't be improved, but the simplistic arguments often touted on here seem not to have been picked up by successive governments. I wonder why?

     

    Not sure why you're trying to turn this into a party-political issue (actually I am entirely sure why, but let's leave it there) - but as you're asking, why didn't Labour fix it when they were in power either?

    I can give you a clue what the issue is (and I speak as someone who worked on the ill-fated NHS Digital programme) - the NHS is too big and too intransigent to change - every single part of the NHS that we worked with considered themselves to be 'special' - and consequently, they were far too (self) important to change to a more efficiernt model. An absolute nightmare organisation that needs a complete overhaul, but any government that tried it would find the unions all over it and refusing to change. I reckon you could take 60-70% of the mangement out and no-one would notice (other than those remaining might be forced to work together in a more efficient manner) - just think how many front-line staff you could employ by re-distributing all that management money.....

    Rate the last film you saw partie deux

    in The Jim Smith Room

    Posted

    10 minutes ago, Wolfie said:

    Me too & I read that he really enjoys the role as well.

    He wasn't exactly a household name pre-Bond though, so I can understand why it could be a shock for some (uncultured philistines?)

    Folk need to watch Our Friends in the North - you'll see a whole new side to him - might even realise he's an actor that can do roles other than Bond.....

    Pele

    in Football Forum

    Posted

    36 minutes ago, The Last Post said:

    Wow...?

    https://news.sky.com/story/fifa-to-ask-every-country-to-name-a-stadium-in-honour-of-football-great-pele-gianni-infantino-says-12778523

    Much as I loved Pele, what an absolutely ridiculous idea. Most countries have one national stadium at most - which they’re unlikely to want to rename - forget Wembley, let’s call it the Pele Stadium - yeah right….

    As for other major stadiums, has the numpty not seen the way they’re named according to sponsorship arrangements? Can you imagine, for example, Arsenal renaming the Emirates as the Pele Stadium and throwing away many millions on sponsorship just to keep the prat in charge of FIFA happy?

    The bloke may not be as corrupt as Blatter, (thoughI i wouldn’t be surprised if some evidence of dodgy dealing feathering his own pocket appears at some part in the future) but he’s certainly in the same league as far as stupidity goes…..

    England the next tournament.

    in Football Forum

    Posted

    1 hour ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

    Why Shaw?

    Stones and Maguire have never let England down!

    You say that, yet I'd have hoped one of them (Maguire in particular) might have been able to get within a yard of France's main aerial threat for the 2nd French goal. Maguire had a far better tournament than I suspect even he was expecting, but the one moment when he really needed to do his job, he was miles off.

    Stones has certainly improved, but he still has a mistake in his game - he's over casual (or too keen to show how skillful he his) -

    As for Shaw, he's similar to Trent AA - his forward play is far better than his defending and there were times in a couple of games where he pushed forward but then strolled back. Winning tournaments means we can't carry passengers - Shaw may have not been fully fit (we weren't exactly overloaded with left-backs so who knows) but he looks lazy or unfit to me (as he has frequently for Man Ure).

    Southgate (or whoever) needs to be looking for improvement across the back line before the Euros...

    England the next tournament.

    in Football Forum

    Posted · Edited by Gaspode

    Not sure I'm fussed one way or the other - after yet another in a long line of failures, I just find following England's fortunes to be far too depressing. Even yesterday, with what could well be our best chance of getting through to the final, I knew in my bones that it would all go horribly wrong...

    If he stays - meh, if he goes - meh - my hopes have been dashed once too often to give a stuff....

    World Cup Qatar

    in Football Forum

    Posted

    4 minutes ago, BondJovi said:

    My only real criticism of last night were the safe subs. Don't really see what benefit there was to taking Saka off, certainly not for Sterling. 

    I agree on Maddison. Football seems to have a knack of creating heroes in these moments. It seemed set up for such a time. 

    Must admit that my heart sank when I saw Sterling coming on - he's had a crap season for Chelsea, the issues at home and had only just got off the plane back to Quatar - hardly the player to choose when you need someone with a bit of magic - and when he got out on the wing with a couple of minutes to go and then turned away from goal, he just looked completely lost...It's one of the reasons people want Southgate out - he's so risk averse when the pressures on - would rather bring on a player he knows and trusts than take a risk on a maverick like Madison.

    I can't criticise Southgate for the spirit he's instilled in this group of players, but they are so talented that there will always be the question of whether they could have done better with someone in charge with more nous of winning tournaments (or bigger balls). I've seen people saying how much better we are than 5 or 6 years ago - agree we are, but is that down to Southgate or is it a result of Greg Dykes' and the FA strategic plan that built St George's park, limited overseas players, and brought through the players who've already won age related competitions? I'm loath to praise the football authorities, but I do wonder if we'd have had at least as much success with a manager other than Southgate given the footballing riches he's been presented with....

    Gotta love Extinction Rebellion

    in The Jim Smith Room

    Posted

    I think the argument is that we're not (and won't be in the near future) in a position to replace the use of coal in steel manufacturing, so it's either open a new pit in an area that desperately needs the jobs or else continue to import at a higher price and with even more damage to the environment by bringing it in via big ships....

    Seems a daft decision at first sight, but possibly the only answer without shutting down the steel manufaturing plants (which we'd then need to replace with imported steel) and at the cost of many, many thousands of jobs....

     

×
×
  • Create New...