On the life expectancy thing, I actually agree with the point Nick was making – that the way poverty affects life chances even to the basic issue of its length, is a serious thing we should be concerned about. Nick has said enough things like that now to mean my earlier concerns that he didn’t know/care about poverty and equality issues have partly subsided. However, I think we need to be careful when using statistics, and in this case, to me he spoilt a good point by going on to make an unjustified conclusion. Sorry, the sort of training I have had and my professional work means I think of things like that.

On the charter and direct payment issues, these have to quite a large extent been the centre of Nick’s campaign. So it is important actually to question what they mean in practice. I don’t think they are wrong things, let alone things to get angry about. I am, however sceptical as to whether they represent quite such a radical change Nick and his close supporters wish.

And by all means ask what the life expectancy stats mean in detail – I wouldn’t mind knowing too. But don’t assume that they mean something nonsensical and then complain about it.

Life expectancy is not strictly a measurement, but an estimate. There are many techniques for this estimation from the simple to the incomprehensible. You have clearly decided that a poor method has been used and got angry about it. But why?

Are you perchance grasping for straws to attack Nick with?

A Charter of Rights tells you what your entitled to expect. So what? If you’re not getting it, then what? We have had a bonfire of targets which might impose penalties for not meeting entitlements, haven’t we?

As for life expectancy, is it really that hard to see if “average age of death in location A is X, and average age of death in location B is X+14″, that does NOT mean a child born in location A will live 14 years longer than a child born in location B?

Consider if B is a place where everyone moves away by the age of 60, while A is a place where people only move to if they are aged over 60. As a consequence, the only people who ever die while living in B are people who die under 60, the only people who ever die while living in A is people who do over 60. If that is how “life expectancy is measured” (and I understand it is), then it does actually mean what one might expect it does, does it?

I’d like a leader who is numerate enough to realise this.

Yes, the stats involved in life expectancy calculations is rocket science. And your point is? What unjustified conclusion are you talking about?

What is the difference between say maximum waiting time imposed by a central target and maximum waiting time imposed by a charter of health rights? Is it that in the latter you have to call in a lawyer to get your rights?

The InCare idea sounds good, and may be appropriate for some. But how many people requiring care are going to be in the position to take on the detailed management this requires – given that many of them will be frail in both mind and body? I rather think most people just want the right care to be provided with the minimum fuss without having to go through a whole lot of “choose your own options” paperwork.

Life expectancy – this is hyperbole, how can any of us know how long a child born today will live? While there certainly is a link between life expectancy and poverty, I think we need to investigate a little more what these figures actually mean. If life expectancy really means “average age of death of all people currently dying in that locality”, the conclusion drawn here isn’t actually justified.

http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com

But am I right in thinking there’s no actual policy here? Apart from scrapping targets and returning more control to doctors and nurses (well duh!), what does this return of control to the people actually consist of? I will admit I am not a Lib Dem supporter, but I do like the tone of what Clegg is saying, but there isn’t even the vaguest mustard seed of a policy here is there?