The greasy little fucker has that box ticked at least.
Fucking X-Type. LOL.
Good grief, that photo illustrates much that is wrong with politics today. So fake. Not Michael Green fake, but fake nonetheless. The fact it needs to exist at all is a problem. Someone thought it was a good idea. The fact it is executed so badly just makes it worse.
Nobody ever does a big grin whilst changing wheels. Especially not onto a space saver.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
Sunak is telling the country he doesn't rate the NHS which is why he's gone private.
He has publicly insulted the NHS, his execution is being scheduled.
Neither do I.
Nevertheless, I do think @Gallowgate has a point when he says Sunak's problem isn't necessarily his wealth but how he wears it.
He doesn't good possess good PR instincts.
It is the green card all over again.
He should have had the nous on getting ahead of it all with a decency media strategy.
In Sunak's defence being so wealthy during a recession/cost of living crisis was always going to present challenges.
He should, but David Cameron managed to avoid this - he'd never have stepped onto a private jet to Leeds. Osborne may have done the same. Boris probably would bluster/joke his way of whatever did he.
I think things like this matter much more than the soup kitchen conversation, which I still think was a lot of fuss about nothing; it makes him look like Davos man.
I think Rishi Sunak was really unfairly attacked for the soup kitchen conversation. A lot of politicians are completely out of touch and don't understand the general public.
Sunak showed uncharacteristic for a politician self-awareness in thinking that after his being in Downing Street for three years that even people with businesses might need a soup kitchen to have a meal at Christmas.
Don't be daft. It was a photo-op that went wrong. It was designed to create an image of a fluffy caring Rishi, but instead reenforced the perception that he is specularly out of touch. The problem for Rishi is that this is not a one off.
Don't be daft? Perhaps you should try reading the post again.
An important new psychology study from UCL: In this experiment, we manipulated what men believed about their own penis size, relative to others. We gave them false information, stating that the average penis size was larger than it in fact is, reasoning that, on average, these males will feel that relatively and subjectively their own penis was smaller; compared to those told that the average penis size was smaller than true average. We then asked them to rate how much they would like to own a sports car. These facts and questions were buried amongst other items giving information and asking for product ratings, so that our hypothesis was masked from participants. We found that males, and males over 30 in particular, rated sports cars as more desirable when they were made to feel that they had a small penis. https://psyarxiv.com/uy7ph/download
(Perceived) small penis? Replication crisis?
(Also a prime candidate for an Ig Noble prize)
It was interesting that the penis (mis)information was only one of several manipulations that potentially affected self-esteem, and sports cars were only one category of consumer goods evaluated.
They imply that they had in mind penises and sports cars all along, and the other stuff was all camouflage to prevent the participants realising that. But I can't see anything about the study having been pre-registered. Obviously a study with plentiful opportunities for multiple hypotheses should have been. Experimental psychology has a long way to go.
It reads like a research project for a final-year psychology student. I once did one called Menarche in the UK, mainly so I could use the title which is the only part I remember.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
So you would outlaw private healthcare (including dentistry) and private schools?
No, because unlike a lot of people I dont instinctively seek to ban things that I think are wrong. But I'm certainly going to think twice before I vote for someone who does things that I think are wrong, as I'm sure you do too.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
Sunak is telling the country he doesn't rate the NHS which is why he's gone private.
He has publicly insulted the NHS, his execution is being scheduled.
Neither do I.
Nevertheless, I do think @Gallowgate has a point when he says Sunak's problem isn't necessarily his wealth but how he wears it.
He doesn't good possess good PR instincts.
It is the green card all over again.
He should have had the nous on getting ahead of it all with a decency media strategy.
In Sunak's defence being so wealthy during a recession/cost of living crisis was always going to present challenges.
He should, but David Cameron managed to avoid this - he'd never have stepped onto a private jet to Leeds. Osborne may have done the same. Boris probably would bluster/joke his way of whatever did he.
I think things like this matter much more than the soup kitchen conversation, which I still think was a lot of fuss about nothing; it makes him look like Davos man.
I think Rishi Sunak was really unfairly attacked for the soup kitchen conversation. A lot of politicians are completely out of touch and don't understand the general public.
Sunak showed uncharacteristic for a politician self-awareness in thinking that after his being in Downing Street for three years that even people with businesses might need a soup kitchen to have a meal at Christmas.
Don't be daft. It was a photo-op that went wrong. It was designed to create an image of a fluffy caring Rishi, but instead reenforced the perception that he is specularly out of touch. The problem for Rishi is that this is not a one off.
Don't be daft? Perhaps you should try reading the post again.
It might be offensive but it looks increasingly clear there are at least some serious questions over the potential side-effects of vaccines. It is also increasingly clear that there has been some official discouragement of asking those questions.
There is a one man campaign (Asseem Malhotra) who is driving a lot of this with fake statistics. No doubt there were some harmed by the vaccines but covid did far worse.
It would be good though for the independent research to be done. The problem with the best lies is that they have an element of truth.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
That's really naïve. One of the shittest things about politics is that there are so many situations where *any* answer gets undeserved criticism. If he says he does not use them and he does, then he is lying - and it may well come out in the future. If he says 'yes', then his opponents would not look beyond that one word, and the headlines are made. "Sunak hates the NHS".
I also don't really see a difference between 'personal matter" not "private matter". What is it?
And as an aside, journalists asking such questions should also state whether they do.
Agree, there is no good answer here. It's actually not *that* easy a question to answer... what counts as private healthcare?
When I chipped my tooth and paid extra to have it fixed and be the same colour... is that going private?
"are you registered with a private GP?" isn't a difficult question to answer, surely.
True. Private healthcare more generally is trickier.
It might be offensive but it looks increasingly clear there are at least some serious questions over the potential side-effects of vaccines. It is also increasingly clear that there has been some official discouragement of asking those questions.
Who is 'officially discouraging' genuine questions ? Bridgen is peddling lies, not asking questions.
The greasy little fucker has that box ticked at least.
Fucking X-Type. LOL.
Good grief, that photo illustrates much that is wrong with politics today. So fake. Not Michael Green fake, but fake nonetheless. The fact it needs to exist at all is a problem. Someone thought it was a good idea. The fact it is executed so badly just makes it worse.
Nobody ever does a big grin whilst changing wheels. Especially not onto a space saver.
Maybe he's taking the space saver off and replacing it with his newly-fixed phat-tyred alloy? Do doubt a moment of joy for a Dura Ace level car enthusiast like Sunak, that
It is interesting how Rishi Sunak has somewhat failed to launch his premiership. He inherited a sticky situation, which limited his options, but I am surprised he has done as poorly as he has.
I find it hard to put my finger on exactly why. His slick charisma seems to be working against him. You get the impression that there really isn't much there behind the presentation. He appears to want to be loved just a little too much.
It is interesting how Rishi Sunak has somewhat failed to launch his premiership. He inherited a sticky situation, which limited his options, but I am surprised he has done as poorly as he has.
I find it hard to put my finger on exactly why. His slick charisma seems to be working against him. You get the impression that there really isn't much there behind the presentation. He appears to want to be loved just a little too much.
Odd.
It's not his fault, it's just that the public has by and large decided that it's had enough of the Tories now. It's like you've gone to a restaurant and the starter and main course were inedible, and now the waiter has turned up with a perfectly adequate dessert. You're not going to suddenly decide that actually the restaurant is great and deserves a second visit.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
The opposite for me. If rich people are spending their money on getting their children a top education that benefits the country more than spending it on another expensive car, a holiday abroad or an even bigger house. Ensuring you keep in good health with private healthcare also reduces pressure on the NHS.
We should be encouraging more to take out private healthcare and private education with tax breaks and expanding free schools to offer more choice in state education too.
Plus of course those who use private education and health pay taxes to fund state education and healthcare anyway
An important new psychology study from UCL: In this experiment, we manipulated what men believed about their own penis size, relative to others. We gave them false information, stating that the average penis size was larger than it in fact is, reasoning that, on average, these males will feel that relatively and subjectively their own penis was smaller; compared to those told that the average penis size was smaller than true average. We then asked them to rate how much they would like to own a sports car. These facts and questions were buried amongst other items giving information and asking for product ratings, so that our hypothesis was masked from participants. We found that males, and males over 30 in particular, rated sports cars as more desirable when they were made to feel that they had a small penis. https://psyarxiv.com/uy7ph/download
(Perceived) small penis? Replication crisis?
(Also a prime candidate for an Ig Noble prize)
It was interesting that the penis (mis)information was only one of several manipulations that potentially affected self-esteem, and sports cars were only one category of consumer goods evaluated.
They imply that they had in mind penises and sports cars all along, and the other stuff was all camouflage to prevent the participants realising that. But I can't see anything about the study having been pre-registered. Obviously a study with plentiful opportunities for multiple hypotheses should have been. Experimental psychology has a long way to go.
All true.
I was trying to go for the small (however defined) penis leading to problems with reproduction angle (which is, presumably, completely false) while riffing on the replication crisis in these kinds of studies. I'm wasted on you lot; you don't get my hard to follow obscure unfunny jokes
There's still not a great deal of pre-registration of studies, outside clinical trials and systematic reviews (PROSPERO - and that far from universal). Some journals will publish protocols, but it's not that common. I do agree pre-registration would serve a good purpose, particularly for some junk papers I'm going through at the moment for a systematci review where p-value fishing looks very much to be a thing.
That the PM and other senior ministers go private isn't news. We need them working 24/7 which means access to immediate healthcare which means paying for it.
It is only a "scandal" because his government has provoked a strike with nurses and has MPs now blaming the nurses for the strikes. I would suggest though that Sunak has a much wider issue which was highlighted by his idiot flight from London to Dirty Leeds.
We are in the midst of a winter of discontent where the industrial action is increasing not decreasing in England. Not only is the government refusing to face into the myriad issues in schools, hospitals, trains, border points, courts etc etc, it thinks that it should double down and solve the problem by outlawing the strikes.
Flying to Leeds - which by the time you get to and from the airport is slower than the train - tells everyone that he knows the service is unusable. On a non-strike day. On an operator that isn't beset with the DfT meddling that has ruined the likes of Avanti. So it isn't "why is the PM evading a question about a private doctor". Its "why are the elite breaking public services for all of us then rubbing our faces in it by avoiding the mess we have to put up with."
I would very much dispute the idea that the ECML service is unusable. It is a very good service. I think the problem with Sunak in both these instances is more fundamental. Basically he wouldn't be seen dead using public transport or the NHS. It is a problem of mindset, not practicality.
I don't think it's so much "wouldn't be seen dead", that suggests "has thought about it and rejected it". I think it's more that he has come to assume the plane/private healthcare is the default option.
As for travel, I need to go with "Minnie" from the south coast to London and Edinburgh and then back over the next week. For the two long legs of that I didn't even consider the train - flying would be quicker, driving would be more convenient and, I expect, cheaper.
I do the trip from the Lincolnshire to Aberdeen regularly. Train is by far the most convenient, flying by far the least. The last couple of years I have driven because I need to be able to drive between offices and sites up in Aberdeenshire. But any time I don't have to do that it is the train every time. Driving to Aberdeen these days is a fecking nightmare. It can, in ideal conditions, be a 7 hour journey. It has not been less than 10 hours on any trip in the last year.
That makes sense from Lincolnshire, if you were flying you'd probably have to go from Birmingham? From what I recall once you go north of Edinburgh the train starts to win over driving because the roads aren't as good. We could fly back to Southampton (and we'd pass there in the car or on the train) so it's more plausible.
Google Maps says between 6:20 and 8 hours for London to Edinburgh and 7:50 to 10:20 from Edinburgh to home. We'll see!
Apparently the Russians claim to have hit a large Ukrainian ammo store. Have a look at the video and see if you think it is ammunition or something else.
It might be offensive but it looks increasingly clear there are at least some serious questions over the potential side-effects of vaccines. It is also increasingly clear that there has been some official discouragement of asking those questions.
There is a one man campaign (Asseem Malhotra) who is driving a lot of this with fake statistics. No doubt there were some harmed by the vaccines but covid did far worse.
It would be good though for the independent research to be done. The problem with the best lies is that they have an element of truth.
The Atlantic did a good lay review of this. It is covid not vaccines that is causing heart problems:
It might be offensive but it looks increasingly clear there are at least some serious questions over the potential side-effects of vaccines. It is also increasingly clear that there has been some official discouragement of asking those questions.
There is a one man campaign (Asseem Malhotra) who is driving a lot of this with fake statistics. No doubt there were some harmed by the vaccines but covid did far worse.
It would be good though for the independent research to be done. The problem with the best lies is that they have an element of truth.
What do you want done that it not being done ? There are numerous studies in numerous countries looking at the long term safety and effectiveness of vaccines, and that will continue to be the case for the foreseeable future.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
Sunak is telling the country he doesn't rate the NHS which is why he's gone private.
He has publicly insulted the NHS, his execution is being scheduled.
Neither do I.
Nevertheless, I do think @Gallowgate has a point when he says Sunak's problem isn't necessarily his wealth but how he wears it.
He doesn't good possess good PR instincts.
It is the green card all over again.
He should have had the nous on getting ahead of it all with a decency media strategy.
In Sunak's defence being so wealthy during a recession/cost of living crisis was always going to present challenges.
He should, but David Cameron managed to avoid this - he'd never have stepped onto a private jet to Leeds. Osborne may have done the same. Boris probably would bluster/joke his way of whatever did he.
I think things like this matter much more than the soup kitchen conversation, which I still think was a lot of fuss about nothing; it makes him look like Davos man.
I think Rishi Sunak was really unfairly attacked for the soup kitchen conversation. A lot of politicians are completely out of touch and don't understand the general public.
Sunak showed uncharacteristic for a politician self-awareness in thinking that after his being in Downing Street for three years that even people with businesses might need a soup kitchen to have a meal at Christmas.
Don't be daft. It was a photo-op that went wrong. It was designed to create an image of a fluffy caring Rishi, but instead reenforced the perception that he is specularly out of touch. The problem for Rishi is that this is not a one off.
Don't be daft? Perhaps you should try reading the post again.
Tsk tsk. Need to label your axes, Mr Roberts. Did you learn nothing at pirate school?
Wow, who could possibly have imagined a supermarket having record sales in a year with 16% food inflation?
Off the back of that clearly we are in a massive recovery, so off to lay Labour at the next GE.
Nerys is too dumb to bother looking at the actual story. JS own Q3 statement includes this horror show:
Volume down across the whole grocery market, with only the German value retailers bucking this trend. Is that sign of a not struggling economy? No. Because...
Look at the right hand chart. Punters are trading down across the board. That means as well as buying less volume they are buying less expensive products, which does horrible things to retailer products mix.
A drop in volume, and what volume there is increasingly in the low margin value ranges is very very bad for the supermarkets. As in here come the waves of store closures bad. "Ah but value sales are up" I hear Nerys saying in an alternate reality where they understood the industry. Value up, driven by cost price rises. Not sustainable as long as people keep making the "step to the left" downgrading product tiers towards the unsustainable...
It is interesting how Rishi Sunak has somewhat failed to launch his premiership. He inherited a sticky situation, which limited his options, but I am surprised he has done as poorly as he has.
I find it hard to put my finger on exactly why. His slick charisma seems to be working against him. You get the impression that there really isn't much there behind the presentation. He appears to want to be loved just a little too much.
Odd.
It's not his fault, it's just that the public has by and large decided that it's had enough of the Tories now. It's like you've gone to a restaurant and the starter and main course were inedible, and now the waiter has turned up with a perfectly adequate dessert. You're not going to suddenly decide that actually the restaurant is great and deserves a second visit.
A good analogy, I think.
Sunak is in the place where anything he does is wrong. That’s politics.
The most recent previous version of this was Gordon Brown, towards the end.
That the PM and other senior ministers go private isn't news. We need them working 24/7 which means access to immediate healthcare which means paying for it.
It is only a "scandal" because his government has provoked a strike with nurses and has MPs now blaming the nurses for the strikes. I would suggest though that Sunak has a much wider issue which was highlighted by his idiot flight from London to Dirty Leeds.
We are in the midst of a winter of discontent where the industrial action is increasing not decreasing in England. Not only is the government refusing to face into the myriad issues in schools, hospitals, trains, border points, courts etc etc, it thinks that it should double down and solve the problem by outlawing the strikes.
Flying to Leeds - which by the time you get to and from the airport is slower than the train - tells everyone that he knows the service is unusable. On a non-strike day. On an operator that isn't beset with the DfT meddling that has ruined the likes of Avanti. So it isn't "why is the PM evading a question about a private doctor". Its "why are the elite breaking public services for all of us then rubbing our faces in it by avoiding the mess we have to put up with."
I would very much dispute the idea that the ECML service is unusable. It is a very good service. I think the problem with Sunak in both these instances is more fundamental. Basically he wouldn't be seen dead using public transport or the NHS. It is a problem of mindset, not practicality.
I don't think it's so much "wouldn't be seen dead", that suggests "has thought about it and rejected it". I think it's more that he has come to assume the plane/private healthcare is the default option.
As for travel, I need to go with "Minnie" from the south coast to London and Edinburgh and then back over the next week. For the two long legs of that I didn't even consider the train - flying would be quicker, driving would be more convenient and, I expect, cheaper.
I do the trip from the Lincolnshire to Aberdeen regularly. Train is by far the most convenient, flying by far the least. The last couple of years I have driven because I need to be able to drive between offices and sites up in Aberdeenshire. But any time I don't have to do that it is the train every time. Driving to Aberdeen these days is a fecking nightmare. It can, in ideal conditions, be a 7 hour journey. It has not been less than 10 hours on any trip in the last year.
Rail infrastructure on the east coast is better than the west and vice versa with the roads. Bit of a puzzler.
It might be offensive but it looks increasingly clear there are at least some serious questions over the potential side-effects of vaccines. It is also increasingly clear that there has been some official discouragement of asking those questions.
There is a one man campaign (Asseem Malhotra) who is driving a lot of this with fake statistics. No doubt there were some harmed by the vaccines but covid did far worse.
It would be good though for the independent research to be done. The problem with the best lies is that they have an element of truth.
What do you want done that it not being done ? There are numerous studies in numerous countries looking at the long term safety and effectiveness of vaccines, and that will continue to be the case for the foreseeable future.
Also worth noting that wiht VAERS (if it's anything like the system here) these are reports - i.e. people who experienced said event after having the vaccine. May or may not be linked to the vaccine. You need to do comparative studies with unvaccinated controls (as have indeed been done) to draw any conclusions about risk.
The all cause mortality rate after having the flu vaccine is, I should think, substantially above all cause mortality for those not having the flu vaccine. Simply because the flu vaccine is generally offered to those older/with other health conditions.
It is interesting how Rishi Sunak has somewhat failed to launch his premiership. He inherited a sticky situation, which limited his options, but I am surprised he has done as poorly as he has.
I find it hard to put my finger on exactly why. His slick charisma seems to be working against him. You get the impression that there really isn't much there behind the presentation. He appears to want to be loved just a little too much.
Odd.
It's not his fault, it's just that the public has by and large decided that it's had enough of the Tories now. It's like you've gone to a restaurant and the starter and main course were inedible, and now the waiter has turned up with a perfectly adequate dessert. You're not going to suddenly decide that actually the restaurant is great and deserves a second visit.
It's true that the Tories have spent all their political capital and are overdrawn. As such there is little you can do. It takes about ten years to build it up again to be taken seriously.
However, I still am surprised by how Sunak has underperformed. He lacks the grit of a politician trained in opposition. A technocrat. He seems aware of the problem, hence all these silly photo-ops that only go to emphasis and amplify the problem. He would be better advised to lean into the persona. It is better to have begrudging respect than derision.
Wow, who could possibly have imagined a supermarket having record sales in a year with 16% food inflation?
Off the back of that clearly we are in a massive recovery, so off to lay Labour at the next GE.
Nerys is too dumb to bother looking at the actual story. JS own Q3 statement includes this horror show:
Volume down across the whole grocery market, with only the German value retailers bucking this trend. Is that sign of a not struggling economy? No. Because...
Look at the right hand chart. Punters are trading down across the board. That means as well as buying less volume they are buying less expensive products, which does horrible things to retailer products mix.
A drop in volume, and what volume there is increasingly in the low margin value ranges is very very bad for the supermarkets. As in here come the waves of store closures bad. "Ah but value sales are up" I hear Nerys saying in an alternate reality where they understood the industry. Value up, driven by cost price rises. Not sustainable as long as people keep making the "step to the left" downgrading product tiers towards the unsustainable...
Last time I went into Sainsburys I was amazed at how expensive it was. Seemingly not far off Waitrose prices. Become quite used to shopping at Aldi and so the prices for some items was shocking. I had popped in because I needed a very precise ingredient that Aldi didn't have and, as it turned out, this very large Sainsburys didn't have either (Waitrose did).
I'd see a difference between using the NHS and occasionally going private for something specific - eg getting a knee op quickly rather than waiting ages - and opting out completely, using your wealth to buy private medical care for anything and everything, thus insulating yourself and your family from this key public service that most people rely on and which for better or worse dominates domestic politics. The latter case - if that's what we're talking about with Sunak - is not great for the person at the head of government. No biggie, doesn't mean he's unfit to be PM, but it's not great imo. Poor optics, obviously, but also a bit more than that. Someone who never uses the NHS is hampered in empathy for those who do.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
How on earth do you think you would implement that?
Even if you outlawed them in this country, would you try to stop people from travelling abroad for medical treatment, or sending their children to private schools in other countries? Would you override devolution and enforce your policy across the whole UK?
That the PM and other senior ministers go private isn't news. We need them working 24/7 which means access to immediate healthcare which means paying for it.
It is only a "scandal" because his government has provoked a strike with nurses and has MPs now blaming the nurses for the strikes. I would suggest though that Sunak has a much wider issue which was highlighted by his idiot flight from London to Dirty Leeds.
We are in the midst of a winter of discontent where the industrial action is increasing not decreasing in England. Not only is the government refusing to face into the myriad issues in schools, hospitals, trains, border points, courts etc etc, it thinks that it should double down and solve the problem by outlawing the strikes.
Flying to Leeds - which by the time you get to and from the airport is slower than the train - tells everyone that he knows the service is unusable. On a non-strike day. On an operator that isn't beset with the DfT meddling that has ruined the likes of Avanti. So it isn't "why is the PM evading a question about a private doctor". Its "why are the elite breaking public services for all of us then rubbing our faces in it by avoiding the mess we have to put up with."
I would very much dispute the idea that the ECML service is unusable. It is a very good service. I think the problem with Sunak in both these instances is more fundamental. Basically he wouldn't be seen dead using public transport or the NHS. It is a problem of mindset, not practicality.
I don't think it's so much "wouldn't be seen dead", that suggests "has thought about it and rejected it". I think it's more that he has come to assume the plane/private healthcare is the default option.
As for travel, I need to go with "Minnie" from the south coast to London and Edinburgh and then back over the next week. For the two long legs of that I didn't even consider the train - flying would be quicker, driving would be more convenient and, I expect, cheaper.
I do the trip from the Lincolnshire to Aberdeen regularly. Train is by far the most convenient, flying by far the least. The last couple of years I have driven because I need to be able to drive between offices and sites up in Aberdeenshire. But any time I don't have to do that it is the train every time. Driving to Aberdeen these days is a fecking nightmare. It can, in ideal conditions, be a 7 hour journey. It has not been less than 10 hours on any trip in the last year.
Rail infrastructure on the east coast is better than the west and vice versa with the roads. Bit of a puzzler.
M5 M6 are never problem free these days. Weirdly the M5 seems to have bridge jumper issues specific to it.
That the PM and other senior ministers go private isn't news. We need them working 24/7 which means access to immediate healthcare which means paying for it.
It is only a "scandal" because his government has provoked a strike with nurses and has MPs now blaming the nurses for the strikes. I would suggest though that Sunak has a much wider issue which was highlighted by his idiot flight from London to Dirty Leeds.
We are in the midst of a winter of discontent where the industrial action is increasing not decreasing in England. Not only is the government refusing to face into the myriad issues in schools, hospitals, trains, border points, courts etc etc, it thinks that it should double down and solve the problem by outlawing the strikes.
Flying to Leeds - which by the time you get to and from the airport is slower than the train - tells everyone that he knows the service is unusable. On a non-strike day. On an operator that isn't beset with the DfT meddling that has ruined the likes of Avanti. So it isn't "why is the PM evading a question about a private doctor". Its "why are the elite breaking public services for all of us then rubbing our faces in it by avoiding the mess we have to put up with."
I would very much dispute the idea that the ECML service is unusable. It is a very good service. I think the problem with Sunak in both these instances is more fundamental. Basically he wouldn't be seen dead using public transport or the NHS. It is a problem of mindset, not practicality.
I don't think it's so much "wouldn't be seen dead", that suggests "has thought about it and rejected it". I think it's more that he has come to assume the plane/private healthcare is the default option.
As for travel, I need to go with "Minnie" from the south coast to London and Edinburgh and then back over the next week. For the two long legs of that I didn't even consider the train - flying would be quicker, driving would be more convenient and, I expect, cheaper.
I do the trip from the Lincolnshire to Aberdeen regularly. Train is by far the most convenient, flying by far the least. The last couple of years I have driven because I need to be able to drive between offices and sites up in Aberdeenshire. But any time I don't have to do that it is the train every time. Driving to Aberdeen these days is a fecking nightmare. It can, in ideal conditions, be a 7 hour journey. It has not been less than 10 hours on any trip in the last year.
Rail infrastructure on the east coast is better than the west and vice versa with the roads. Bit of a puzzler.
Historically, the west coast main line has had the advantage and disadvantage of serving many large cities on its way north. This meant a lot of demand, which was good, but also radically divergent service types. Whereas the east coast line serves few 'large' places - perhaps only Leeds and the Newcastle / the NE conurbation - meaning that it s services are much simpler (aside from south of Peterborough or Stevenage, where it gets more complex).
Running the west coast route south of Manchester must be a bit of a nightmare, especially with timetabling. It could really do with a new route to take much of the pressure off it...
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
How on earth do you think you would implement that?
Even if you outlawed them in this country, would you try to stop people from travelling abroad for medical treatment, or sending their children to private schools in other countries? Would you override devolution and enforce your policy across the whole UK?
Under Blair, there was an EU court ruling that patients who had to wait X amount of time for an op had the right to travel to another EU country, get the op/treatment and get it paid for on the NHS.
The government moved a my blinding speed to stop this. Firstly because it ended the system of healthcare rationing.
Secondly, many of the medical facilities being used for this in the EU were, of course, private. Under EU rules for the market, what you can do in one part of the EU, you can do in all. They were one court ruling away from patients in the NHS backlog being able to go private in the U.K. and charge the NHS for it…. Which is NHS privatisation….
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
How on earth do you think you would implement that?
Even if you outlawed them in this country, would you try to stop people from travelling abroad for medical treatment, or sending their children to private schools in other countries? Would you override devolution and enforce your policy across the whole UK?
Not sure how you jumped from not trusting such politicians to trying to outlaw it? Bizarre strawman even by your standards.
If enough people feel like OnlyLivingBoy then those politicians will get voted out.
The greasy little fucker has that box ticked at least.
Fucking X-Type. LOL.
Good grief, that photo illustrates much that is wrong with politics today. So fake. Not Michael Green fake, but fake nonetheless. The fact it needs to exist at all is a problem. Someone thought it was a good idea. The fact it is executed so badly just makes it worse.
One of the problems with having your own PR company is that they feel they have to be doing something. So while good sense says he should be getting on with his job they judge their own performance on how much free editorial publicity they are getting him.
Though why they didn't question whether a PM cheerily changing a tyre at a time of crisis is time well spent is a mystery.
It might be offensive but it looks increasingly clear there are at least some serious questions over the potential side-effects of vaccines. It is also increasingly clear that there has been some official discouragement of asking those questions.
There is a one man campaign (Asseem Malhotra) who is driving a lot of this with fake statistics. No doubt there were some harmed by the vaccines but covid did far worse.
It would be good though for the independent research to be done. The problem with the best lies is that they have an element of truth.
What do you want done that it not being done ? There are numerous studies in numerous countries looking at the long term safety and effectiveness of vaccines, and that will continue to be the case for the foreseeable future.
Also worth noting that wiht VAERS (if it's anything like the system here) these are reports - i.e. people who experienced said event after having the vaccine. May or may not be linked to the vaccine. You need to do comparative studies with unvaccinated controls (as have indeed been done) to draw any conclusions about risk.
The all cause mortality rate after having the flu vaccine is, I should think, substantially above all cause mortality for those not having the flu vaccine. Simply because the flu vaccine is generally offered to those older/with other health conditions.
Yes, such research is complicated, and parsing out small effects takes a lot of time and effort.
But if there were significant numbers of vaccine related deaths from myocarditis, they would show up much more quickly.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
How on earth do you think you would implement that?
Even if you outlawed them in this country, would you try to stop people from travelling abroad for medical treatment, or sending their children to private schools in other countries? Would you override devolution and enforce your policy across the whole UK?
Not sure how you jumped from not trusting such politicians to trying to outlaw it? Bizarre strawman even by your standards.
If enough people feel like OnlyLivingBoy then those politicians will get voted out.
If Rishi Sunak were to play the Yorkshire card, Angela Rayner could say look here, chuck, I come from Lancashire and I don't go private, so don't go giving us all that stuff because it won't wash, love.
Keir Starmer, though, will rise to his feet and..........oh dear sorry, I fell asleep. He'll say some kind of lawyer sh*t.
Why doesn't Sunak tell the truth and say
* the NHS is an inferior service which is why everyone who can afford to go private (and isn't too mean) does, and
* although he knows the entire GP system is a crock of sh*t his insurer insists he gets a GP's signature before they greenlight many types of specialist treatment, and
* he'd rather see a private GP than an NHS one because a) the private GP probably knows the difference between an a*sehole and an elbow and doesn't spend 90% of his professional time telling lies and prescribing noddy pills, and b) he can actually get to see the private one.
I don't like the Tories or billionaires either, but one thing I DON'T blame Sunak for is having a private GP.
It is interesting how Rishi Sunak has somewhat failed to launch his premiership. He inherited a sticky situation, which limited his options, but I am surprised he has done as poorly as he has.
I find it hard to put my finger on exactly why. His slick charisma seems to be working against him. You get the impression that there really isn't much there behind the presentation. He appears to want to be loved just a little too much.
Odd.
It's because his paint-by-numbers guide to politics doesn't tell him what to do when there are genuinely difficult decisions to make that he has to win public support for.
He has no political awareness. No feel for public opinion, or how to influence it. He's like a very poor political chatbot from a few years ago that is going through the motions of political clichés.
They called Cameron an essay-crisis Prime Minister, presumably because he would allow situations to develop badly before paying attention and sorting them out. But he at least had some sense of how to do politics, of how to convince people, which messages would work, etc, until he came unstuck over the EU.
Sunak is like a last-minute exam crammer. He's trying to do politics by working off a cheat sheet. I can pretty much see what's written on it. "Pre-election tax cuts", "Normal guy photo opportunities", "Winter of Discontent", etc. It's all so obviously superficial.
I'd see a difference between using the NHS and occasionally going private for something specific - eg getting a knee op quickly rather than waiting ages - and opting out completely, using your wealth to buy private medical care for anything and everything, thus insulating yourself and your family from this key public service that most people rely on and which for better or worse dominates domestic politics. The latter case - if that's what we're talking about with Sunak - is not great for the person at the head of government. No biggie, doesn't mean he's unfit to be PM, but it's not great imo. Poor optics, obviously, but also a bit more than that. Someone who never uses the NHS is hampered in empathy for those who do.
A British Prime Minister not using the NHS seems to be the equivalent to a US President not professing a belief in God. It goes against our religion of one nation under the NHS.
It is interesting how Rishi Sunak has somewhat failed to launch his premiership. He inherited a sticky situation, which limited his options, but I am surprised he has done as poorly as he has.
I find it hard to put my finger on exactly why. His slick charisma seems to be working against him. You get the impression that there really isn't much there behind the presentation. He appears to want to be loved just a little too much.
Odd.
It's not his fault, it's just that the public has by and large decided that it's had enough of the Tories now. It's like you've gone to a restaurant and the starter and main course were inedible, and now the waiter has turned up with a perfectly adequate dessert. You're not going to suddenly decide that actually the restaurant is great and deserves a second visit.
A good analogy, I think.
Sunak is in the place where anything he does is wrong. That’s politics.
The most recent previous version of this was Gordon Brown, towards the end.
Though even Gordon Brown got a hung parliament at the 2010 general election even if Cameron still became PM
Wow, who could possibly have imagined a supermarket having record sales in a year with 16% food inflation?
Off the back of that clearly we are in a massive recovery, so off to lay Labour at the next GE.
Nerys is too dumb to bother looking at the actual story. JS own Q3 statement includes this horror show:
Volume down across the whole grocery market, with only the German value retailers bucking this trend. Is that sign of a not struggling economy? No. Because...
Look at the right hand chart. Punters are trading down across the board. That means as well as buying less volume they are buying less expensive products, which does horrible things to retailer products mix.
A drop in volume, and what volume there is increasingly in the low margin value ranges is very very bad for the supermarkets. As in here come the waves of store closures bad. "Ah but value sales are up" I hear Nerys saying in an alternate reality where they understood the industry. Value up, driven by cost price rises. Not sustainable as long as people keep making the "step to the left" downgrading product tiers towards the unsustainable...
Last time I went into Sainsburys I was amazed at how expensive it was. Seemingly not far off Waitrose prices. Become quite used to shopping at Aldi and so the prices for some items was shocking. I had popped in because I needed a very precise ingredient that Aldi didn't have and, as it turned out, this very large Sainsburys didn't have either (Waitrose did).
They're all really expensive compared to last year. the headline 16% rise in grocery prices masks the huge rises in some staples like milk and bread and meat. Price inflation continues to run amok, with another flurry of cross the board price rises already landing on buyer desks.
Watch Morrisons. They won't survive the year in their current form. Losing too much ground, bleeding money, PE owned with borrowed money. Asda not much better with the same issues. A merger of the two an unthinkable but what are the alternatives possibility.
There is too much retail space. Has been for most of the last decade and we're heading towards the crunch point. First we had town and even city centre shops close in large numbers. Then it was the big malls going pop. Next up a lot of supermarkets closing. If nothing else can you imagine how much power an average supermarket burns with florescent strip lighting and aisles of open fridges?
I'd see a difference between using the NHS and occasionally going private for something specific - eg getting a knee op quickly rather than waiting ages - and opting out completely, using your wealth to buy private medical care for anything and everything, thus insulating yourself and your family from this key public service that most people rely on and which for better or worse dominates domestic politics. The latter case - if that's what we're talking about with Sunak - is not great for the person at the head of government. No biggie, doesn't mean he's unfit to be PM, but it's not great imo. Poor optics, obviously, but also a bit more than that. Someone who never uses the NHS is hampered in empathy for those who do.
Of course youth as much as wealth insulates him from the NHS and medicine generally
Peripherally my new hero is US doctor Zeke Emmanuel who proposes to decline any medical intervention at all after age 75. Quite right.
Ah, I see we're in for another day of anti-trans hate. Situation normal.
I’m surprised you, of all people, are illustrating the point. It’s not just women’s rights Trans activists are harming. They are hurting trans peoples rights too by their “no debate” and sometimes violent shutting down of any attempt to discuss it.
I'm not illustrating your point - at least, as I read your point. Do you really think 'trans activists' have caused the deluge of anti-trans stuff in the media and online? As an example. when did you last post something supporting trans people, instead of a litany of negativity towards them?
I don't see myself as an 'activist' - I'm just someone who has known a few trans people, a couple of whom were very good friends. I'd argue *you* are an activist - as it seems you feel the need to post negative sh*t about them all the time. It's just that you're a negative activist.
Where have I ever posted negative “sh*t” about trans people?
What I do object to is the refusal to discuss the impact of expanding trans people’s rights into areas that affect the rights of women and children. “No debate” and the grotesque medical mispractice that masquerades as “affirmative care”.
Given the Scottish Governments Gender Recognition Bill (which does both) and the likely constitutional impact that this brings it into direct conflict with the U.K. government I think it’s highly relevant to politics.
So I will carry in highlighting where I think parties and or governments are getting it wrong. Feel free to disagree.
I have to say I haven't noticed a huge rise in the number of people with medical benefit from their employers. Maybe it is now mostly directly payrolled?
It might be offensive but it looks increasingly clear there are at least some serious questions over the potential side-effects of vaccines. It is also increasingly clear that there has been some official discouragement of asking those questions.
There is a one man campaign (Asseem Malhotra) who is driving a lot of this with fake statistics. No doubt there were some harmed by the vaccines but covid did far worse.
It would be good though for the independent research to be done. The problem with the best lies is that they have an element of truth.
What do you want done that it not being done ? There are numerous studies in numerous countries looking at the long term safety and effectiveness of vaccines, and that will continue to be the case for the foreseeable future.
@turbotubbs' point was that a lot of the concerns were being driven by one person who has an agenda. The implication was that, if you have any questions about the health side effects of vaccines, you obviously have an anti-vac agenda and / or are a nut. That is not a healthy attitude.
I'd see a difference between using the NHS and occasionally going private for something specific - eg getting a knee op quickly rather than waiting ages - and opting out completely, using your wealth to buy private medical care for anything and everything, thus insulating yourself and your family from this key public service that most people rely on and which for better or worse dominates domestic politics. The latter case - if that's what we're talking about with Sunak - is not great for the person at the head of government. No biggie, doesn't mean he's unfit to be PM, but it's not great imo. Poor optics, obviously, but also a bit more than that. Someone who never uses the NHS is hampered in empathy for those who do.
Of course youth as much as wealth insulates him from the NHS and medicine generally
Peripherally my new hero is US doctor Zeke Emmanuel who proposes to decline any medical intervention at all after age 75. Quite right.
Ah, I see we're in for another day of anti-trans hate. Situation normal.
I’m surprised you, of all people, are illustrating the point. It’s not just women’s rights Trans activists are harming. They are hurting trans peoples rights too by their “no debate” and sometimes violent shutting down of any attempt to discuss it.
I'm not illustrating your point - at least, as I read your point. Do you really think 'trans activists' have caused the deluge of anti-trans stuff in the media and online? As an example. when did you last post something supporting trans people, instead of a litany of negativity towards them?
I don't see myself as an 'activist' - I'm just someone who has known a few trans people, a couple of whom were very good friends. I'd argue *you* are an activist - as it seems you feel the need to post negative sh*t about them all the time. It's just that you're a negative activist.
If there is a deluge of anti trans stuff in the media please link to some examples, so we can see if it really anti trans or not.
The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier.
Wow, who could possibly have imagined a supermarket having record sales in a year with 16% food inflation?
Off the back of that clearly we are in a massive recovery, so off to lay Labour at the next GE.
Nerys is too dumb to bother looking at the actual story. JS own Q3 statement includes this horror show:
Volume down across the whole grocery market, with only the German value retailers bucking this trend. Is that sign of a not struggling economy? No. Because...
Look at the right hand chart. Punters are trading down across the board. That means as well as buying less volume they are buying less expensive products, which does horrible things to retailer products mix.
A drop in volume, and what volume there is increasingly in the low margin value ranges is very very bad for the supermarkets. As in here come the waves of store closures bad. "Ah but value sales are up" I hear Nerys saying in an alternate reality where they understood the industry. Value up, driven by cost price rises. Not sustainable as long as people keep making the "step to the left" downgrading product tiers towards the unsustainable...
Last time I went into Sainsburys I was amazed at how expensive it was. Seemingly not far off Waitrose prices. Become quite used to shopping at Aldi and so the prices for some items was shocking. I had popped in because I needed a very precise ingredient that Aldi didn't have and, as it turned out, this very large Sainsburys didn't have either (Waitrose did).
They're all really expensive compared to last year. the headline 16% rise in grocery prices masks the huge rises in some staples like milk and bread and meat. Price inflation continues to run amok, with another flurry of cross the board price rises already landing on buyer desks.
Watch Morrisons. They won't survive the year in their current form. Losing too much ground, bleeding money, PE owned with borrowed money. Asda not much better with the same issues. A merger of the two an unthinkable but what are the alternatives possibility.
There is too much retail space. Has been for most of the last decade and we're heading towards the crunch point. First we had town and even city centre shops close in large numbers. Then it was the big malls going pop. Next up a lot of supermarkets closing. If nothing else can you imagine how much power an average supermarket burns with florescent strip lighting and aisles of open fridges?
Now I stop to think about it, there is an amazingly large number of supermarkets within a half hour drive of me - at least four each of Sainsbury's, Tesco and Asda (though some are relatively small old-fashioned ones) and that doesn't even count the Tesco Expresses and Sainsbury's Locals. There's also at least one Waitrose though no Morrisons. Out of those I can easily see one site for each of the big three that they might consider redundant.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
How on earth do you think you would implement that?
Even if you outlawed them in this country, would you try to stop people from travelling abroad for medical treatment, or sending their children to private schools in other countries? Would you override devolution and enforce your policy across the whole UK?
Er, I already commented down thread that I'm not talking about banning things! Perhaps you are an instinctive authoritarian who wants to ban everything that you disapprove of, but I'm a liberal. People are free to do whatever the hell they like. But if you use private healthcare and schools then I will need a lot of persuading that you have the interests of their state equivalents close to your heart, and I probably won't vote for you, because I want the NHS and our schools to get the best possible funding and to deliver the best possible service for all of us.
Apologies @Driver for not seeing your previous post. The EU Commission makes it very clear that strikes and labour law are for national Governments to deal with, though by enshrining the right to strike within Commisson law they have also implicitly stated that the EU does have competence in these areas. Explicit EU interventions pertaining to limiting striking rights include previous guidance on limiting ATC strikes: https://www.etuc.org/en/pressrelease/european-commission-proposal-restrict-right-strike-grave-error And the new 'Single Market Emergency Instrument', which could have wider ranging implications: https://www.epsu.org/article/right-strike-risk-new-eu-law
The seemingly coincidental coalescing of European national legislation around a single object, especially if that object is a contentious one, is for me, very much the mo of the organisation and its supporters. But you can definitely chalk this up as my strong hunch, not an explicitly defined objective, and I apologise for making it sound otherwise.
I'd see a difference between using the NHS and occasionally going private for something specific - eg getting a knee op quickly rather than waiting ages - and opting out completely, using your wealth to buy private medical care for anything and everything, thus insulating yourself and your family from this key public service that most people rely on and which for better or worse dominates domestic politics. The latter case - if that's what we're talking about with Sunak - is not great for the person at the head of government. No biggie, doesn't mean he's unfit to be PM, but it's not great imo. Poor optics, obviously, but also a bit more than that. Someone who never uses the NHS is hampered in empathy for those who do.
Of course youth as much as wealth insulates him from the NHS and medicine generally
Peripherally my new hero is US doctor Zeke Emmanuel who proposes to decline any medical intervention at all after age 75. Quite right.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
Apologies Driver for not seeing your previous post. The EU Commission makes it very clear that strikes and labour law are for national Governments to deal with, though by enshrining the right to strike within Commisson law they have also implicitly stated that the EU does have competence in these areas. Explicit EU interventions pertaining to limiting striking rights include previous guidance on limiting ATC strikes: https://www.etuc.org/en/pressrelease/european-commission-proposal-restrict-right-strike-grave-error And the new 'Single Market Emergency Instrument', which could have wider ranging implications: https://www.epsu.org/article/right-strike-risk-new-eu-law
The seemingly coincidental coalescing of European national legislation around a single object, especially if that object is a contentious one, is for me, very much the mo of the organisation and its supporters. But you can definitely chalk this up as my strong hunch, not an explicitly defined objective, and I apologise for making it sound otherwise.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
Yeah me too. Private schools are just a total racket. If anyone was in any doubt about that, look at how they inflated their grades during Covid, way in excess of the state sector. In the business I am in that kind of thing would be considered fraud and you'd be looking at jail time.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
How on earth do you think you would implement that?
Even if you outlawed them in this country, would you try to stop people from travelling abroad for medical treatment, or sending their children to private schools in other countries? Would you override devolution and enforce your policy across the whole UK?
Not sure how you jumped from not trusting such politicians to trying to outlaw it? Bizarre strawman even by your standards.
If enough people feel like OnlyLivingBoy then those politicians will get voted out.
I would be genuinely interested to see how many politicians, from ALL parties, make use of (a) private healthcare and (b) private schooling. I'd suspect more on the left than people think. We know of some isolated cases (Dianne Abbot's kids for instance). PMQ's will be interesting. If Starmer doesn't go for Sunak over it (and I suspect he won't - it will surely be about the strikes) I think it will suggest they know that enough on their side do the same.
It might be offensive but it looks increasingly clear there are at least some serious questions over the potential side-effects of vaccines. It is also increasingly clear that there has been some official discouragement of asking those questions.
There is a one man campaign (Asseem Malhotra) who is driving a lot of this with fake statistics. No doubt there were some harmed by the vaccines but covid did far worse.
It would be good though for the independent research to be done. The problem with the best lies is that they have an element of truth.
What do you want done that it not being done ? There are numerous studies in numerous countries looking at the long term safety and effectiveness of vaccines, and that will continue to be the case for the foreseeable future.
@turbotubbs' point was that a lot of the concerns were being driven by one person who has an agenda. The implication was that, if you have any questions about the health side effects of vaccines, you obviously have an anti-vac agenda and / or are a nut. That is not a healthy attitude.
You might draw that inference, but there's no such implication @turbotubbs' comment.
Characters like Bridgen are simply peddling lies and fake statistics, and to say so isn't to discourage continuing investigation of the safety and efficacy of medicines.
To repeat my question, what research do you want done that is not being done ?
I'd see a difference between using the NHS and occasionally going private for something specific - eg getting a knee op quickly rather than waiting ages - and opting out completely, using your wealth to buy private medical care for anything and everything, thus insulating yourself and your family from this key public service that most people rely on and which for better or worse dominates domestic politics. The latter case - if that's what we're talking about with Sunak - is not great for the person at the head of government. No biggie, doesn't mean he's unfit to be PM, but it's not great imo. Poor optics, obviously, but also a bit more than that. Someone who never uses the NHS is hampered in empathy for those who do.
Of course youth as much as wealth insulates him from the NHS and medicine generally
Peripherally my new hero is US doctor Zeke Emmanuel who proposes to decline any medical intervention at all after age 75. Quite right.
Define medical intervention. 75 isn't decrepit for everyone. My dad was running laps of a running track at 75. Not great times, I’ll admit, but not a shuffle walk.
I'd see a difference between using the NHS and occasionally going private for something specific - eg getting a knee op quickly rather than waiting ages - and opting out completely, using your wealth to buy private medical care for anything and everything, thus insulating yourself and your family from this key public service that most people rely on and which for better or worse dominates domestic politics. The latter case - if that's what we're talking about with Sunak - is not great for the person at the head of government. No biggie, doesn't mean he's unfit to be PM, but it's not great imo. Poor optics, obviously, but also a bit more than that. Someone who never uses the NHS is hampered in empathy for those who do.
Of course youth as much as wealth insulates him from the NHS and medicine generally
Peripherally my new hero is US doctor Zeke Emmanuel who proposes to decline any medical intervention at all after age 75. Quite right.
I'd see a difference between using the NHS and occasionally going private for something specific - eg getting a knee op quickly rather than waiting ages - and opting out completely, using your wealth to buy private medical care for anything and everything, thus insulating yourself and your family from this key public service that most people rely on and which for better or worse dominates domestic politics. The latter case - if that's what we're talking about with Sunak - is not great for the person at the head of government. No biggie, doesn't mean he's unfit to be PM, but it's not great imo. Poor optics, obviously, but also a bit more than that. Someone who never uses the NHS is hampered in empathy for those who do.
Of course youth as much as wealth insulates him from the NHS and medicine generally
Peripherally my new hero is US doctor Zeke Emmanuel who proposes to decline any medical intervention at all after age 75. Quite right.
Ah, I see we're in for another day of anti-trans hate. Situation normal.
I’m surprised you, of all people, are illustrating the point. It’s not just women’s rights Trans activists are harming. They are hurting trans peoples rights too by their “no debate” and sometimes violent shutting down of any attempt to discuss it.
I'm not illustrating your point - at least, as I read your point. Do you really think 'trans activists' have caused the deluge of anti-trans stuff in the media and online? As an example. when did you last post something supporting trans people, instead of a litany of negativity towards them?
I don't see myself as an 'activist' - I'm just someone who has known a few trans people, a couple of whom were very good friends. I'd argue *you* are an activist - as it seems you feel the need to post negative sh*t about them all the time. It's just that you're a negative activist.
If there is a deluge of anti trans stuff in the media please link to some examples, so we can see if it really anti trans or not.
The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier.
"The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier."
Perhaps. Perhaps not. You'd be surprising how hard it can be to tell an individual is trans. And IME, the longer they are trans, and the older they get, the harder it is to tell. And despite what some may say, women cannot automagically 'tell' when someone is male or trans. At least the ones I've asked cannot.
As for the articles: I might suggest you look at the following as an example of a constant stream of negativity. Can you point to an article there that says: "Hey look, this trans person has done something cool!" ?
It is interesting how Rishi Sunak has somewhat failed to launch his premiership. He inherited a sticky situation, which limited his options, but I am surprised he has done as poorly as he has.
I find it hard to put my finger on exactly why. His slick charisma seems to be working against him. You get the impression that there really isn't much there behind the presentation. He appears to want to be loved just a little too much.
Odd.
It's because his paint-by-numbers guide to politics doesn't tell him what to do when there are genuinely difficult decisions to make that he has to win public support for.
He has no political awareness. No feel for public opinion, or how to influence it. He's like a very poor political chatbot from a few years ago that is going through the motions of political clichés.
They called Cameron an essay-crisis Prime Minister, presumably because he would allow situations to develop badly before paying attention and sorting them out. But he at least had some sense of how to do politics, of how to convince people, which messages would work, etc, until he came unstuck over the EU.
Sunak is like a last-minute exam crammer. He's trying to do politics by working off a cheat sheet. I can pretty much see what's written on it. "Pre-election tax cuts", "Normal guy photo opportunities", "Winter of Discontent", etc. It's all so obviously superficial.
It has to be, because of the thinness of his CV before becoming PM.
We understandably criticise the SPAD to MP pipeline, but at least the SPAD types are exposed to the messy reality of government where wanting something to happen isn't enough.
Rishi is clearly bright. But going from hedge funding to a very safe seat and from there to PM in seven years limits him as a politician.
You can have all the talent in the world. But without the wet Tuesday night matches in Peterborough, or the session-long bowling spells in Basingstoke, or the bottom of the bill slots on the club circuit, that talent is likely to be incomplete and lack resilience.
I'd see a difference between using the NHS and occasionally going private for something specific - eg getting a knee op quickly rather than waiting ages - and opting out completely, using your wealth to buy private medical care for anything and everything, thus insulating yourself and your family from this key public service that most people rely on and which for better or worse dominates domestic politics. The latter case - if that's what we're talking about with Sunak - is not great for the person at the head of government. No biggie, doesn't mean he's unfit to be PM, but it's not great imo. Poor optics, obviously, but also a bit more than that. Someone who never uses the NHS is hampered in empathy for those who do.
Of course youth as much as wealth insulates him from the NHS and medicine generally
Peripherally my new hero is US doctor Zeke Emmanuel who proposes to decline any medical intervention at all after age 75. Quite right.
No. My mum and aunt are both 90 though and live independently with not a hint of dementia, no depression, lots of grandchildren etc, and are having a pretty shit time just by virtue of being that old. And that is absolutely as good as it gets.
Wow, who could possibly have imagined a supermarket having record sales in a year with 16% food inflation?
Off the back of that clearly we are in a massive recovery, so off to lay Labour at the next GE.
Nerys is too dumb to bother looking at the actual story. JS own Q3 statement includes this horror show:
Volume down across the whole grocery market, with only the German value retailers bucking this trend. Is that sign of a not struggling economy? No. Because...
Look at the right hand chart. Punters are trading down across the board. That means as well as buying less volume they are buying less expensive products, which does horrible things to retailer products mix.
A drop in volume, and what volume there is increasingly in the low margin value ranges is very very bad for the supermarkets. As in here come the waves of store closures bad. "Ah but value sales are up" I hear Nerys saying in an alternate reality where they understood the industry. Value up, driven by cost price rises. Not sustainable as long as people keep making the "step to the left" downgrading product tiers towards the unsustainable...
Last time I went into Sainsburys I was amazed at how expensive it was. Seemingly not far off Waitrose prices. Become quite used to shopping at Aldi and so the prices for some items was shocking. I had popped in because I needed a very precise ingredient that Aldi didn't have and, as it turned out, this very large Sainsburys didn't have either (Waitrose did).
They're all really expensive compared to last year. the headline 16% rise in grocery prices masks the huge rises in some staples like milk and bread and meat. Price inflation continues to run amok, with another flurry of cross the board price rises already landing on buyer desks.
Watch Morrisons. They won't survive the year in their current form. Losing too much ground, bleeding money, PE owned with borrowed money. Asda not much better with the same issues. A merger of the two an unthinkable but what are the alternatives possibility.
There is too much retail space. Has been for most of the last decade and we're heading towards the crunch point. First we had town and even city centre shops close in large numbers. Then it was the big malls going pop. Next up a lot of supermarkets closing. If nothing else can you imagine how much power an average supermarket burns with florescent strip lighting and aisles of open fridges?
Now I stop to think about it, there is an amazingly large number of supermarkets within a half hour drive of me - at least four each of Sainsbury's, Tesco and Asda (though some are relatively small old-fashioned ones) and that doesn't even count the Tesco Expresses and Sainsbury's Locals. There's also at least one Waitrose though no Morrisons. Out of those I can easily see one site for each of the big three that they might consider redundant.
Yup, and so many towns have similar. Then you get the smaller communities who have a smaller format store which the entire area relies upon. And it will be those that go in the bin as they are more expensive to operate.
I'd see a difference between using the NHS and occasionally going private for something specific - eg getting a knee op quickly rather than waiting ages - and opting out completely, using your wealth to buy private medical care for anything and everything, thus insulating yourself and your family from this key public service that most people rely on and which for better or worse dominates domestic politics. The latter case - if that's what we're talking about with Sunak - is not great for the person at the head of government. No biggie, doesn't mean he's unfit to be PM, but it's not great imo. Poor optics, obviously, but also a bit more than that. Someone who never uses the NHS is hampered in empathy for those who do.
Of course youth as much as wealth insulates him from the NHS and medicine generally
Peripherally my new hero is US doctor Zeke Emmanuel who proposes to decline any medical intervention at all after age 75. Quite right.
Wow, who could possibly have imagined a supermarket having record sales in a year with 16% food inflation?
Off the back of that clearly we are in a massive recovery, so off to lay Labour at the next GE.
Nerys is too dumb to bother looking at the actual story. JS own Q3 statement includes this horror show:
Volume down across the whole grocery market, with only the German value retailers bucking this trend. Is that sign of a not struggling economy? No. Because...
Look at the right hand chart. Punters are trading down across the board. That means as well as buying less volume they are buying less expensive products, which does horrible things to retailer products mix.
A drop in volume, and what volume there is increasingly in the low margin value ranges is very very bad for the supermarkets. As in here come the waves of store closures bad. "Ah but value sales are up" I hear Nerys saying in an alternate reality where they understood the industry. Value up, driven by cost price rises. Not sustainable as long as people keep making the "step to the left" downgrading product tiers towards the unsustainable...
Last time I went into Sainsburys I was amazed at how expensive it was. Seemingly not far off Waitrose prices. Become quite used to shopping at Aldi and so the prices for some items was shocking. I had popped in because I needed a very precise ingredient that Aldi didn't have and, as it turned out, this very large Sainsburys didn't have either (Waitrose did).
They're all really expensive compared to last year. the headline 16% rise in grocery prices masks the huge rises in some staples like milk and bread and meat. Price inflation continues to run amok, with another flurry of cross the board price rises already landing on buyer desks.
Watch Morrisons. They won't survive the year in their current form. Losing too much ground, bleeding money, PE owned with borrowed money. Asda not much better with the same issues. A merger of the two an unthinkable but what are the alternatives possibility.
There is too much retail space. Has been for most of the last decade and we're heading towards the crunch point. First we had town and even city centre shops close in large numbers. Then it was the big malls going pop. Next up a lot of supermarkets closing. If nothing else can you imagine how much power an average supermarket burns with florescent strip lighting and aisles of open fridges?
I've never understood the appeal of the super-large supermarket. One of the main reasons I shop at Aldi is that it has just 4 aisles yet contains 99% of what I would normally need. Last night I had very limited time yet managed to be in and out with a full weekly shop in less than 30 minutes. Would have been 5 minutes less if they introduced self-scan (not that I think they ever will). Probably would have taken at least 45 minutes, if not more, if I'd had to push the trolley up and down all the aisles at the local super-large Tesco or Sainsburys.
For Aldi running these smaller supermarkets must save them a packet compared to those running the big supermarkets.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
How on earth do you think you would implement that?
Even if you outlawed them in this country, would you try to stop people from travelling abroad for medical treatment, or sending their children to private schools in other countries? Would you override devolution and enforce your policy across the whole UK?
Er, I already commented down thread that I'm not talking about banning things! Perhaps you are an instinctive authoritarian who wants to ban everything that you disapprove of, but I'm a liberal. People are free to do whatever the hell they like. But if you use private healthcare and schools then I will need a lot of persuading that you have the interests of their state equivalents close to your heart, and I probably won't vote for you, because I want the NHS and our schools to get the best possible funding and to deliver the best possible service for all of us.
Your own words were: "I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children."
Does this amount to nothing more than virtue signalling with you setting yourself up as a self-appointed judge of which luxuries are morally acceptable for other people?
Ah, I see we're in for another day of anti-trans hate. Situation normal.
I’m surprised you, of all people, are illustrating the point. It’s not just women’s rights Trans activists are harming. They are hurting trans peoples rights too by their “no debate” and sometimes violent shutting down of any attempt to discuss it.
I'm not illustrating your point - at least, as I read your point. Do you really think 'trans activists' have caused the deluge of anti-trans stuff in the media and online? As an example. when did you last post something supporting trans people, instead of a litany of negativity towards them?
I don't see myself as an 'activist' - I'm just someone who has known a few trans people, a couple of whom were very good friends. I'd argue *you* are an activist - as it seems you feel the need to post negative sh*t about them all the time. It's just that you're a negative activist.
If there is a deluge of anti trans stuff in the media please link to some examples, so we can see if it really anti trans or not.
The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier.
"The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier."
Perhaps. Perhaps not. You'd be surprising how hard it can be to tell an individual is trans. And IME, the longer they are trans, and the older they get, the harder it is to tell. And despite what some may say, women cannot automagically 'tell' when someone is male or trans. At least the ones I've asked cannot.
As for the articles: I might suggest you look at the following as an example of a constant stream of negativity. Can you point to an article there that says: "Hey look, this trans person has done something cool!" ?
Seems an interesting and important story from any angle.
Try again
ETA and is your concern for trans people as patronising as that sounds? Ooh look at this cool thing x has done despite being trans? Why the implied "despite?"
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
The thing is Education is a public good. The better-educated the population is the better it is for society as a whole. So you'd think it would be good if people were using their own resources to increase the total amount of Education in the country. Why is it better in your eyes for someone to buy a new sports car every other year instead of pay Eton school fees?
The reason, I think, is that you've bought into the ideology of meritocracy. This means that you see private education as someone cheating in the great meritocratic struggle. The problem here isn't private education. The problem is that meritocracy is a con used to justify inequality.
It's a futile struggle to try and create a level playing field for meritocracy. Will never happen. Instead I think we should concentrate on people's right to dignity even if they don't become doctors or lawyers, and a fair share of the proceeds generated for society by Eton's education of the wealthy.
It might be offensive but it looks increasingly clear there are at least some serious questions over the potential side-effects of vaccines. It is also increasingly clear that there has been some official discouragement of asking those questions.
There is a one man campaign (Asseem Malhotra) who is driving a lot of this with fake statistics. No doubt there were some harmed by the vaccines but covid did far worse.
It would be good though for the independent research to be done. The problem with the best lies is that they have an element of truth.
What do you want done that it not being done ? There are numerous studies in numerous countries looking at the long term safety and effectiveness of vaccines, and that will continue to be the case for the foreseeable future.
@turbotubbs' point was that a lot of the concerns were being driven by one person who has an agenda. The implication was that, if you have any questions about the health side effects of vaccines, you obviously have an anti-vac agenda and / or are a nut. That is not a healthy attitude.
No, thats not true. It is fine to have concerns about the side effects of vaccines. Thats why we have clinical trials, and committees of experts who say yes or no to use, and for whom. All the vaccines went through all the stages of clinical trials that any other medicine has too. In the emergency trials were sped up, not by not doing them, but by running in parallel and by meeting not months after getting data, but hours and days.
We also have the fact that billions of doses have been administered.
Bad faith actors and misguided people are distorting the truth about health issues in a post covid world. One of the biggest sequelae of covid is damage to the heart. So its hardly surprising that we are seeing an increase in heart issues, given that almost everyone has been exposed to covid.
By all means have concerns about vaccines. But then do some research and not on twitter, facebook etc. Look over the published data.
Asseem Malhotra is a weird guy who is distorting facts and evidence for his own reasons. Someone suggested his father died early in covid and that he is using his guilt over that to drive his campaign. Fine - if he believes there are dangers he should make his case with FACTS. Currently he is not. His schtick seems to be to find any other medics who raise concerns on twitter and trumpet this as proof. Yet there are 100s of 1000s of medics in the world - some probably believe pineapple works as a pizza topping, and is best eating while listening to Radiohead.
As a scientist I would always say to ask questions. But always try to ask the right questions.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
How on earth do you think you would implement that?
Even if you outlawed them in this country, would you try to stop people from travelling abroad for medical treatment, or sending their children to private schools in other countries? Would you override devolution and enforce your policy across the whole UK?
Er, I already commented down thread that I'm not talking about banning things! Perhaps you are an instinctive authoritarian who wants to ban everything that you disapprove of, but I'm a liberal. People are free to do whatever the hell they like. But if you use private healthcare and schools then I will need a lot of persuading that you have the interests of their state equivalents close to your heart, and I probably won't vote for you, because I want the NHS and our schools to get the best possible funding and to deliver the best possible service for all of us.
Crops up a lot, this, and I have a standing order sentence which you can use if you like.
"I assess private schools as net harmful to society but it's only an opinion and I'm not saying they should be illegal."
Mind you, if I was Prez with a landslide and a 10 year term ...
Ah, I see we're in for another day of anti-trans hate. Situation normal.
I’m surprised you, of all people, are illustrating the point. It’s not just women’s rights Trans activists are harming. They are hurting trans peoples rights too by their “no debate” and sometimes violent shutting down of any attempt to discuss it.
I'm not illustrating your point - at least, as I read your point. Do you really think 'trans activists' have caused the deluge of anti-trans stuff in the media and online? As an example. when did you last post something supporting trans people, instead of a litany of negativity towards them?
I don't see myself as an 'activist' - I'm just someone who has known a few trans people, a couple of whom were very good friends. I'd argue *you* are an activist - as it seems you feel the need to post negative sh*t about them all the time. It's just that you're a negative activist.
If there is a deluge of anti trans stuff in the media please link to some examples, so we can see if it really anti trans or not.
The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier.
"The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier."
Perhaps. Perhaps not. You'd be surprising how hard it can be to tell an individual is trans. And IME, the longer they are trans, and the older they get, the harder it is to tell. And despite what some may say, women cannot automagically 'tell' when someone is male or trans. At least the ones I've asked cannot.
As for the articles: I might suggest you look at the following as an example of a constant stream of negativity. Can you point to an article there that says: "Hey look, this trans person has done something cool!" ?
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
The thing is Education is a public good. The better-educated the population is the better it is for society as a whole. So you'd think it would be good if people were using their own resources to increase the total amount of Education in the country. Why is it better in your eyes for someone to buy a new sports car every other year instead of pay Eton school fees?
The reason, I think, is that you've bought into the ideology of meritocracy. This means that you see private education as someone cheating in the great meritocratic struggle. The problem here isn't private education. The problem is that meritocracy is a con used to justify inequality.
It may well be, but you are justifying inequality yourself by saying that opposing it is futile.
Wow, who could possibly have imagined a supermarket having record sales in a year with 16% food inflation?
Off the back of that clearly we are in a massive recovery, so off to lay Labour at the next GE.
Nerys is too dumb to bother looking at the actual story. JS own Q3 statement includes this horror show:
Volume down across the whole grocery market, with only the German value retailers bucking this trend. Is that sign of a not struggling economy? No. Because...
Look at the right hand chart. Punters are trading down across the board. That means as well as buying less volume they are buying less expensive products, which does horrible things to retailer products mix.
A drop in volume, and what volume there is increasingly in the low margin value ranges is very very bad for the supermarkets. As in here come the waves of store closures bad. "Ah but value sales are up" I hear Nerys saying in an alternate reality where they understood the industry. Value up, driven by cost price rises. Not sustainable as long as people keep making the "step to the left" downgrading product tiers towards the unsustainable...
Last time I went into Sainsburys I was amazed at how expensive it was. Seemingly not far off Waitrose prices. Become quite used to shopping at Aldi and so the prices for some items was shocking. I had popped in because I needed a very precise ingredient that Aldi didn't have and, as it turned out, this very large Sainsburys didn't have either (Waitrose did).
They're all really expensive compared to last year. the headline 16% rise in grocery prices masks the huge rises in some staples like milk and bread and meat. Price inflation continues to run amok, with another flurry of cross the board price rises already landing on buyer desks.
Watch Morrisons. They won't survive the year in their current form. Losing too much ground, bleeding money, PE owned with borrowed money. Asda not much better with the same issues. A merger of the two an unthinkable but what are the alternatives possibility.
There is too much retail space. Has been for most of the last decade and we're heading towards the crunch point. First we had town and even city centre shops close in large numbers. Then it was the big malls going pop. Next up a lot of supermarkets closing. If nothing else can you imagine how much power an average supermarket burns with florescent strip lighting and aisles of open fridges?
Now I stop to think about it, there is an amazingly large number of supermarkets within a half hour drive of me - at least four each of Sainsbury's, Tesco and Asda (though some are relatively small old-fashioned ones) and that doesn't even count the Tesco Expresses and Sainsbury's Locals. There's also at least one Waitrose though no Morrisons. Out of those I can easily see one site for each of the big three that they might consider redundant.
In deepest darkest rural Devon, within 30 minutes of me are
The most at risk you would think is the M&S in Dartmouth, being a long way off the distribution system along narrow roads. However, because of the floating gin palaces moored in the harbour, it seems quite safe. It stocks every brand of M&S booze - to keep the sailors topped up. Very lucrative.
Classic on More or Less on Tucker Carlson. The man should be shot. He did a piece (following the collapse of the American Footballer of sudden cardiac arrest) about European Elite Athletes doing the same pre and post vaccination. Pre vaccination it was about 29 per year (apparently it is greater in elite athletes than the normal population). This was from a proper study. Post vaccine it is 1500 (of which I think they said 1000 died) per year apparently. And on a minimal amount of research this was from an anti vax site. The site lists those 1500 athletes. The list is a hoot. Here is one to whet your appetite:
Pele.
Fits the criteria perfectly - Not European, 80 odd years old and didn't die of sudden cardiac arrest but otherwise a perfect fit
And believe it or not that is not the most absurd.
There's also the point (if any such study was done remotely properly) that Covid itself can be associated with heart inflammation etc, so even an increase post-pandemic compared to pre-pandemic is not evidence of a vaccine effect.
The way to do it is of course, to compare those with and without vaccine receipt (while also controlling for other factors) or, probably better, across those receiving different types of vaccine which, in some countries such as UK at least, is at least a randomish allocation, at least in over 40s.
I'd see a difference between using the NHS and occasionally going private for something specific - eg getting a knee op quickly rather than waiting ages - and opting out completely, using your wealth to buy private medical care for anything and everything, thus insulating yourself and your family from this key public service that most people rely on and which for better or worse dominates domestic politics. The latter case - if that's what we're talking about with Sunak - is not great for the person at the head of government. No biggie, doesn't mean he's unfit to be PM, but it's not great imo. Poor optics, obviously, but also a bit more than that. Someone who never uses the NHS is hampered in empathy for those who do.
Of course youth as much as wealth insulates him from the NHS and medicine generally
Peripherally my new hero is US doctor Zeke Emmanuel who proposes to decline any medical intervention at all after age 75. Quite right.
The underlying message is pro involuntary euthanasia, to use a euphemism.
Quacks said similar stuff in Germany in the 1930s: "If I were an imbecile, I'd want to be offed." In this creep's case, it's "When I'm 75".
Jesus.
Is it impossible that anyone should mean what this guy on the face of it says? Or is it in theory possible to mean it, but your spidey senses tell you this particular creep is a creep?
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
How on earth do you think you would implement that?
Even if you outlawed them in this country, would you try to stop people from travelling abroad for medical treatment, or sending their children to private schools in other countries? Would you override devolution and enforce your policy across the whole UK?
Er, I already commented down thread that I'm not talking about banning things! Perhaps you are an instinctive authoritarian who wants to ban everything that you disapprove of, but I'm a liberal. People are free to do whatever the hell they like. But if you use private healthcare and schools then I will need a lot of persuading that you have the interests of their state equivalents close to your heart, and I probably won't vote for you, because I want the NHS and our schools to get the best possible funding and to deliver the best possible service for all of us.
Crops up a lot, this, and I have a standing order sentence which you can use if you like.
"I assess private schools as net harmful to society but it's only an opinion and I'm not saying they should be illegal."
Mind you, if I was Prez with a landslide and a 10 year term ...
But it's completely hypocritical. Would you or @OnlyLivingBoy refrain from taking/sending your children on a culturally enriching holiday because some people can't afford it?
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
Wading in because I normally agree with you & onlylivingboy but here I differ... I see healthcare as a more essential right than education. I am less tolerant of inequities in healthcare.
For education - I want everyone to get a pretty high standard level of provision, but beyond that I'm okay with there being some inequality based on ability, desire to learn, prioritization of parents etc.
16 or 18 years cut-off seems reasonable to me as the state having set you up okay. And parents deciding to hire a tutor or teach their own children to read is reasonable to me, even though I am sure it is unfair and introduces inequality. Even private schools are fine, although they should lose tax privileges.
For health - I want everyone to get access to the best. I know there are cost limitations at a certain point, but I really hate hate hate the idea that someone is wealthy enough to get cancer drugs to prolong their life and someone else isn't.
Wow, who could possibly have imagined a supermarket having record sales in a year with 16% food inflation?
Off the back of that clearly we are in a massive recovery, so off to lay Labour at the next GE.
Nerys is too dumb to bother looking at the actual story. JS own Q3 statement includes this horror show:
Volume down across the whole grocery market, with only the German value retailers bucking this trend. Is that sign of a not struggling economy? No. Because...
Look at the right hand chart. Punters are trading down across the board. That means as well as buying less volume they are buying less expensive products, which does horrible things to retailer products mix.
A drop in volume, and what volume there is increasingly in the low margin value ranges is very very bad for the supermarkets. As in here come the waves of store closures bad. "Ah but value sales are up" I hear Nerys saying in an alternate reality where they understood the industry. Value up, driven by cost price rises. Not sustainable as long as people keep making the "step to the left" downgrading product tiers towards the unsustainable...
Last time I went into Sainsburys I was amazed at how expensive it was. Seemingly not far off Waitrose prices. Become quite used to shopping at Aldi and so the prices for some items was shocking. I had popped in because I needed a very precise ingredient that Aldi didn't have and, as it turned out, this very large Sainsburys didn't have either (Waitrose did).
They're all really expensive compared to last year. the headline 16% rise in grocery prices masks the huge rises in some staples like milk and bread and meat. Price inflation continues to run amok, with another flurry of cross the board price rises already landing on buyer desks.
Watch Morrisons. They won't survive the year in their current form. Losing too much ground, bleeding money, PE owned with borrowed money. Asda not much better with the same issues. A merger of the two an unthinkable but what are the alternatives possibility.
There is too much retail space. Has been for most of the last decade and we're heading towards the crunch point. First we had town and even city centre shops close in large numbers. Then it was the big malls going pop. Next up a lot of supermarkets closing. If nothing else can you imagine how much power an average supermarket burns with florescent strip lighting and aisles of open fridges?
I've never understood the appeal of the super-large supermarket. One of the main reasons I shop at Aldi is that it has just 4 aisles yet contains 99% of what I would normally need. Last night I had very limited time yet managed to be in and out with a full weekly shop in less than 30 minutes. Would have been 5 minutes less if they introduced self-scan (not that I think they ever will). Probably would have taken at least 45 minutes, if not more, if I'd had to push the trolley up and down all the aisles at the local super-large Tesco or Sainsburys.
For Aldi running these smaller supermarkets must save them a packet compared to those running the big supermarkets.
The thing about the super-large supermarkets is that so much floor space is given over to stuff which isn't the "weekly shop" - an awful lot of clothes, obviously, but elecrtonics and electrical appliances, toys, games, stationery, greetings cards and the rest - picturing my local supermarkets I reckon that's at least a third of the shop I only ever go to if there's something specific I need (and if so it's probably because it's saving a separate trip somewhere else). I reckon I could do a full weekly shop for myself in 30 minutes in any of the biggest supermarkets locally because I can arrange my shopping list by where in the shop everything is - the only provisos I'd put on it are that the scanners are working (scanning on the mobile apps is too slow) and that I can make all the decisions myself on substitutions if something is missing. Though this won't ever be tested...
Wow, who could possibly have imagined a supermarket having record sales in a year with 16% food inflation?
Off the back of that clearly we are in a massive recovery, so off to lay Labour at the next GE.
Nerys is too dumb to bother looking at the actual story. JS own Q3 statement includes this horror show:
Volume down across the whole grocery market, with only the German value retailers bucking this trend. Is that sign of a not struggling economy? No. Because...
Look at the right hand chart. Punters are trading down across the board. That means as well as buying less volume they are buying less expensive products, which does horrible things to retailer products mix.
A drop in volume, and what volume there is increasingly in the low margin value ranges is very very bad for the supermarkets. As in here come the waves of store closures bad. "Ah but value sales are up" I hear Nerys saying in an alternate reality where they understood the industry. Value up, driven by cost price rises. Not sustainable as long as people keep making the "step to the left" downgrading product tiers towards the unsustainable...
Last time I went into Sainsburys I was amazed at how expensive it was. Seemingly not far off Waitrose prices. Become quite used to shopping at Aldi and so the prices for some items was shocking. I had popped in because I needed a very precise ingredient that Aldi didn't have and, as it turned out, this very large Sainsburys didn't have either (Waitrose did).
They're all really expensive compared to last year. the headline 16% rise in grocery prices masks the huge rises in some staples like milk and bread and meat. Price inflation continues to run amok, with another flurry of cross the board price rises already landing on buyer desks.
Watch Morrisons. They won't survive the year in their current form. Losing too much ground, bleeding money, PE owned with borrowed money. Asda not much better with the same issues. A merger of the two an unthinkable but what are the alternatives possibility.
There is too much retail space. Has been for most of the last decade and we're heading towards the crunch point. First we had town and even city centre shops close in large numbers. Then it was the big malls going pop. Next up a lot of supermarkets closing. If nothing else can you imagine how much power an average supermarket burns with florescent strip lighting and aisles of open fridges?
I've never understood the appeal of the super-large supermarket. One of the main reasons I shop at Aldi is that it has just 4 aisles yet contains 99% of what I would normally need. Last night I had very limited time yet managed to be in and out with a full weekly shop in less than 30 minutes. Would have been 5 minutes less if they introduced self-scan (not that I think they ever will). Probably would have taken at least 45 minutes, if not more, if I'd had to push the trolley up and down all the aisles at the local super-large Tesco or Sainsburys.
For Aldi running these smaller supermarkets must save them a packet compared to those running the big supermarkets.
The German discounters run on an entirely different model. A finite number of products, which cuts cost by being simpler to buy / transport / merchandise. No in-store counters - the Lidl bakery is modular, heating part-made products rather than making it on-site. No specialisms in the staff - everyone does everything. You will see the store manager jump on tills for 10 minutes to clear a queue then go back onto pulling products out the back.
All of which means they operate on significantly lower front margins (direct profit selling a product) than the other supermarket chains. And thanks to significantly lower operating costs have higher bottom line profits. And thanks to being long term privately owned they don't give a rat fuck about quarterly profit reports and just plan long term for their business to succeed.
I know I have mentioned it before, but the Aldi HQ in Atherstone is an example of how they think. Massive UK growth meant they needed to expand their office space. So they built a large extension to the office block, using the exact same bricks in the exact same pattern as the original part built 20 years prior...
Has anyone else noticed that the media (and pb.com) seems to be shuffling Ukraine sideways into the 'Boring and Intractable' file currently occupied by Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Libya?
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
The thing is Education is a public good. The better-educated the population is the better it is for society as a whole. So you'd think it would be good if people were using their own resources to increase the total amount of Education in the country. Why is it better in your eyes for someone to buy a new sports car every other year instead of pay Eton school fees?
The reason, I think, is that you've bought into the ideology of meritocracy. This means that you see private education as someone cheating in the great meritocratic struggle. The problem here isn't private education. The problem is that meritocracy is a con used to justify inequality.
It may well be, but you are justifying inequality yourself by saying that opposing it is futile.
Not at all. I'm saying that we should actually tackle inequality on the outcomes side, rather than pretend that tackling inequality on the opportunity side is possible or absolves one of responsibility for tackling inequality of outcomes.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
How on earth do you think you would implement that?
Even if you outlawed them in this country, would you try to stop people from travelling abroad for medical treatment, or sending their children to private schools in other countries? Would you override devolution and enforce your policy across the whole UK?
Er, I already commented down thread that I'm not talking about banning things! Perhaps you are an instinctive authoritarian who wants to ban everything that you disapprove of, but I'm a liberal. People are free to do whatever the hell they like. But if you use private healthcare and schools then I will need a lot of persuading that you have the interests of their state equivalents close to your heart, and I probably won't vote for you, because I want the NHS and our schools to get the best possible funding and to deliver the best possible service for all of us.
Your own words were: "I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children."
Does this amount to nothing more than virtue signalling with you setting yourself up as a self-appointed judge of which luxuries are morally acceptable for other people?
Only if you consider all moral judgements to be virtue signalling (I assume you are an atheist), or alternatively if you think that everything that is wrong should be illegal. Anyone who has an opinion on right or wrong behaviour is surely a self-appointed judge in your terminology?
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
Wading in because I normally agree with you & onlylivingboy but here I differ... I see healthcare as a more essential right than education. I am less tolerant of inequities in healthcare.
For education - I want everyone to get a pretty high standard level of provision, but beyond that I'm okay with there being some inequality based on ability, desire to learn, prioritization of parents etc.
16 or 18 years cut-off seems reasonable to me as the state having set you up okay. And parents deciding to hire a tutor or teach their own children to read is reasonable to me, even though I am sure it is unfair and introduces inequality. Even private schools are fine, although they should lose tax privileges.
For health - I want everyone to get access to the best. I know there are cost limitations at a certain point, but I really hate hate hate the idea that someone is wealthy enough to get cancer drugs to prolong their life and someone else isn't.
How much of what we decide is "fair" is really based on what we have grown up with rather than intrinsic fairness?
That there was very little if any clamour for covid vaccines to be available privately suggests that if we were starting from scratch the ability to pay to queue jump for operations would be a lot less we have now become used to.
Has anyone else noticed that the media (and pb.com) seems to be shuffling Ukraine sideways into the 'Boring and Intractable' file currently occupied by Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Libya?
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
How on earth do you think you would implement that?
Even if you outlawed them in this country, would you try to stop people from travelling abroad for medical treatment, or sending their children to private schools in other countries? Would you override devolution and enforce your policy across the whole UK?
Er, I already commented down thread that I'm not talking about banning things! Perhaps you are an instinctive authoritarian who wants to ban everything that you disapprove of, but I'm a liberal. People are free to do whatever the hell they like. But if you use private healthcare and schools then I will need a lot of persuading that you have the interests of their state equivalents close to your heart, and I probably won't vote for you, because I want the NHS and our schools to get the best possible funding and to deliver the best possible service for all of us.
Crops up a lot, this, and I have a standing order sentence which you can use if you like.
"I assess private schools as net harmful to society but it's only an opinion and I'm not saying they should be illegal."
Mind you, if I was Prez with a landslide and a 10 year term ...
But it's completely hypocritical. Would you or @OnlyLivingBoy refrain from taking/sending your children on a culturally enriching holiday because some people can't afford it?
I make sure that all of our holidays are completely unenriching. Otherwise they wouldn't be holidays.
Wow, who could possibly have imagined a supermarket having record sales in a year with 16% food inflation?
Off the back of that clearly we are in a massive recovery, so off to lay Labour at the next GE.
Nerys is too dumb to bother looking at the actual story. JS own Q3 statement includes this horror show:
Volume down across the whole grocery market, with only the German value retailers bucking this trend. Is that sign of a not struggling economy? No. Because...
Look at the right hand chart. Punters are trading down across the board. That means as well as buying less volume they are buying less expensive products, which does horrible things to retailer products mix.
A drop in volume, and what volume there is increasingly in the low margin value ranges is very very bad for the supermarkets. As in here come the waves of store closures bad. "Ah but value sales are up" I hear Nerys saying in an alternate reality where they understood the industry. Value up, driven by cost price rises. Not sustainable as long as people keep making the "step to the left" downgrading product tiers towards the unsustainable...
Last time I went into Sainsburys I was amazed at how expensive it was. Seemingly not far off Waitrose prices. Become quite used to shopping at Aldi and so the prices for some items was shocking. I had popped in because I needed a very precise ingredient that Aldi didn't have and, as it turned out, this very large Sainsburys didn't have either (Waitrose did).
They're all really expensive compared to last year. the headline 16% rise in grocery prices masks the huge rises in some staples like milk and bread and meat. Price inflation continues to run amok, with another flurry of cross the board price rises already landing on buyer desks.
Watch Morrisons. They won't survive the year in their current form. Losing too much ground, bleeding money, PE owned with borrowed money. Asda not much better with the same issues. A merger of the two an unthinkable but what are the alternatives possibility.
There is too much retail space. Has been for most of the last decade and we're heading towards the crunch point. First we had town and even city centre shops close in large numbers. Then it was the big malls going pop. Next up a lot of supermarkets closing. If nothing else can you imagine how much power an average supermarket burns with florescent strip lighting and aisles of open fridges?
Now I stop to think about it, there is an amazingly large number of supermarkets within a half hour drive of me - at least four each of Sainsbury's, Tesco and Asda (though some are relatively small old-fashioned ones) and that doesn't even count the Tesco Expresses and Sainsbury's Locals. There's also at least one Waitrose though no Morrisons. Out of those I can easily see one site for each of the big three that they might consider redundant.
In deepest darkest rural Devon, within 30 minutes of me are
The most at risk you would think is the M&S in Dartmouth, being a long way off the distribution system along narrow roads. However, because of the floating gin palaces moored in the harbour, it seems quite safe. It stocks every brand of M&S booze - to keep the sailors topped up. Very lucrative.
We now only have one M&S - the other two closed in the last five years, both town centre sites and the most notable casualties of the councils' attitude - under leadership of all parties - to people driving into the town centres.
Wow, who could possibly have imagined a supermarket having record sales in a year with 16% food inflation?
Off the back of that clearly we are in a massive recovery, so off to lay Labour at the next GE.
Nerys is too dumb to bother looking at the actual story. JS own Q3 statement includes this horror show:
Volume down across the whole grocery market, with only the German value retailers bucking this trend. Is that sign of a not struggling economy? No. Because...
Look at the right hand chart. Punters are trading down across the board. That means as well as buying less volume they are buying less expensive products, which does horrible things to retailer products mix.
A drop in volume, and what volume there is increasingly in the low margin value ranges is very very bad for the supermarkets. As in here come the waves of store closures bad. "Ah but value sales are up" I hear Nerys saying in an alternate reality where they understood the industry. Value up, driven by cost price rises. Not sustainable as long as people keep making the "step to the left" downgrading product tiers towards the unsustainable...
Last time I went into Sainsburys I was amazed at how expensive it was. Seemingly not far off Waitrose prices. Become quite used to shopping at Aldi and so the prices for some items was shocking. I had popped in because I needed a very precise ingredient that Aldi didn't have and, as it turned out, this very large Sainsburys didn't have either (Waitrose did).
They're all really expensive compared to last year. the headline 16% rise in grocery prices masks the huge rises in some staples like milk and bread and meat. Price inflation continues to run amok, with another flurry of cross the board price rises already landing on buyer desks.
Watch Morrisons. They won't survive the year in their current form. Losing too much ground, bleeding money, PE owned with borrowed money. Asda not much better with the same issues. A merger of the two an unthinkable but what are the alternatives possibility.
There is too much retail space. Has been for most of the last decade and we're heading towards the crunch point. First we had town and even city centre shops close in large numbers. Then it was the big malls going pop. Next up a lot of supermarkets closing. If nothing else can you imagine how much power an average supermarket burns with florescent strip lighting and aisles of open fridges?
I've never understood the appeal of the super-large supermarket. One of the main reasons I shop at Aldi is that it has just 4 aisles yet contains 99% of what I would normally need. Last night I had very limited time yet managed to be in and out with a full weekly shop in less than 30 minutes. Would have been 5 minutes less if they introduced self-scan (not that I think they ever will). Probably would have taken at least 45 minutes, if not more, if I'd had to push the trolley up and down all the aisles at the local super-large Tesco or Sainsburys.
For Aldi running these smaller supermarkets must save them a packet compared to those running the big supermarkets.
I used to live near a very large Tesco, but drove past it to a smaller Tesco as, even with the extra driving, it was quicker and more efficient to visit the smaller store, which was still big enough to contan everything we needed.
Ah, I see we're in for another day of anti-trans hate. Situation normal.
I’m surprised you, of all people, are illustrating the point. It’s not just women’s rights Trans activists are harming. They are hurting trans peoples rights too by their “no debate” and sometimes violent shutting down of any attempt to discuss it.
I'm not illustrating your point - at least, as I read your point. Do you really think 'trans activists' have caused the deluge of anti-trans stuff in the media and online? As an example. when did you last post something supporting trans people, instead of a litany of negativity towards them?
I don't see myself as an 'activist' - I'm just someone who has known a few trans people, a couple of whom were very good friends. I'd argue *you* are an activist - as it seems you feel the need to post negative sh*t about them all the time. It's just that you're a negative activist.
If there is a deluge of anti trans stuff in the media please link to some examples, so we can see if it really anti trans or not.
The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier.
"The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier."
Perhaps. Perhaps not. You'd be surprising how hard it can be to tell an individual is trans. And IME, the longer they are trans, and the older they get, the harder it is to tell. And despite what some may say, women cannot automagically 'tell' when someone is male or trans. At least the ones I've asked cannot.
As for the articles: I might suggest you look at the following as an example of a constant stream of negativity. Can you point to an article there that says: "Hey look, this trans person has done something cool!" ?
There are undoubtedly valid concerns about trans issues: I don't see my position as being particularly 'extreme' in this. The problem is when people spam *only* negativity .
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
How on earth do you think you would implement that?
Even if you outlawed them in this country, would you try to stop people from travelling abroad for medical treatment, or sending their children to private schools in other countries? Would you override devolution and enforce your policy across the whole UK?
Er, I already commented down thread that I'm not talking about banning things! Perhaps you are an instinctive authoritarian who wants to ban everything that you disapprove of, but I'm a liberal. People are free to do whatever the hell they like. But if you use private healthcare and schools then I will need a lot of persuading that you have the interests of their state equivalents close to your heart, and I probably won't vote for you, because I want the NHS and our schools to get the best possible funding and to deliver the best possible service for all of us.
Your own words were: "I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children."
Does this amount to nothing more than virtue signalling with you setting yourself up as a self-appointed judge of which luxuries are morally acceptable for other people?
Only if you consider all moral judgements to be virtue signalling (I assume you are an atheist), or alternatively if you think that everything that is wrong should be illegal. Anyone who has an opinion on right or wrong behaviour is surely a self-appointed judge in your terminology?
Do you think that people who travel from other countries in order to get treatment on the NHS because they see it as better are morally wrong?
It is interesting how Rishi Sunak has somewhat failed to launch his premiership. He inherited a sticky situation, which limited his options, but I am surprised he has done as poorly as he has.
I find it hard to put my finger on exactly why. His slick charisma seems to be working against him. You get the impression that there really isn't much there behind the presentation. He appears to want to be loved just a little too much.
Odd.
It's because his paint-by-numbers guide to politics doesn't tell him what to do when there are genuinely difficult decisions to make that he has to win public support for.
He has no political awareness. No feel for public opinion, or how to influence it. He's like a very poor political chatbot from a few years ago that is going through the motions of political clichés.
They called Cameron an essay-crisis Prime Minister, presumably because he would allow situations to develop badly before paying attention and sorting them out. But he at least had some sense of how to do politics, of how to convince people, which messages would work, etc, until he came unstuck over the EU.
Sunak is like a last-minute exam crammer. He's trying to do politics by working off a cheat sheet. I can pretty much see what's written on it. "Pre-election tax cuts", "Normal guy photo opportunities", "Winter of Discontent", etc. It's all so obviously superficial.
It has to be, because of the thinness of his CV before becoming PM.
We understandably criticise the SPAD to MP pipeline, but at least the SPAD types are exposed to the messy reality of government where wanting something to happen isn't enough.
Rishi is clearly bright. But going from hedge funding to a very safe seat and from there to PM in seven years limits him as a politician.
You can have all the talent in the world. But without the wet Tuesday night matches in Peterborough, or the session-long bowling spells in Basingstoke, or the bottom of the bill slots on the club circuit, that talent is likely to be incomplete and lack resilience.
Yes, he is - all told - a young inexperienced politician and this does show at times.
Has anyone else noticed that the media (and pb.com) seems to be shuffling Ukraine sideways into the 'Boring and Intractable' file currently occupied by Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Libya?
No, I have not noticed this. There's a slight diminution in the amount of attention because there isn't very much new happening. "More fighting around Bakhmut" doesn't exactly fit the criterion of being news.
That the PM and other senior ministers go private isn't news. We need them working 24/7 which means access to immediate healthcare which means paying for it.
It is only a "scandal" because his government has provoked a strike with nurses and has MPs now blaming the nurses for the strikes. I would suggest though that Sunak has a much wider issue which was highlighted by his idiot flight from London to Dirty Leeds.
We are in the midst of a winter of discontent where the industrial action is increasing not decreasing in England. Not only is the government refusing to face into the myriad issues in schools, hospitals, trains, border points, courts etc etc, it thinks that it should double down and solve the problem by outlawing the strikes.
Flying to Leeds - which by the time you get to and from the airport is slower than the train - tells everyone that he knows the service is unusable. On a non-strike day. On an operator that isn't beset with the DfT meddling that has ruined the likes of Avanti. So it isn't "why is the PM evading a question about a private doctor". Its "why are the elite breaking public services for all of us then rubbing our faces in it by avoiding the mess we have to put up with."
I would very much dispute the idea that the ECML service is unusable. It is a very good service. I think the problem with Sunak in both these instances is more fundamental. Basically he wouldn't be seen dead using public transport or the NHS. It is a problem of mindset, not practicality.
I don't think it's so much "wouldn't be seen dead", that suggests "has thought about it and rejected it". I think it's more that he has come to assume the plane/private healthcare is the default option.
As for travel, I need to go with "Minnie" from the south coast to London and Edinburgh and then back over the next week. For the two long legs of that I didn't even consider the train - flying would be quicker, driving would be more convenient and, I expect, cheaper.
I do the trip from the Lincolnshire to Aberdeen regularly. Train is by far the most convenient, flying by far the least. The last couple of years I have driven because I need to be able to drive between offices and sites up in Aberdeenshire. But any time I don't have to do that it is the train every time. Driving to Aberdeen these days is a fecking nightmare. It can, in ideal conditions, be a 7 hour journey. It has not been less than 10 hours on any trip in the last year.
That makes sense from Lincolnshire, if you were flying you'd probably have to go from Birmingham? From what I recall once you go north of Edinburgh the train starts to win over driving because the roads aren't as good. We could fly back to Southampton (and we'd pass there in the car or on the train) so it's more plausible.
Google Maps says between 6:20 and 8 hours for London to Edinburgh and 7:50 to 10:20 from Edinburgh to home. We'll see!
Humberside or East Midlands. But both are around 90 minutes drive away and of course you have to be there an hour early. So that is 150 minutes on the journey straight away. With baggage limits and the hassle of taxis or buses at the other end the savings on time between train and plane are, perhaps, a couple of hours. And on the train I can work. It is, for me, by far the best way to do a long journey in the UK so long as your need is point to point rather than touring.
Ah, I see we're in for another day of anti-trans hate. Situation normal.
I’m surprised you, of all people, are illustrating the point. It’s not just women’s rights Trans activists are harming. They are hurting trans peoples rights too by their “no debate” and sometimes violent shutting down of any attempt to discuss it.
I'm not illustrating your point - at least, as I read your point. Do you really think 'trans activists' have caused the deluge of anti-trans stuff in the media and online? As an example. when did you last post something supporting trans people, instead of a litany of negativity towards them?
I don't see myself as an 'activist' - I'm just someone who has known a few trans people, a couple of whom were very good friends. I'd argue *you* are an activist - as it seems you feel the need to post negative sh*t about them all the time. It's just that you're a negative activist.
If there is a deluge of anti trans stuff in the media please link to some examples, so we can see if it really anti trans or not.
The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier.
"The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier."
Perhaps. Perhaps not. You'd be surprising how hard it can be to tell an individual is trans. And IME, the longer they are trans, and the older they get, the harder it is to tell. And despite what some may say, women cannot automagically 'tell' when someone is male or trans. At least the ones I've asked cannot.
As for the articles: I might suggest you look at the following as an example of a constant stream of negativity. Can you point to an article there that says: "Hey look, this trans person has done something cool!" ?
Are you expecting the Daily Mail to be posting positive articles about anything at all? I think I may have found your problem.
The issue with the trans debate that puts me off is that people on both sides can be a bit all or nothing about it. For me the position I have settled upon is that people who are trans should be treated with respect and care, and so long as it doesn't cause any safeguarding issues should be treated as the gender they identify as - and by any names or pronouns they prefer. Where safeguarding is a concern, then sex should trump gender identity.
Should transgender people be able to change the sex recorded on their birth certificate?
In 2016, a majority of each age group supported this; in 2021 (with a slight change in question wording) a minority did. The sharpest fall in support was from older people.
And the drumbeat of anti-trans pieces in the Times, the Telegraph, the Mail and elsewhere have absolutely nothing to do with this then?
You manage to tell us about a new article in the press on a practically daily basis CV. I note a singular lack of articles written by actual trans people, whether they’re the “trans activists” you’re so keen to decry or the silent majority of trans people you think hold a less activist position.
Why do they not to print articles in the mainstream press every other day?
Debbie Hayton, a trans person (male to female) regularly writes in the mainstream press. Robin White, a male to female barrister, was on Politics Live yesterday morning. Rowan Moore, father of a trans child, wrote a long and interesting article in Prospect a few months back. There are others - including some who have transitioned and then detransitioned or the wives of men who have transitioned. There was one such couple who had a big piece in the Sunday Times recently, for instance.
There is plenty more on other more technical aspects eg some of the medical research and how other countries approach the issue which is worth seeking out if you are interested.
All of these have differing views on differing aspects of this issue and all are worth hearing, even if - perhaps especially if - you do not necessarily agree.
So the idea that there is not plenty of material from differing perspectives is wrong. It is not, in my view, a "drumbeat of anti-trans" pieces more that as the issue has gained a certain salience the "no debate" approach has received push back and a number of people, some from the world of medicine, others who have had actual experience of the issues and others affected have - rightly - started asking some questions about the issues involved, the consequences and the unchallenged assumptions. Challenging assumptions and claims is a good - not a bad - thing.
🔵 The Health Secretary said he does not use private healthcare services and only receives treatment on the NHS in comments which are likely to reignite questions over Rishi Sunak's own arrangements.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
How on earth do you think you would implement that?
Even if you outlawed them in this country, would you try to stop people from travelling abroad for medical treatment, or sending their children to private schools in other countries? Would you override devolution and enforce your policy across the whole UK?
Er, I already commented down thread that I'm not talking about banning things! Perhaps you are an instinctive authoritarian who wants to ban everything that you disapprove of, but I'm a liberal. People are free to do whatever the hell they like. But if you use private healthcare and schools then I will need a lot of persuading that you have the interests of their state equivalents close to your heart, and I probably won't vote for you, because I want the NHS and our schools to get the best possible funding and to deliver the best possible service for all of us.
Your own words were: "I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children."
Does this amount to nothing more than virtue signalling with you setting yourself up as a self-appointed judge of which luxuries are morally acceptable for other people?
Only if you consider all moral judgements to be virtue signalling (I assume you are an atheist), or alternatively if you think that everything that is wrong should be illegal. Anyone who has an opinion on right or wrong behaviour is surely a self-appointed judge in your terminology?
Do you think that people who travel from other countries in order to get treatment on the NHS because they see it as better are morally wrong?
I don't have a problem with the NHS doing a bit to help people who have no access to good healthcare at home, eg people with rare conditions who can't be treated in their own countries, but the NHS's main job should be to provide healthcare to British residents. Do you have any opinions on moral questions, or are you amoral?
Comments
Bridgen is peddling lies, not asking questions.
I find it hard to put my finger on exactly why. His slick charisma seems to be working against him. You get the impression that there really isn't much there behind the presentation. He appears to want to be loved just a little too much.
Odd.
We should be encouraging more to take out private healthcare and private education with tax breaks and expanding free schools to offer more choice in state education too.
Plus of course those who use private education and health pay taxes to fund state education and healthcare anyway
I was trying to go for the small (however defined) penis leading to problems with reproduction angle (which is, presumably, completely false) while riffing on the replication crisis in these kinds of studies. I'm wasted on you lot; you don't get my hard to follow obscure unfunny jokes
There's still not a great deal of pre-registration of studies, outside clinical trials and systematic reviews (PROSPERO - and that far from universal). Some journals will publish protocols, but it's not that common. I do agree pre-registration would serve a good purpose, particularly for some junk papers I'm going through at the moment for a systematci review where p-value fishing looks very much to be a thing.
Google Maps says between 6:20 and 8 hours for London to Edinburgh and 7:50 to 10:20 from Edinburgh to home. We'll see!
https://twitter.com/saintjavelin/status/1613114290445090818
Certainly produced some real fireworks!
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2023/01/damar-hamlin-cardiac-arrest-covid-anti-vaccine-heart-theories/672644/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share
There are numerous studies in numerous countries looking at the long term safety and effectiveness of vaccines, and that will continue to be the case for the foreseeable future.
Volume down across the whole grocery market, with only the German value retailers bucking this trend. Is that sign of a not struggling economy? No. Because...
Look at the right hand chart. Punters are trading down across the board. That means as well as buying less volume they are buying less expensive products, which does horrible things to retailer products mix.
A drop in volume, and what volume there is increasingly in the low margin value ranges is very very bad for the supermarkets. As in here come the waves of store closures bad. "Ah but value sales are up" I hear Nerys saying in an alternate reality where they understood the industry. Value up, driven by cost price rises. Not sustainable as long as people keep making the "step to the left" downgrading product tiers towards the unsustainable...
Sunak is in the place where anything he does is wrong. That’s politics.
The most recent previous version of this was Gordon Brown, towards the end.
The all cause mortality rate after having the flu vaccine is, I should think, substantially above all cause mortality for those not having the flu vaccine. Simply because the flu vaccine is generally offered to those older/with other health conditions.
However, I still am surprised by how Sunak has underperformed. He lacks the grit of a politician trained in opposition. A technocrat. He seems aware of the problem, hence all these silly photo-ops that only go to emphasis and amplify the problem. He would be better advised to lean into the persona. It is better to have begrudging respect than derision.
Even if you outlawed them in this country, would you try to stop people from travelling abroad for medical treatment, or sending their children to private schools in other countries? Would you override devolution and enforce your policy across the whole UK?
Running the west coast route south of Manchester must be a bit of a nightmare, especially with timetabling. It could really do with a new route to take much of the pressure off it...
The government moved a my blinding speed to stop this. Firstly because it ended the system of healthcare rationing.
Secondly, many of the medical facilities being used for this in the EU were, of course, private. Under EU rules for the market, what you can do in one part of the EU, you can do in all. They were one court ruling away from patients in the NHS backlog being able to go private in the U.K. and charge the NHS for it…. Which is NHS privatisation….
If enough people feel like OnlyLivingBoy then those politicians will get voted out.
Who in no 10 thought this ridiculous publicity stunt was a good idea !
Though why they didn't question whether a PM cheerily changing a tyre at a time of crisis is time well spent is a mystery.
But if there were significant numbers of vaccine related deaths from myocarditis, they would show up much more quickly.
Keir Starmer, though, will rise to his feet and..........oh dear sorry, I fell asleep. He'll say some kind of lawyer sh*t.
Why doesn't Sunak tell the truth and say
* the NHS is an inferior service which is why everyone who can afford to go private (and isn't too mean) does, and
* although he knows the entire GP system is a crock of sh*t his insurer insists he gets a GP's signature before they greenlight many types of specialist treatment, and
* he'd rather see a private GP than an NHS one because a) the private GP probably knows the difference between an a*sehole and an elbow and doesn't spend 90% of his professional time telling lies and prescribing noddy pills, and b) he can actually get to see the private one.
I don't like the Tories or billionaires either, but one thing I DON'T blame Sunak for is having a private GP.
He has no political awareness. No feel for public opinion, or how to influence it. He's like a very poor political chatbot from a few years ago that is going through the motions of political clichés.
They called Cameron an essay-crisis Prime Minister, presumably because he would allow situations to develop badly before paying attention and sorting them out. But he at least had some sense of how to do politics, of how to convince people, which messages would work, etc, until he came unstuck over the EU.
Sunak is like a last-minute exam crammer. He's trying to do politics by working off a cheat sheet. I can pretty much see what's written on it. "Pre-election tax cuts", "Normal guy photo opportunities", "Winter of Discontent", etc. It's all so obviously superficial.
Watch Morrisons. They won't survive the year in their current form. Losing too much ground, bleeding money, PE owned with borrowed money. Asda not much better with the same issues. A merger of the two an unthinkable but what are the alternatives possibility.
There is too much retail space. Has been for most of the last decade and we're heading towards the crunch point. First we had town and even city centre shops close in large numbers. Then it was the big malls going pop. Next up a lot of supermarkets closing. If nothing else can you imagine how much power an average supermarket burns with florescent strip lighting and aisles of open fridges?
Peripherally my new hero is US doctor Zeke Emmanuel who proposes to decline any medical intervention at all after age 75. Quite right.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/10/why-i-hope-to-die-at-75/379329/
What I do object to is the refusal to discuss the impact of expanding trans people’s rights into areas that affect the rights of women and children. “No debate” and the grotesque medical mispractice that masquerades as “affirmative care”.
Given the Scottish Governments Gender Recognition Bill (which does both) and the likely constitutional impact that this brings it into direct conflict with the U.K. government I think it’s highly relevant to politics.
So I will carry in highlighting where I think parties and or governments are getting it wrong. Feel free to disagree.
The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier.
And the new 'Single Market Emergency Instrument', which could have wider ranging implications: https://www.epsu.org/article/right-strike-risk-new-eu-law
The seemingly coincidental coalescing of European national legislation around a single object, especially if that object is a contentious one, is for me, very much the mo of the organisation and its supporters. But you can definitely chalk this up as my strong hunch, not an explicitly defined objective, and I apologise for making it sound otherwise.
(And let's see if he chances his mind when he's 75.)
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
I'd suspect more on the left than people think. We know of some isolated cases (Dianne Abbot's kids for instance). PMQ's will be interesting. If Starmer doesn't go for Sunak over it (and I suspect he won't - it will surely be about the strikes) I think it will suggest they know that enough on their side do the same.
Characters like Bridgen are simply peddling lies and fake statistics, and to say so isn't to discourage continuing investigation of the safety and efficacy of medicines.
To repeat my question, what research do you want done that is not being done ?
At 60ish I presently propose to follow his example. But as you say, let's see.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. You'd be surprising how hard it can be to tell an individual is trans. And IME, the longer they are trans, and the older they get, the harder it is to tell. And despite what some may say, women cannot automagically 'tell' when someone is male or trans. At least the ones I've asked cannot.
As for the articles: I might suggest you look at the following as an example of a constant stream of negativity. Can you point to an article there that says: "Hey look, this trans person has done something cool!" ?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/gender-ideology/index.html
We understandably criticise the SPAD to MP pipeline, but at least the SPAD types are exposed to the messy reality of government where wanting something to happen isn't enough.
Rishi is clearly bright. But going from hedge funding to a very safe seat and from there to PM in seven years limits him as a politician.
You can have all the talent in the world. But without the wet Tuesday night matches in Peterborough, or the session-long bowling spells in Basingstoke, or the bottom of the bill slots on the club circuit, that talent is likely to be incomplete and lack resilience.
Quacks said similar stuff in Germany in the 1930s: "If I were an imbecile, I'd want to be offed." In this creep's case, it's "When I'm 75".
For Aldi running these smaller supermarkets must save them a packet compared to those running the big supermarkets.
Does this amount to nothing more than virtue signalling with you setting yourself up as a self-appointed judge of which luxuries are morally acceptable for other people?
Seems an interesting and important story from any angle.
Try again
ETA and is your concern for trans people as patronising as that sounds? Ooh look at this cool thing x has done despite being trans? Why the implied "despite?"
The reason, I think, is that you've bought into the ideology of meritocracy. This means that you see private education as someone cheating in the great meritocratic struggle. The problem here isn't private education. The problem is that meritocracy is a con used to justify inequality.
It's a futile struggle to try and create a level playing field for meritocracy. Will never happen. Instead I think we should concentrate on people's right to dignity even if they don't become doctors or lawyers, and a fair share of the proceeds generated for society by Eton's education of the wealthy.
We also have the fact that billions of doses have been administered.
Bad faith actors and misguided people are distorting the truth about health issues in a post covid world. One of the biggest sequelae of covid is damage to the heart. So its hardly surprising that we are seeing an increase in heart issues, given that almost everyone has been exposed to covid.
By all means have concerns about vaccines. But then do some research and not on twitter, facebook etc. Look over the published data.
Asseem Malhotra is a weird guy who is distorting facts and evidence for his own reasons. Someone suggested his father died early in covid and that he is using his guilt over that to drive his campaign. Fine - if he believes there are dangers he should make his case with FACTS. Currently he is not. His schtick seems to be to find any other medics who raise concerns on twitter and trumpet this as proof. Yet there are 100s of 1000s of medics in the world - some probably believe pineapple works as a pizza topping, and is best eating while listening to Radiohead.
As a scientist I would always say to ask questions. But always try to ask the right questions.
"I assess private schools as net harmful to society but it's only an opinion and I'm not saying they should be illegal."
Mind you, if I was Prez with a landslide and a 10 year term ...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11606275/Census-shows-262-000-people-England-Wales-different-gender-identity-birth-sex.html
2 Morrisons
3 Sainsburys
1 Asda
1 Aldi
2 Lidl
2 M&S
1 Tesco
- off the top of my head. There might be more.
The most at risk you would think is the M&S in Dartmouth, being a long way off the distribution system along narrow roads. However, because of the floating gin palaces moored in the harbour, it seems quite safe. It stocks every brand of M&S booze - to keep the sailors topped up. Very lucrative.
The way to do it is of course, to compare those with and without vaccine receipt (while also controlling for other factors) or, probably better, across those receiving different types of vaccine which, in some countries such as UK at least, is at least a randomish allocation, at least in over 40s.
Is it impossible that anyone should mean what this guy on the face of it says? Or is it in theory possible to mean it, but your spidey senses tell you this particular creep is a creep?
I see healthcare as a more essential right than education. I am less tolerant of inequities in healthcare.
For education - I want everyone to get a pretty high standard level of provision, but beyond that I'm okay with there being some inequality based on ability, desire to learn, prioritization of parents etc.
16 or 18 years cut-off seems reasonable to me as the state having set you up okay. And parents deciding to hire a tutor or teach their own children to read is reasonable to me, even though I am sure it is unfair and introduces inequality. Even private schools are fine, although they should lose tax privileges.
For health - I want everyone to get access to the best. I know there are cost limitations at a certain point, but I really hate hate hate the idea that someone is wealthy enough to get cancer drugs to prolong their life and someone else isn't.
All of which means they operate on significantly lower front margins (direct profit selling a product) than the other supermarket chains. And thanks to significantly lower operating costs have higher bottom line profits. And thanks to being long term privately owned they don't give a rat fuck about quarterly profit reports and just plan long term for their business to succeed.
I know I have mentioned it before, but the Aldi HQ in Atherstone is an example of how they think. Massive UK growth meant they needed to expand their office space. So they built a large extension to the office block, using the exact same bricks in the exact same pattern as the original part built 20 years prior...
That there was very little if any clamour for covid vaccines to be available privately suggests that if we were starting from scratch the ability to pay to queue jump for operations would be a lot less we have now become used to.
But it's odd you picked that article and not, say, this:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11585661/Trans-woman-murdered-parents-moved-mixed-gender-prison.html?ico=topics_pagination_desktop
or this:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11469515/Parents-voice-disbelief-survey-reveals-young-Britons-think-fairy-tales-inappropriate.html?ico=topics_pagination_desktop
There are undoubtedly valid concerns about trans issues: I don't see my position as being particularly 'extreme' in this. The problem is when people spam *only* negativity .
The issue with the trans debate that puts me off is that people on both sides can be a bit all or nothing about it. For me the position I have settled upon is that people who are trans should be treated with respect and care, and so long as it doesn't cause any safeguarding issues should be treated as the gender they identify as - and by any names or pronouns they prefer. Where safeguarding is a concern, then sex should trump gender identity.
Telegraph/Mail/Express must be quite conflicted about how to cover this. ~AA
Cake and brownies go vegan to dodge Brexit checks -
https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/cake-and-brownies-go-vegan-to-dodge-brexit-checks/675127.article
There is plenty more on other more technical aspects eg some of the medical research and how other countries approach the issue which is worth seeking out if you are interested.
All of these have differing views on differing aspects of this issue and all are worth hearing, even if - perhaps especially if - you do not necessarily agree.
So the idea that there is not plenty of material from differing perspectives is wrong. It is not, in my view, a "drumbeat of anti-trans" pieces more that as the issue has gained a certain salience the "no debate" approach has received push back and a number of people, some from the world of medicine, others who have had actual experience of the issues and others affected have - rightly - started asking some questions about the issues involved, the consequences and the unchallenged assumptions. Challenging assumptions and claims is a good - not a bad - thing.
Follow the latest on our politics live blog ⬇️
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/01/11/strikes-nhs-news-rishi-sunak-ni-protocol-starmer-pmqs-live/ https://twitter.com/TelePolitics/status/1613128343041331200/photo/1
Do you have any opinions on moral questions, or are you amoral?