FactCheck reader comments: July 2008

Last Modified: 31 Jul 2008
By: Channel 4 News

It's the end of the parliamentary year, and time to delve into the FactCheck mailbag. Here is a selection of your views over the past few months.

To get in touch, email factcheck@channel4.com.

Downing Street on the doctors

"Just wanted to pick you up on your analysis on Alan Johnson and the GPs. I think you are misleading. You should add that:

1) Outside London, no SHA or PCT or the government have published any plans for the introduction of polyclinics of the type which you say will lead to closures (25GPs etc). This is hugely significant and neglected. The Tory figures depend on an assumption that they will, whilst there is no evidence of this.

2) The national plans for 150 GP-led health centres are clearly additional funding. Indeed, you can stay registered with your existing GP AND choose to see someone at a health centre on the weekend.

'A virtual clinic means that GPs stay in their practices but refer patients in certain situations to each other as specialists.'

This is not mentioned in the article and is the key reason why Alan Johnson can reasonably claim that as a result of the Government's national plans, GPs won't close. They are additional services, not in competition with GPs.

3) Even within London, where there are plans to streamline GPs into polyclinics, you neglect to mention that some of these polyclinics will be virtual (this is described in the original Darzi London report). This will be up to PCTs to decide.

But a virtual clinic means that GPs stay in their practices but refer patients in certain situations to each other as specialists. This is hugely significant because it would mean no closures even from the introduction of a polyclinic.

From these facts, you should be concluding that Alan is right to claim as a result of government plans, there will be no closures outside of London, and that PCTs are still to make decisions about changes in London, and therefore it is too early to put a figure on closures."

Greg Beales, Downing Street

- FactCheck: Alan Johnson and the GPs

CCTV cameras watched

"When deciding the population of "London" you need to be a bit more precise as to the 'London' you are referring to. Is it the old LCC or the old GLC area? Is it inclusive of Middlesex and parts of Surrey, Kent etc? Is it 'Greater London'?

NB Richmond-upon-Thames and Putney are very borderline as although Richmond is a London Borough - like Wandsworth etc, its postal address used to be Surrey. Both the streets in question appear in my Surrey Street Atlas.

'Although we all have a rough idea where London is, it is hard to tell where 'London' has its borders.

Market research, and even opinion poll firms, used to tend to rely on regions based on ITV franchises since so much of their routine bread and butter surveys are related to advertising campaigns based on TV commercials.

In short, although we all have a rough idea where London is, it is hard to tell where "London" has its borders. Consequently, I am not sure about your figure of seven million for London's population.

A second problem comes in assessing the total population of the UK - or is it England and Wales only? Are you relying on statistics from the national census?

If I remember correctly, the last full census was distinguished by the fact that quite a lot of people had 'disappeared' from the population, and follow-up surveys had to be undertaken to try to find out just which age-groups etc were under-represented, and why.

A third problem is the question of definition: in the past CCTV cameras were only installed by shops, banks, pubs etc and in other 'public' places (stations etc).

'It is impossible to pin down exactly how many CCTV cameras there may be out there as the 'camera population' is changing all the time.'

But nowadays more and more householders are installing their own CCTV cameras - not just for observing wildlife, like Bill Oddy and co. Anyone who has had problems re stalking, violent threats, or merely vandals damaging their cars outside their home is quite likely nowadays to set up a CCTV system.

It follows from this last point that a guesstimate can only be a very rough and ready estimate: it is impossible to pin down exactly how many CCTV cameras there may be out there as the 'camera population' is changing all the time.

And there are no longer any reliable ways of surveying the population - with the electoral register no longer being as reliable as it was 50 years ago, even a random sample survey - the gold standard as was - would not be accurate, especially with the added difficulty of surveying businesses and public bodies."

Charmian Skelton, Woking

- FactCheck: how many CCTV cameras?

Rubbish tax

"Of course the bin tax should go ahead. Why do the people who overstuff their bins expect someone else to pay for disposing of it?

'Why do the people who overstuff their bins expect someone else to pay for disposing of it?'

It is a clear abrogation of responsibility for their own actions and they should be made to pay.

A rebate for recycling or a lower tax for less rubbish generated combined with harsher penalties for those found dumping in other people's bins or fly-tipping would be a great help." Peter Hatswell

- FactCheck: a 'binned' tax?

Car tax

"To those who moan about the further graduation of emissions-based taxation, I have one question: didn't you notice that an emissions-based system was introduced in 2001?

'To those who moan I have one question: didn't you notice that an emissions-based system was introduced in 2001?'

It should have been obvious from the start that it would lead to higher taxation for higher-CO2 cars.

Also, it's not as if the government is bringing in pre-2001 cars into the further-graduated system - every affected vehicle already has a published official CO2 figure which affects its road tax liability."

Michael Thomas

- FactCheck: how much more car tax?