Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Tories, huh, yeah, what are they good for? Absolutely nothing, uhh – politicalbetting.com

2

Comments

  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 7,495
    Foxy said:

    Good morning

    Listening to Starmer on the NHS he really does seem determined to reform it root and branch and take on the vested interests including the BMA

    I believe the NHS needs to lose its religious zeal and change and frankly Starmer is best placed to take this huge issue on as he will be, lest we forget, a Labour PM

    The reforms he suggests are trivial. A substantial proportion of GPs are already salaried, not least because new GPs don't want the hassles of partnership. Direct referral to physios and some carefully selected specialists aren't some magic solution.
    I think you're being unduly negative. If you follow what Streeting has been saying, there's been quite a bit on investment, training, retention and so on. I'd expect him to come up with quite a radical, coherent NHS plan in advance of the GE.
  • IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Jonathan said:

    “Nothing” is a direct result of Sunak’s lack of political experience.

    His political message is that he is there to fix problems. It’s all he talks about. As such it’s hardly surprising that there is a consensus that he has inherited nothing but problems. He wanted to contrast himself with Truss and Johnson.

    Whilst it’s true that he’s inherited an ungodly mess of the Tories making, a more experienced politician would have a balanced the message with a positive project building on a past success. Tough to do given the raw material, but he has created a rod for his own back.

    He's going to be terrible in a GE campaign. He's so fucking awkward and small and rich. The tories need Johnson back for the GE as he was, until recently, none of those things and is still not two of them.
    He performed dreadfully on his brief first visit to Scotland this week. He hasn’t the faintest idea what he’s doing.

    https://twitter.com/dinosofos/status/1614190496775012352?s=46&t=C4zYaZLgIvXtpNX6w60Bbw
    Sunak should just say Shut up, Fuck off, You had a vote in 2014 - that’s it for 20 years

    Because that is the truth. And the truth has a virtue of its own
    @Leon here is a credible calamity story that you seem to have missed, despite AI playing a small role in it as well.
    https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/1/13/2147015/-Somewhere-on-Thwaites-Glacier-is-a-fissure-so-deep-that-it-threatens-the-world-s-coastlines
    Basically the Thwaites glacier and sea ice sheet has been protected by large icebergs that had grounded on undersea mountains. They are now breaking free and when they do, within the next few years, the sea ice behind them will collapse driving sea levels up by 2 feet fairly quickly and ultimately by 10 feet once the Thwaites glacier collapses into the sea. A likely trigger point for this is the El Nino effect which starts this year.

    Its going to get a little damp in London and many other coastal cities.
    Bits of London, perhaps. I live near the top a hill so should be fine!
    I live in a village which has the word "hill" in the name so I will be too but you may find quite a lot of sodden Londoners wanting to share your space.
    London is however extraordinarily low-lying. I'm 200 metres away from the beach up a hill, and yet the sea would only be halfway up to my front door before much of London is underwater, leaving Hampstead as an island.
    Hackney Marshes would become Lake Hackney.

    Hampstead would be safe though, and socially speaking it's an island already.
    Very good longer article

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/antarcticas-collapse-could-begin-even-sooner-than-anticipated/
  • The only party of reforming the NHS for the better is Labour. I don't trust the Tories to do it for the better of patients and the public - but Labour don't have the same problem.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,865
    Foxy said:

    Good morning

    Listening to Starmer on the NHS he really does seem determined to reform it root and branch and take on the vested interests including the BMA

    I believe the NHS needs to lose its religious zeal and change and frankly Starmer is best placed to take this huge issue on as he will be, lest we forget, a Labour PM

    The reforms he suggests are trivial. A substantial proportion of GPs are already salaried, not least because new GPs don't want the hassles of partnership. Direct referral to physios and some carefully selected specialists aren't some magic solution.
    The NHS has had too many ‘reforms’, the last one being possibly the least thought through.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,976
    Foxy said:

    Good morning

    Listening to Starmer on the NHS he really does seem determined to reform it root and branch and take on the vested interests including the BMA

    I believe the NHS needs to lose its religious zeal and change and frankly Starmer is best placed to take this huge issue on as he will be, lest we forget, a Labour PM

    The reforms he suggests are trivial. A substantial proportion of GPs are already salaried, not least because new GPs don't want the hassles of partnership. Direct referral to physios and some carefully selected specialists aren't some magic solution.
    It is a genuine managerial problem. Over 1.3m employees spread over thousands of sites providing an ever increasingly complex series of products with little opportunity to improve productivity or efficiency. The sheer size of its database has many attractions but also has a legacy of incompatible and defective systems.

    Somehow, we need to retain the advantages of size, improve the efficiency of specialist units doing repeat orders on a mass production basis and yet make sure that most managerial decisions are made at a local level and then not replicated higher up the chain.

    It is bordering on the impossible, frankly. It's just too big.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 10,542

    MJW said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    He's going to be terrible in a GE campaign. He's so fucking awkward and small and rich. The tories need Johnson back for the GE as he was, until recently, none of those things and is still not two of them.

    BoZo not fucking awkward? He hid in a fridge to avoid answering questions. He ran away from Andrew Neil. He is brilliant as long as he doesn't have to speak to any journalists...
    There was also this doozy from the 2019 campaign. The URL says it all, really.

    https://www.itv.com/news/calendar/2019-12-09/boris-johnson-takes-itv-reporter-s-phone-after-refusing-to-look-at-photo-of-boy-on-hospital-floor

    Can't help but think in part Boris was helped by Corbyn as rather neutralised his weakness to scrutiny and detail. Boris chickening out of interviews or running from hacks would've been more leapt upon had Corbyn not had his own car crash moments that made headlines and were a gift to papers wanting to run those rather than a Boris fiasco.
    I’ve said many times, if Johnson had faced Starmer in GE19 it would have been a hung parliament
    Clearly Starmer would have been better than Corbyn, but that election was also about 'Getting Brexit done' so the red wall would probably still have been won by the Tories. The question is were 'Corbyn' and 'Getting Brexit done' parallel or serial affects.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 9,309

    Foxy said:

    Good morning

    Listening to Starmer on the NHS he really does seem determined to reform it root and branch and take on the vested interests including the BMA

    I believe the NHS needs to lose its religious zeal and change and frankly Starmer is best placed to take this huge issue on as he will be, lest we forget, a Labour PM

    The reforms he suggests are trivial. A substantial proportion of GPs are already salaried, not least because new GPs don't want the hassles of partnership. Direct referral to physios and some carefully selected specialists aren't some magic solution.
    The NHS has had too many ‘reforms’, the last one being possibly the least thought through.
    Like any huge organisation, public or private, I would expect it to need constant reform just to stand still. Continuous improvement.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 10,542
    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Good morning

    Listening to Starmer on the NHS he really does seem determined to reform it root and branch and take on the vested interests including the BMA

    I believe the NHS needs to lose its religious zeal and change and frankly Starmer is best placed to take this huge issue on as he will be, lest we forget, a Labour PM

    The reforms he suggests are trivial. A substantial proportion of GPs are already salaried, not least because new GPs don't want the hassles of partnership. Direct referral to physios and some carefully selected specialists aren't some magic solution.
    It is a genuine managerial problem. Over 1.3m employees spread over thousands of sites providing an ever increasingly complex series of products with little opportunity to improve productivity or efficiency. The sheer size of its database has many attractions but also has a legacy of incompatible and defective systems.

    Somehow, we need to retain the advantages of size, improve the efficiency of specialist units doing repeat orders on a mass production basis and yet make sure that most managerial decisions are made at a local level and then not replicated higher up the chain.

    It is bordering on the impossible, frankly. It's just too big.
    I agree (you see I always do agree with you @DavidL :) ).

    As a non expert I look at it and think I haven't a clue other than throwing money at it. Certainly most reforms that don't involve money just look like tinkering. I just cross my fingers and hope that experts (unlike me) do have some good ideas.
  • kjh said:

    MJW said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    He's going to be terrible in a GE campaign. He's so fucking awkward and small and rich. The tories need Johnson back for the GE as he was, until recently, none of those things and is still not two of them.

    BoZo not fucking awkward? He hid in a fridge to avoid answering questions. He ran away from Andrew Neil. He is brilliant as long as he doesn't have to speak to any journalists...
    There was also this doozy from the 2019 campaign. The URL says it all, really.

    https://www.itv.com/news/calendar/2019-12-09/boris-johnson-takes-itv-reporter-s-phone-after-refusing-to-look-at-photo-of-boy-on-hospital-floor

    Can't help but think in part Boris was helped by Corbyn as rather neutralised his weakness to scrutiny and detail. Boris chickening out of interviews or running from hacks would've been more leapt upon had Corbyn not had his own car crash moments that made headlines and were a gift to papers wanting to run those rather than a Boris fiasco.
    I’ve said many times, if Johnson had faced Starmer in GE19 it would have been a hung parliament
    Clearly Starmer would have been better than Corbyn, but that election was also about 'Getting Brexit done' so the red wall would probably still have been won by the Tories. The question is were 'Corbyn' and 'Getting Brexit done' parallel or serial affects.
    The polling evidence seems to suggest that it was Corbyn that lost a load of Red Wall seats as voters just sat on their hands.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,901
    Quite a stunning stat.

    "109 (8%) of the total of 1,435 women killed by men were mothers killed by sons while 11 grandmothers were killed by grandsons over the decade."
  • BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 2,404
    DavidL said:

    In the period 95-97 my memory was of a government mired in sleaze, with a tiny majority that was shrinking with every bye election. Major's back to basics campaign with its emphasis on family values was a disaster making every backbencher who got caught with his trousers down a matter of genuine public interest rather than just a matter for his wife. Even the PM was at although we did not know that at the time.

    Today, I think the problems are rather different. Major still had strong waves of Thatcherism about him, no one wondered what the Tories were for, whether they liked it or not. Now? The kindest description one could give of the current party is pragmatic managerialism and they are not very good at that as the failure to resolve the NHS strikes shows. It's not good enough and they need what will almost certainly be a longish period in opposition to work out what they are for.

    The worry for the country is that SKS regards pragmatic managerialism as an aspiration, and that is before they even start.

    The danger for Sunak is being portrayed as "weak" which is the impression that buried Major in 97. That's why he's been hardline on the strikes (so far). May be unpopular for now, but is an investment in the future contest with Starmer.

    Looking beyond, I think the most realistic aspiration for Rishi is to prevent a landslide and give him a fighting chance of retaining the leadership in the inevitable scrap with Boris in 2025. No-one else would have a chance. It is a singular thing that not one of the current holders of the major offices of state (Chancellor, Foreign Sec., Home Sec., DPM) would be a credible contender for the succession.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 9,309
    kjh said:

    MJW said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    He's going to be terrible in a GE campaign. He's so fucking awkward and small and rich. The tories need Johnson back for the GE as he was, until recently, none of those things and is still not two of them.

    BoZo not fucking awkward? He hid in a fridge to avoid answering questions. He ran away from Andrew Neil. He is brilliant as long as he doesn't have to speak to any journalists...
    There was also this doozy from the 2019 campaign. The URL says it all, really.

    https://www.itv.com/news/calendar/2019-12-09/boris-johnson-takes-itv-reporter-s-phone-after-refusing-to-look-at-photo-of-boy-on-hospital-floor

    Can't help but think in part Boris was helped by Corbyn as rather neutralised his weakness to scrutiny and detail. Boris chickening out of interviews or running from hacks would've been more leapt upon had Corbyn not had his own car crash moments that made headlines and were a gift to papers wanting to run those rather than a Boris fiasco.
    I’ve said many times, if Johnson had faced Starmer in GE19 it would have been a hung parliament
    Clearly Starmer would have been better than Corbyn, but that election was also about 'Getting Brexit done' so the red wall would probably still have been won by the Tories. The question is were 'Corbyn' and 'Getting Brexit done' parallel or serial affects.
    Surveys taken after the election somewhat gave the lie to the idea it was all about get Brexit done. Corbyn was a bigger factor across the board.

    They would probably still have done well in the red wall but might well have struggled to achieve a working majority.
  • Foxy said:

    Good morning

    Listening to Starmer on the NHS he really does seem determined to reform it root and branch and take on the vested interests including the BMA

    I believe the NHS needs to lose its religious zeal and change and frankly Starmer is best placed to take this huge issue on as he will be, lest we forget, a Labour PM

    The reforms he suggests are trivial. A substantial proportion of GPs are already salaried, not least because new GPs don't want the hassles of partnership. Direct referral to physios and some carefully selected specialists aren't some magic solution.
    They may not be a magic solution to all the problems but they are an important part of very necessary reform. This is the way the system works in many other parts of Europe and is a far better way to deal with the GP/first contact system.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 3,155
    TimS said:

    Foxy said:

    Good morning

    Listening to Starmer on the NHS he really does seem determined to reform it root and branch and take on the vested interests including the BMA

    I believe the NHS needs to lose its religious zeal and change and frankly Starmer is best placed to take this huge issue on as he will be, lest we forget, a Labour PM

    The reforms he suggests are trivial. A substantial proportion of GPs are already salaried, not least because new GPs don't want the hassles of partnership. Direct referral to physios and some carefully selected specialists aren't some magic solution.
    The NHS has had too many ‘reforms’, the last one being possibly the least thought through.
    Like any huge organisation, public or private, I would expect it to need constant reform just to stand still. Continuous improvement.
    "The NHS doesn't need another top down reform" was a common Labour slogan during the coalition years. I notice Sunak has appropriated it now, against Labour.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 10,542
    edited January 2023

    kjh said:

    MJW said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    He's going to be terrible in a GE campaign. He's so fucking awkward and small and rich. The tories need Johnson back for the GE as he was, until recently, none of those things and is still not two of them.

    BoZo not fucking awkward? He hid in a fridge to avoid answering questions. He ran away from Andrew Neil. He is brilliant as long as he doesn't have to speak to any journalists...
    There was also this doozy from the 2019 campaign. The URL says it all, really.

    https://www.itv.com/news/calendar/2019-12-09/boris-johnson-takes-itv-reporter-s-phone-after-refusing-to-look-at-photo-of-boy-on-hospital-floor

    Can't help but think in part Boris was helped by Corbyn as rather neutralised his weakness to scrutiny and detail. Boris chickening out of interviews or running from hacks would've been more leapt upon had Corbyn not had his own car crash moments that made headlines and were a gift to papers wanting to run those rather than a Boris fiasco.
    I’ve said many times, if Johnson had faced Starmer in GE19 it would have been a hung parliament
    Clearly Starmer would have been better than Corbyn, but that election was also about 'Getting Brexit done' so the red wall would probably still have been won by the Tories. The question is were 'Corbyn' and 'Getting Brexit done' parallel or serial affects.
    The polling evidence seems to suggest that it was Corbyn that lost a load of Red Wall seats as voters just sat on their hands.
    Really? I don't have the facts to dispute that but I always thought the argument was Boris promising to get brexit done was the reason for the red wall. Certainly the leave vote seems to correlate with that.

    PS I also see @TimS backs up your comment. learn something everyday.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,865
    kjh said:

    MJW said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    He's going to be terrible in a GE campaign. He's so fucking awkward and small and rich. The tories need Johnson back for the GE as he was, until recently, none of those things and is still not two of them.

    BoZo not fucking awkward? He hid in a fridge to avoid answering questions. He ran away from Andrew Neil. He is brilliant as long as he doesn't have to speak to any journalists...
    There was also this doozy from the 2019 campaign. The URL says it all, really.

    https://www.itv.com/news/calendar/2019-12-09/boris-johnson-takes-itv-reporter-s-phone-after-refusing-to-look-at-photo-of-boy-on-hospital-floor

    Can't help but think in part Boris was helped by Corbyn as rather neutralised his weakness to scrutiny and detail. Boris chickening out of interviews or running from hacks would've been more leapt upon had Corbyn not had his own car crash moments that made headlines and were a gift to papers wanting to run those rather than a Boris fiasco.
    I’ve said many times, if Johnson had faced Starmer in GE19 it would have been a hung parliament
    Clearly Starmer would have been better than Corbyn, but that election was also about 'Getting Brexit done' so the red wall would probably still have been won by the Tories. The question is were 'Corbyn' and 'Getting Brexit done' parallel or serial affects.
    It’s very clear that Johnson lied and blustered his way through the 2019 campaign; Starmer would have been in a better position to ‘call him out’!
  • Good morning, everyone.

    Football: well, Lorient did fail to win, which is a shame, but Manchester United did, which is nice. Green for the last set of bets, probably still just in the red overall this year (haven't updated my records yet).

    Politics: Conservatives are in a rough spot, partly of their own making (the prior two PMs) and partly due to strategic reasons. Easy Labour win next time round, but what they actually do when they inherit problems that can't be fixed by an abundance of straightforward spending due to an economy in fantastic shape will make it trickier to govern than campaign.

    Good grief, Morris. Don't tell me there are two Orient supporters on here?

    Mind you, things are looking up and we're no longer a Protected Species. Sell out at Brisbane Road again yesterday.

    Shame about the game.
    I thought Orient got a rough deal when West Ham got their new stadium in "Orient territory".
    Thank God Spurs failed to get that stadium!

    I was outraged too at the time, but it may have been a blessing in disguise. Apparently as a football stadium West Ham's new gaff has all the atmosphere of a morgue. Brisbane Road may be small but works well for their current status. It would be a problem if they got as far as the Championship because the capacity is so low (about 10,000) but I gather that as far as finances are concerned crowd attendance is less important than TV and streaming income, where the O's do well.

    They really are a popular side well beyond the confines of Leyton.
    Back in my Hackney days (1980s) we used to go to all the Orient games, though we weren't particularly supporters. The pull over the big teams was that you could rock up at 2.55pm, and it was dirt cheap. And yes, we used to drink in the Hitchcock as well.
    Rumour was that if you phoned to tell them you were a bit late they'd hold the start up for you.
  • DavidL said:

    In the period 95-97 my memory was of a government mired in sleaze, with a tiny majority that was shrinking with every bye election. Major's back to basics campaign with its emphasis on family values was a disaster making every backbencher who got caught with his trousers down a matter of genuine public interest rather than just a matter for his wife. Even the PM was at although we did not know that at the time.

    Today, I think the problems are rather different. Major still had strong waves of Thatcherism about him, no one wondered what the Tories were for, whether they liked it or not. Now? The kindest description one could give of the current party is pragmatic managerialism and they are not very good at that as the failure to resolve the NHS strikes shows. It's not good enough and they need what will almost certainly be a longish period in opposition to work out what they are for.

    The worry for the country is that SKS regards pragmatic managerialism as an aspiration, and that is before they even start.

    The danger for Sunak is being portrayed as "weak" which is the impression that buried Major in 97. That's why he's been hardline on the strikes (so far). May be unpopular for now, but is an investment in the future contest with Starmer.

    Looking beyond, I think the most realistic aspiration for Rishi is to prevent a landslide and give him a fighting chance of retaining the leadership in the inevitable scrap with Boris in 2025. No-one else would have a chance. It is a singular thing that not one of the current holders of the major offices of state (Chancellor, Foreign Sec., Home Sec., DPM) would be a credible contender for the succession.
    Eh?

    Isn't Sunak about to give in on the strikes?
  • beinndeargbeinndearg Posts: 789
    edited January 2023
    dixiedean said:

    Quite a stunning stat.

    "109 (8%) of the total of 1,435 women killed by men were mothers killed by sons while 11 grandmothers were killed by grandsons over the decade."

    Source, country?

    Eta https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/jan/15/women-killed-by-sons-violence-children-parents-britain-abuse
  • BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 2,404

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    Yep.

    And "grumpy" is to put it mildly. I've never known such anger.

    They're in for a shellacking.

    Worse than 1997? That's fighting talk, to be sure, but you may be right. My recollection of those days was that, for all people hated the Conservatives, there was still some residual sympathy for Major. I don't get that vibe this time.

    Challenge: fill in the gap in the sentence "This government has to go, but X is alright." I'm finding myself landing on Gove, which ought to be unthinkable.
    Opinium yesterday gives Labour a majority closer to 2005 than 1997.

    Voters may not like Sunak much but he is still seen as more competent than Major 1997 was and Starmer lacks the charisma and appeal to Middle England Blair had, he is more John Smith
    John Smith was becoming ever more popular. Might have done better than Blair, although probably wouldn’t have had the tacit ‘deal’ with Ashdown.
    Smith would have got a majority of about 100 in 1997, not the 179 majority Blair got in 1997
    Shrewer politician than Blair though. Huge loss.
    Best PM we never had
    Clarke and Healey are the more usual nominees for that title, but John Smith would be up there.
    And Heseltine. Had he taken the leadership in 1990 instead of Major the history of the UK would have been quite different. A real mover and shaker, and capable of changing the political weather which is the mark of a significant leader. I was impressed with John Smith personally but he was a pretty typical old-style Labour politician.
  • Scott_xP said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    He's going to be terrible in a GE campaign. He's so fucking awkward and small and rich. The tories need Johnson back for the GE as he was, until recently, none of those things and is still not two of them.

    BoZo not fucking awkward? He hid in a fridge to avoid answering questions. He ran away from Andrew Neil. He is brilliant as long as he doesn't have to speak to any journalists...
    There was also this doozy from the 2019 campaign. The URL says it all, really.

    https://www.itv.com/news/calendar/2019-12-09/boris-johnson-takes-itv-reporter-s-phone-after-refusing-to-look-at-photo-of-boy-on-hospital-floor

    Johnson had the huge advantage of being way ahead in the polls and up against Jeremy Corbyn. He could hide from any serious scrutiny throughout the 2019 GE campaign. And did exactly that. Sunak won’t have that, he’ll have to be out there and taking the brickbats like Major did in 1992. Judging by his media appearances up to now, I can’t see it going very well.

  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,901

    dixiedean said:

    Quite a stunning stat.

    "109 (8%) of the total of 1,435 women killed by men were mothers killed by sons while 11 grandmothers were killed by grandsons over the decade."

    Source, country?
    In this article. UK.

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/jan/15/women-killed-by-sons-violence-children-parents-britain-abuse
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,044

    Foxy said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Football: well, Lorient did fail to win, which is a shame, but Manchester United did, which is nice. Green for the last set of bets, probably still just in the red overall this year (haven't updated my records yet).

    Politics: Conservatives are in a rough spot, partly of their own making (the prior two PMs) and partly due to strategic reasons. Easy Labour win next time round, but what they actually do when they inherit problems that can't be fixed by an abundance of straightforward spending due to an economy in fantastic shape will make it trickier to govern than campaign.

    Good grief, Morris. Don't tell me there are two Orient supporters on here?

    Mind you, things are looking up and we're no longer a Protected Species. Sell out at Brisbane Road again yesterday.

    Shame about the game.
    Never felt the same about them since they changed their name. I used to love having a football league team simply called Orient.
    They were originally Clapton Orient, based at Millfields near the River Lea and named after the Orient Tea Company. They played to huge crowds at the vast Clapton Stadium for many years in the old Division Three South, but the owners of the ground wanted to use it exclusively for Greyhound Racing and the O's had to decamp north to Leyton and their current home at Brisbane Road. The crowds didn't follow them though and they hemorraged support to West Ham, Tottenham and Arsenal. It's been tough being a fan ever since, with only the occasional bright spot (promotion to the old Div 1 in 1962/63) to cheer.

    The name changed to Orient as a result of a spat between chairman Brian Winstone and the local Council and stayed that way for many years after he left. Can't remember when it went back to Leyton Orient but I prefer it. The ground is, after all, in Leyton.

    Recent years have been a real roller coaster. They were pretty successful under the excellent stewardship of Barry Hearn and got within one penalty kick of the Championship. He then sold out - a decision he now regrets - and the club was taken over by a bunch of crooks (literally). Results deteriorated sharply; they dropped out of the football league and almost out of existence completely. They are now in the hands of a small group of wealthy supporters and are prospering again under the management of Richie Wellens. They look certain for promotion back to Div 1, which is probably where they belong.
    Richie Wellens was a decent midfielder with Leicester a decade and a bit back. I hope he does well for the "O's".
    He was once a brilliant prospect with Man U but got his marching orders following a drink-drive conviction.

    Good to see he has turned his career around.
    Weirdly I remember buying him as a young player on Championship manager when I was in charge of Cardiff City. I seem to think he did well for me.
  • BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 2,404

    Scott_xP said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    He's going to be terrible in a GE campaign. He's so fucking awkward and small and rich. The tories need Johnson back for the GE as he was, until recently, none of those things and is still not two of them.

    BoZo not fucking awkward? He hid in a fridge to avoid answering questions. He ran away from Andrew Neil. He is brilliant as long as he doesn't have to speak to any journalists...
    There was also this doozy from the 2019 campaign. The URL says it all, really.

    https://www.itv.com/news/calendar/2019-12-09/boris-johnson-takes-itv-reporter-s-phone-after-refusing-to-look-at-photo-of-boy-on-hospital-floor

    Johnson had the huge advantage of being way ahead in the polls and up against Jeremy Corbyn. He could hide from any serious scrutiny throughout the 2019 GE campaign. And did exactly that. Sunak won’t have that, he’ll have to be out there and taking the brickbats like Major did in 1992. Judging by his media appearances up to now, I can’t see it going very well.

    I'm not so sure that Sunak will perform badly in the GE campaign. He's fluent, personable and likeable. And he won't have anything to lose given expectations so may spring a surprise or two. And he'll be up against Starmer and Davey, as opposed to Blair and Ashdown who Major had to contend with in 97. The leadership issue, is the one (relatively) bright spot for the Tories.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,976

    DavidL said:

    In the period 95-97 my memory was of a government mired in sleaze, with a tiny majority that was shrinking with every bye election. Major's back to basics campaign with its emphasis on family values was a disaster making every backbencher who got caught with his trousers down a matter of genuine public interest rather than just a matter for his wife. Even the PM was at although we did not know that at the time.

    Today, I think the problems are rather different. Major still had strong waves of Thatcherism about him, no one wondered what the Tories were for, whether they liked it or not. Now? The kindest description one could give of the current party is pragmatic managerialism and they are not very good at that as the failure to resolve the NHS strikes shows. It's not good enough and they need what will almost certainly be a longish period in opposition to work out what they are for.

    The worry for the country is that SKS regards pragmatic managerialism as an aspiration, and that is before they even start.

    The Tory party feels almost as riven as Labour was during the worst of the Corbyn era. There's a significant division over policies and ethos with the groups mired in factional fighting. Sunak was a paid up Brexiteer but has been expelled by the uber alles group because he can do maths. And the Faragista set are prowling on the edges, with the deposed King Boris waiting to be restored to the throne.

    Labour have only recovered having ended their civil war and purged their lunatics. Tory lunatics remain in offices like Home Secretary so there is no chance of dealing with them yet.
    I am not sure I agree with that. There are undoubtedly a lot of egos in the Tory party with delusions of competence but, frankly, I struggle to see a vision for Britain that has got past the crayon stage. Compare the present shambles with the likes of Sir Keith Joseph, Sir Geoffrey Howe, the young whipper snapper Lawson, Biffen and all their various outriders that Thatcher could rely on. They were a minority in the party, the first cabinet was dominated by "wets", but they had a vision of a better Britain that was delivered over the first 2 Thatcher terms.

    In the present cabinet Gove stands out as someone willing to actually think about policy. I see no one else capable of thinking a policy through and spotting the potentially negative consequences, and even Gove (as @ydoethur has pointed out repeatedly) has a somewhat patchy record. One of the reasons that it is so hard to point to Tory achievements is that they have never had a clear idea about what sort of country they want.
  • Spiegel writes that Olaf Scholz told SPD MPs on Friday that he was recently stopped by a Polish man for a talk while he was out jogging.

    He claimed the Pole had told him:

    “thank you for not allowing the Polish government drive you crazy regarding the Leopard 2 tanks”


    https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1614250538698170368

    Yeah, I expect he regularly encounters folks who agree with his position while out jogging…

    Wait till you hear about Alister ‘£2m’ Jack, he’s apparently heard the vast majority of Scots say they have no desire to rejoin the EU. Dunno if he was jogging at the time.


  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,986

    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Jonathan said:

    “Nothing” is a direct result of Sunak’s lack of political experience.

    His political message is that he is there to fix problems. It’s all he talks about. As such it’s hardly surprising that there is a consensus that he has inherited nothing but problems. He wanted to contrast himself with Truss and Johnson.

    Whilst it’s true that he’s inherited an ungodly mess of the Tories making, a more experienced politician would have a balanced the message with a positive project building on a past success. Tough to do given the raw material, but he has created a rod for his own back.

    He's going to be terrible in a GE campaign. He's so fucking awkward and small and rich. The tories need Johnson back for the GE as he was, until recently, none of those things and is still not two of them.
    He performed dreadfully on his brief first visit to Scotland this week. He hasn’t the faintest idea what he’s doing.

    https://twitter.com/dinosofos/status/1614190496775012352?s=46&t=C4zYaZLgIvXtpNX6w60Bbw
    Sunak should just say Shut up, Fuck off, You had a vote in 2014 - that’s it for 20 years

    Because that is the truth. And the truth has a virtue of its own
    @Leon here is a credible calamity story that you seem to have missed, despite AI playing a small role in it as well.
    https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/1/13/2147015/-Somewhere-on-Thwaites-Glacier-is-a-fissure-so-deep-that-it-threatens-the-world-s-coastlines
    Basically the Thwaites glacier and sea ice sheet has been protected by large icebergs that had grounded on undersea mountains. They are now breaking free and when they do, within the next few years, the sea ice behind them will collapse driving sea levels up by 2 feet fairly quickly and ultimately by 10 feet once the Thwaites glacier collapses into the sea. A likely trigger point for this is the El Nino effect which starts this year.

    Its going to get a little damp in London and many other coastal cities.
    Bits of London, perhaps. I live near the top a hill so should be fine!
    Where do you live? I might have to join you.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,800
    Leon said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Jonathan said:

    “Nothing” is a direct result of Sunak’s lack of political experience.

    His political message is that he is there to fix problems. It’s all he talks about. As such it’s hardly surprising that there is a consensus that he has inherited nothing but problems. He wanted to contrast himself with Truss and Johnson.

    Whilst it’s true that he’s inherited an ungodly mess of the Tories making, a more experienced politician would have a balanced the message with a positive project building on a past success. Tough to do given the raw material, but he has created a rod for his own back.

    He's going to be terrible in a GE campaign. He's so fucking awkward and small and rich. The tories need Johnson back for the GE as he was, until recently, none of those things and is still not two of them.
    He performed dreadfully on his brief first visit to Scotland this week. He hasn’t the faintest idea what he’s doing.

    https://twitter.com/dinosofos/status/1614190496775012352?s=46&t=C4zYaZLgIvXtpNX6w60Bbw
    Sunak should just say Shut up, Fuck off, You had a vote in 2014 - that’s it for 20 years

    Because that is the truth. And the truth has a virtue of its own
    What utter Little Englander bollox of the highest order.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 14,983
    Barnesian said:

    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Jonathan said:

    “Nothing” is a direct result of Sunak’s lack of political experience.

    His political message is that he is there to fix problems. It’s all he talks about. As such it’s hardly surprising that there is a consensus that he has inherited nothing but problems. He wanted to contrast himself with Truss and Johnson.

    Whilst it’s true that he’s inherited an ungodly mess of the Tories making, a more experienced politician would have a balanced the message with a positive project building on a past success. Tough to do given the raw material, but he has created a rod for his own back.

    He's going to be terrible in a GE campaign. He's so fucking awkward and small and rich. The tories need Johnson back for the GE as he was, until recently, none of those things and is still not two of them.
    He performed dreadfully on his brief first visit to Scotland this week. He hasn’t the faintest idea what he’s doing.

    https://twitter.com/dinosofos/status/1614190496775012352?s=46&t=C4zYaZLgIvXtpNX6w60Bbw
    Sunak should just say Shut up, Fuck off, You had a vote in 2014 - that’s it for 20 years

    Because that is the truth. And the truth has a virtue of its own
    @Leon here is a credible calamity story that you seem to have missed, despite AI playing a small role in it as well.
    https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/1/13/2147015/-Somewhere-on-Thwaites-Glacier-is-a-fissure-so-deep-that-it-threatens-the-world-s-coastlines
    Basically the Thwaites glacier and sea ice sheet has been protected by large icebergs that had grounded on undersea mountains. They are now breaking free and when they do, within the next few years, the sea ice behind them will collapse driving sea levels up by 2 feet fairly quickly and ultimately by 10 feet once the Thwaites glacier collapses into the sea. A likely trigger point for this is the El Nino effect which starts this year.

    Its going to get a little damp in London and many other coastal cities.
    Bits of London, perhaps. I live near the top a hill so should be fine!
    Where do you live? I might have to join you.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telegraph_Hill,_Lewisham

    Join us, it's a very nice place, "the new Hampstead Heath" according to the Daily Mail.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,793

    The danger for Sunak is being portrayed as "weak" which is the impression that buried Major in 97. That's why he's been hardline on the strikes (so far). May be unpopular for now, but is an investment in the future contest with Starmer.

    He is about to get beaten by the strikers, so he appears weak and heartless
  • Good morning, everyone.

    Football: well, Lorient did fail to win, which is a shame, but Manchester United did, which is nice. Green for the last set of bets, probably still just in the red overall this year (haven't updated my records yet).

    Politics: Conservatives are in a rough spot, partly of their own making (the prior two PMs) and partly due to strategic reasons. Easy Labour win next time round, but what they actually do when they inherit problems that can't be fixed by an abundance of straightforward spending due to an economy in fantastic shape will make it trickier to govern than campaign.

    Good grief, Morris. Don't tell me there are two Orient supporters on here?

    Mind you, things are looking up and we're no longer a Protected Species. Sell out at Brisbane Road again yesterday.

    Shame about the game.
    I thought Orient got a rough deal when West Ham got their new stadium in "Orient territory".
    Thank God Spurs failed to get that stadium!

    I was outraged too at the time, but it may have been a blessing in disguise. Apparently as a football stadium West Ham's new gaff has all the atmosphere of a morgue. Brisbane Road may be small but works well for their current status. It would be a problem if they got as far as the Championship because the capacity is so low (about 10,000) but I gather that as far as finances are concerned crowd attendance is less important than TV and streaming income, where the O's do well.

    They really are a popular side well beyond the confines of Leyton.
    Back in my Hackney days (1980s) we used to go to all the Orient games, though we weren't particularly supporters. The pull over the big teams was that you could rock up at 2.55pm, and it was dirt cheap. And yes, we used to drink in the Hitchcock as well.
    Rumour was that if you phoned to tell them you were a bit late they'd hold the start up for you.
    Saturday afternoon, mid-1980s. Lea Bridge Road gridlocked with posh boys from Leyton en route to Highbury and cheapskates from Hackney en route to Brisbane Road. What a time to be alive.
  • Foxy said:

    Good morning

    Listening to Starmer on the NHS he really does seem determined to reform it root and branch and take on the vested interests including the BMA

    I believe the NHS needs to lose its religious zeal and change and frankly Starmer is best placed to take this huge issue on as he will be, lest we forget, a Labour PM

    The reforms he suggests are trivial. A substantial proportion of GPs are already salaried, not least because new GPs don't want the hassles of partnership. Direct referral to physios and some carefully selected specialists aren't some magic solution.
    To my mind, we spend all our money on treating ailments, and nothing on prevention. We have a culture of sickness but we should strive for a culture of wellness. To put it bluntly we're killing ourselves. We eat shite, don't exercise, have crap quality sleep, worry ourselves to the point of mental illness about money and spend all our lives trying to survive rather than enjoying the brief moment of time we're given on this planet (that we're having a fair crack at taking down with us!)
    What's the answer? Would it be better to spend more of the NHS budget on prevention? Would having free, healthy, balanced school dinners for every kid at state school make kids healthier? Would compulsory education on cooking, nutrition, on keeping yourself healthy and happy work to improve long term health? Wouldn't that be a more valuable education than compulsory maths until 18?
    I know, there's no one as zealous as a recent convert, but if the last few years have taught me anything, it's that you have to look after yourself. I want a government that will help, and that government needs to think way, way outside the box.It's going to take a radical shift in government to turn the behemoth around. I don't think any of the current crop of politicians will measure up.
    Spot on, I think a health and wellbeing party could be needed just as the Green party has been needed to push the mainstream parties in the right direction.

    Even if well run I think the governments chance of significanrlty improving UK trend growth or public sector productivity is low. Whereas getting the average person significantly fitter, healthier and happier? Sure, that is not so hard if it became our priority.
  • Scott_xP said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    He's going to be terrible in a GE campaign. He's so fucking awkward and small and rich. The tories need Johnson back for the GE as he was, until recently, none of those things and is still not two of them.

    BoZo not fucking awkward? He hid in a fridge to avoid answering questions. He ran away from Andrew Neil. He is brilliant as long as he doesn't have to speak to any journalists...
    There was also this doozy from the 2019 campaign. The URL says it all, really.

    https://www.itv.com/news/calendar/2019-12-09/boris-johnson-takes-itv-reporter-s-phone-after-refusing-to-look-at-photo-of-boy-on-hospital-floor

    Johnson had the huge advantage of being way ahead in the polls and up against Jeremy Corbyn. He could hide from any serious scrutiny throughout the 2019 GE campaign. And did exactly that. Sunak won’t have that, he’ll have to be out there and taking the brickbats like Major did in 1992. Judging by his media appearances up to now, I can’t see it going very well.

    I'm not so sure that Sunak will perform badly in the GE campaign. He's fluent, personable and likeable. And he won't have anything to lose given expectations so may spring a surprise or two. And he'll be up against Starmer and Davey, as opposed to Blair and Ashdown who Major had to contend with in 97. The leadership issue, is the one (relatively) bright spot for the Tories.
    The latest focus groups have him described as weak and weird. Remind me how that description went for Ed M?

    I genuinely think he's the Ed M of the Tories.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,976

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    Yep.

    And "grumpy" is to put it mildly. I've never known such anger.

    They're in for a shellacking.

    Worse than 1997? That's fighting talk, to be sure, but you may be right. My recollection of those days was that, for all people hated the Conservatives, there was still some residual sympathy for Major. I don't get that vibe this time.

    Challenge: fill in the gap in the sentence "This government has to go, but X is alright." I'm finding myself landing on Gove, which ought to be unthinkable.
    Opinium yesterday gives Labour a majority closer to 2005 than 1997.

    Voters may not like Sunak much but he is still seen as more competent than Major 1997 was and Starmer lacks the charisma and appeal to Middle England Blair had, he is more John Smith
    John Smith was becoming ever more popular. Might have done better than Blair, although probably wouldn’t have had the tacit ‘deal’ with Ashdown.
    Smith would have got a majority of about 100 in 1997, not the 179 majority Blair got in 1997
    Shrewer politician than Blair though. Huge loss.
    Best PM we never had
    Clarke and Healey are the more usual nominees for that title, but John Smith would be up there.
    And Heseltine. Had he taken the leadership in 1990 instead of Major the history of the UK would have been quite different. A real mover and shaker, and capable of changing the political weather which is the mark of a significant leader. I was impressed with John Smith personally but he was a pretty typical old-style Labour politician.
    I agree. Smith had a strong moral core built upon his Christian socialism beliefs which made him an exceptionally decent person, well liked by all who knew him. But Blair, for all his deficiencies, took the Labour appeal places Smith never could or would. He completely got aspiration and consumerism, Mondeo man and Worcester women were supporters that he could attract that Smith would not have.

    I suspect as PM the limitations of the world view of John Smith would have become very apparent.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,054

    Scott_xP said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    He's going to be terrible in a GE campaign. He's so fucking awkward and small and rich. The tories need Johnson back for the GE as he was, until recently, none of those things and is still not two of them.

    BoZo not fucking awkward? He hid in a fridge to avoid answering questions. He ran away from Andrew Neil. He is brilliant as long as he doesn't have to speak to any journalists...
    There was also this doozy from the 2019 campaign. The URL says it all, really.

    https://www.itv.com/news/calendar/2019-12-09/boris-johnson-takes-itv-reporter-s-phone-after-refusing-to-look-at-photo-of-boy-on-hospital-floor

    Johnson had the huge advantage of being way ahead in the polls and up against Jeremy Corbyn. He could hide from any serious scrutiny throughout the 2019 GE campaign. And did exactly that. Sunak won’t have that, he’ll have to be out there and taking the brickbats like Major did in 1992. Judging by his media appearances up to now, I can’t see it going very well.

    I'm not so sure that Sunak will perform badly in the GE campaign. He's fluent, personable and likeable. And he won't have anything to lose given expectations so may spring a surprise or two. And he'll be up against Starmer and Davey, as opposed to Blair and Ashdown who Major had to contend with in 97. The leadership issue, is the one (relatively) bright spot for the Tories.
    If that's true, it only goes to show how dire all the other spots are.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    I heard Rachel Johnson say her New Year's Resolution was to stop being angry about Brexit. I shouldn't think Stanley's too haopy either battling with the 90 day rule.

    It occured to me that the only possibility for Johnson's rehabillitation would be to admit that Brexit has been an unmittigated failure and that we should now learn from our mistakes and try to rejoin.

    It is perhaps the only policy that could give him an instant platform and more importantly for him put him centre stage again. He was a dreadful Prime Minister but a good campaigner and for a man without scruples this could be the perfect route to a comeback
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,044

    Spiegel writes that Olaf Scholz told SPD MPs on Friday that he was recently stopped by a Polish man for a talk while he was out jogging.

    He claimed the Pole had told him:

    “thank you for not allowing the Polish government drive you crazy regarding the Leopard 2 tanks”


    https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1614250538698170368

    Yeah, I expect he regularly encounters folks who agree with his position while out jogging…

    So Putin breathes a sigh of relief. I really cannot work out what Scholz is trying to do. I give him the benefit of the doubt in that he'll be disappointed about the leak. There may be many things wrong with the Polish government but wanting to send tanks to Ukraine isn't one of them. Is Scholz:

    a)trying to manage internal political difficulties
    b)naive
    c)something worse
  • UnpopularUnpopular Posts: 778
    Leon said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Jonathan said:

    “Nothing” is a direct result of Sunak’s lack of political experience.

    His political message is that he is there to fix problems. It’s all he talks about. As such it’s hardly surprising that there is a consensus that he has inherited nothing but problems. He wanted to contrast himself with Truss and Johnson.

    Whilst it’s true that he’s inherited an ungodly mess of the Tories making, a more experienced politician would have a balanced the message with a positive project building on a past success. Tough to do given the raw material, but he has created a rod for his own back.

    He's going to be terrible in a GE campaign. He's so fucking awkward and small and rich. The tories need Johnson back for the GE as he was, until recently, none of those things and is still not two of them.
    He performed dreadfully on his brief first visit to Scotland this week. He hasn’t the faintest idea what he’s doing.

    https://twitter.com/dinosofos/status/1614190496775012352?s=46&t=C4zYaZLgIvXtpNX6w60Bbw
    Sunak should just say Shut up, Fuck off, You had a vote in 2014 - that’s it for 20 years

    Because that is the truth. And the truth has a virtue of its own
    While I can see the cathartic appeal, I'm not sure that's the best way to win hearts and minds to keep Scotland in 'our family of nations' longterm. If the UK spends the next 20 years telling Scotland to shut up and fuck off, they will do so.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,976
    dixiedean said:

    Quite a stunning stat.

    "109 (8%) of the total of 1,435 women killed by men were mothers killed by sons while 11 grandmothers were killed by grandsons over the decade."

    It's almost as if Freud was on to something after all.
  • DavidL said:

    dixiedean said:

    Quite a stunning stat.

    "109 (8%) of the total of 1,435 women killed by men by sons while 11 grandmothers were killed by grandsons over the decade."

    It's almost as if Freud was on to something after all.
    Killing yer da was Sigmund’s thing, and..er..the other thing with yer maw.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,044
    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    Yep.

    And "grumpy" is to put it mildly. I've never known such anger.

    They're in for a shellacking.

    Worse than 1997? That's fighting talk, to be sure, but you may be right. My recollection of those days was that, for all people hated the Conservatives, there was still some residual sympathy for Major. I don't get that vibe this time.

    Challenge: fill in the gap in the sentence "This government has to go, but X is alright." I'm finding myself landing on Gove, which ought to be unthinkable.
    Opinium yesterday gives Labour a majority closer to 2005 than 1997.

    Voters may not like Sunak much but he is still seen as more competent than Major 1997 was and Starmer lacks the charisma and appeal to Middle England Blair had, he is more John Smith
    John Smith was becoming ever more popular. Might have done better than Blair, although probably wouldn’t have had the tacit ‘deal’ with Ashdown.
    Smith would have got a majority of about 100 in 1997, not the 179 majority Blair got in 1997
    Shrewer politician than Blair though. Huge loss.
    Best PM we never had
    Clarke and Healey are the more usual nominees for that title, but John Smith would be up there.
    And Heseltine. Had he taken the leadership in 1990 instead of Major the history of the UK would have been quite different. A real mover and shaker, and capable of changing the political weather which is the mark of a significant leader. I was impressed with John Smith personally but he was a pretty typical old-style Labour politician.
    I agree. Smith had a strong moral core built upon his Christian socialism beliefs which made him an exceptionally decent person, well liked by all who knew him. But Blair, for all his deficiencies, took the Labour appeal places Smith never could or would. He completely got aspiration and consumerism, Mondeo man and Worcester women were supporters that he could attract that Smith would not have.

    I suspect as PM the limitations of the world view of John Smith would have become very apparent.
    Would he have been so relaxed about the trebling of house prices and decapitalisation of the banks?
  • TazTaz Posts: 10,924

    Foxy said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Football: well, Lorient did fail to win, which is a shame, but Manchester United did, which is nice. Green for the last set of bets, probably still just in the red overall this year (haven't updated my records yet).

    Politics: Conservatives are in a rough spot, partly of their own making (the prior two PMs) and partly due to strategic reasons. Easy Labour win next time round, but what they actually do when they inherit problems that can't be fixed by an abundance of straightforward spending due to an economy in fantastic shape will make it trickier to govern than campaign.

    Good grief, Morris. Don't tell me there are two Orient supporters on here?

    Mind you, things are looking up and we're no longer a Protected Species. Sell out at Brisbane Road again yesterday.

    Shame about the game.
    Never felt the same about them since they changed their name. I used to love having a football league team simply called Orient.
    They were originally Clapton Orient, based at Millfields near the River Lea and named after the Orient Tea Company. They played to huge crowds at the vast Clapton Stadium for many years in the old Division Three South, but the owners of the ground wanted to use it exclusively for Greyhound Racing and the O's had to decamp north to Leyton and their current home at Brisbane Road. The crowds didn't follow them though and they hemorraged support to West Ham, Tottenham and Arsenal. It's been tough being a fan ever since, with only the occasional bright spot (promotion to the old Div 1 in 1962/63) to cheer.

    The name changed to Orient as a result of a spat between chairman Brian Winstone and the local Council and stayed that way for many years after he left. Can't remember when it went back to Leyton Orient but I prefer it. The ground is, after all, in Leyton.

    Recent years have been a real roller coaster. They were pretty successful under the excellent stewardship of Barry Hearn and got within one penalty kick of the Championship. He then sold out - a decision he now regrets - and the club was taken over by a bunch of crooks (literally). Results deteriorated sharply; they dropped out of the football league and almost out of existence completely. They are now in the hands of a small group of wealthy supporters and are prospering again under the management of Richie Wellens. They look certain for promotion back to Div 1, which is probably where they belong.
    Richie Wellens was a decent midfielder with Leicester a decade and a bit back. I hope he does well for the "O's".
    He was once a brilliant prospect with Man U but got his marching orders following a drink-drive conviction.

    Good to see he has turned his career around.
    Weirdly I remember buying him as a young player on Championship manager when I was in charge of Cardiff City. I seem to think he did well for me.
    The 97/8 and 2001/01 Championship Manager games were two of the best PC games I’ve ever played.

    I took Hartlepool to the top of the premiership and won the European cup too.
  • TazTaz Posts: 10,924
    Unpopular said:

    Leon said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Jonathan said:

    “Nothing” is a direct result of Sunak’s lack of political experience.

    His political message is that he is there to fix problems. It’s all he talks about. As such it’s hardly surprising that there is a consensus that he has inherited nothing but problems. He wanted to contrast himself with Truss and Johnson.

    Whilst it’s true that he’s inherited an ungodly mess of the Tories making, a more experienced politician would have a balanced the message with a positive project building on a past success. Tough to do given the raw material, but he has created a rod for his own back.

    He's going to be terrible in a GE campaign. He's so fucking awkward and small and rich. The tories need Johnson back for the GE as he was, until recently, none of those things and is still not two of them.
    He performed dreadfully on his brief first visit to Scotland this week. He hasn’t the faintest idea what he’s doing.

    https://twitter.com/dinosofos/status/1614190496775012352?s=46&t=C4zYaZLgIvXtpNX6w60Bbw
    Sunak should just say Shut up, Fuck off, You had a vote in 2014 - that’s it for 20 years

    Because that is the truth. And the truth has a virtue of its own
    While I can see the cathartic appeal, I'm not sure that's the best way to win hearts and minds to keep Scotland in 'our family of nations' longterm. If the UK spends the next 20 years telling Scotland to shut up and fuck off, they will do so.
    If they want to go let them go. It’s not in any of our interests to hold them in a union if they don’t want to be a part of it.

    I’d let them have their second referendum after Brexit and if they want to leave one union and jump into another so be it.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,639
    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Good morning

    Listening to Starmer on the NHS he really does seem determined to reform it root and branch and take on the vested interests including the BMA

    I believe the NHS needs to lose its religious zeal and change and frankly Starmer is best placed to take this huge issue on as he will be, lest we forget, a Labour PM

    The reforms he suggests are trivial. A substantial proportion of GPs are already salaried, not least because new GPs don't want the hassles of partnership. Direct referral to physios and some carefully selected specialists aren't some magic solution.
    It is a genuine managerial problem. Over 1.3m employees spread over thousands of sites providing an ever increasingly complex series of products with little opportunity to improve productivity or efficiency. The sheer size of its database has many attractions but also has a legacy of incompatible and defective systems.

    Somehow, we need to retain the advantages of size, improve the efficiency of specialist units doing repeat orders on a mass production basis and yet make sure that most managerial decisions are made at a local level and then not replicated higher up the chain.

    It is bordering on the impossible, frankly. It's just too big.
    The current state of collapse in the NHS seems to be due to a lack of resilience. The system has been run at or beyond capacity for so long that it can't cope with additional stresses also hitting more resilient healthcare systems elsewhere.

    While intuitively a monster organisation like the NHS would suffer from managerial problems, these don't appear to be the root cause of the current crisis. If they are treated as such through imposed reform, it is likely to make the crisis even worse.

    Or to put it another way, healthcare, which has been plagued by short-termism for years needs immediate short term measures to make it functional again.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 3,155
    Roger said:

    I shouldn't think Stanley's too haopy either battling with the 90 day rule.

    You will no doubt be pleased to learn that Stanley is a french citizen.
  • Roger said:

    I heard Rachel Johnson say her New Year's Resolution was to stop being angry about Brexit. I shouldn't think Stanley's too haopy either battling with the 90 day rule.

    It occured to me that the only possibility for Johnson's rehabillitation would be to admit that Brexit has been an unmittigated failure and that we should now learn from our mistakes and try to rejoin.

    It is perhaps the only policy that could give him an instant platform and more importantly for him put him centre stage again. He was a dreadful Prime Minister but a good campaigner and for a man without scruples this could be the perfect route to a comeback

    So you'd vote for the Tories if Johnson said "let's rejoin"? I think brexit is sub optimal, and I voted for it (we all have to live with the choices we make), but you're so crazed by brexit, you'd want Johnson back in power to rejoin? That's serious barminess.
  • DavidL said:

    dixiedean said:

    Quite a stunning stat.

    "109 (8%) of the total of 1,435 women killed by men were mothers killed by sons while 11 grandmothers were killed by grandsons over the decade."

    It's almost as if Freud was on to something after all.
    As noted, wrong way round. Though his early endorsement of recreational cocaine use may be relevant here.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,044
    Unpopular said:

    Leon said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Jonathan said:

    “Nothing” is a direct result of Sunak’s lack of political experience.

    His political message is that he is there to fix problems. It’s all he talks about. As such it’s hardly surprising that there is a consensus that he has inherited nothing but problems. He wanted to contrast himself with Truss and Johnson.

    Whilst it’s true that he’s inherited an ungodly mess of the Tories making, a more experienced politician would have a balanced the message with a positive project building on a past success. Tough to do given the raw material, but he has created a rod for his own back.

    He's going to be terrible in a GE campaign. He's so fucking awkward and small and rich. The tories need Johnson back for the GE as he was, until recently, none of those things and is still not two of them.
    He performed dreadfully on his brief first visit to Scotland this week. He hasn’t the faintest idea what he’s doing.

    https://twitter.com/dinosofos/status/1614190496775012352?s=46&t=C4zYaZLgIvXtpNX6w60Bbw
    Sunak should just say Shut up, Fuck off, You had a vote in 2014 - that’s it for 20 years

    Because that is the truth. And the truth has a virtue of its own
    While I can see the cathartic appeal, I'm not sure that's the best way to win hearts and minds to keep Scotland in 'our family of nations' longterm. If the UK spends the next 20 years telling Scotland to shut up and fuck off, they will do so.
    The argument surely is that another referendum right now is the last thing Scotland needs but the door isn't closed on the future.

    I can't abide this family of nations rubbish. Didn't that only start with Cameron. If we cannot build a common identity i.e British we might as well give up or accept permanent resentment from Scotland and Wales because one 'family member' is so much bigger than all the others.
  • FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Good morning

    Listening to Starmer on the NHS he really does seem determined to reform it root and branch and take on the vested interests including the BMA

    I believe the NHS needs to lose its religious zeal and change and frankly Starmer is best placed to take this huge issue on as he will be, lest we forget, a Labour PM

    The reforms he suggests are trivial. A substantial proportion of GPs are already salaried, not least because new GPs don't want the hassles of partnership. Direct referral to physios and some carefully selected specialists aren't some magic solution.
    It is a genuine managerial problem. Over 1.3m employees spread over thousands of sites providing an ever increasingly complex series of products with little opportunity to improve productivity or efficiency. The sheer size of its database has many attractions but also has a legacy of incompatible and defective systems.

    Somehow, we need to retain the advantages of size, improve the efficiency of specialist units doing repeat orders on a mass production basis and yet make sure that most managerial decisions are made at a local level and then not replicated higher up the chain.

    It is bordering on the impossible, frankly. It's just too big.
    The current state of collapse in the NHS seems to be due to a lack of resilience. The system has been run at or beyond capacity for so long that it can't cope with additional stresses also hitting more resilient healthcare systems elsewhere.

    While intuitively a monster organisation like the NHS would suffer from managerial problems, these don't appear to be the root cause of the current crisis. If they are treated as such through imposed reform, it is likely to make the crisis even worse.

    Or to put it another way, healthcare, which has been plagued by short-termism for years needs immediate short term measures to make it functional again.
    We're treating the wrong things. We need a steady transition to prevention and education. Reduce hospitals filling up with diseases caused by poor lifestyle choices, pollution and poverty, then you can spend more time and money on treating the patients who need to be in hospital.
    Easier said than done, though!
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,075

    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Jonathan said:

    “Nothing” is a direct result of Sunak’s lack of political experience.

    His political message is that he is there to fix problems. It’s all he talks about. As such it’s hardly surprising that there is a consensus that he has inherited nothing but problems. He wanted to contrast himself with Truss and Johnson.

    Whilst it’s true that he’s inherited an ungodly mess of the Tories making, a more experienced politician would have a balanced the message with a positive project building on a past success. Tough to do given the raw material, but he has created a rod for his own back.

    He's going to be terrible in a GE campaign. He's so fucking awkward and small and rich. The tories need Johnson back for the GE as he was, until recently, none of those things and is still not two of them.
    He performed dreadfully on his brief first visit to Scotland this week. He hasn’t the faintest idea what he’s doing.

    https://twitter.com/dinosofos/status/1614190496775012352?s=46&t=C4zYaZLgIvXtpNX6w60Bbw
    Sunak should just say Shut up, Fuck off, You had a vote in 2014 - that’s it for 20 years

    Because that is the truth. And the truth has a virtue of its own
    @Leon here is a credible calamity story that you seem to have missed, despite AI playing a small role in it as well.
    https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/1/13/2147015/-Somewhere-on-Thwaites-Glacier-is-a-fissure-so-deep-that-it-threatens-the-world-s-coastlines
    Basically the Thwaites glacier and sea ice sheet has been protected by large icebergs that had grounded on undersea mountains. They are now breaking free and when they do, within the next few years, the sea ice behind them will collapse driving sea levels up by 2 feet fairly quickly and ultimately by 10 feet once the Thwaites glacier collapses into the sea. A likely trigger point for this is the El Nino effect which starts this year.

    Its going to get a little damp in London and many other coastal cities.
    Bits of London, perhaps. I live near the top a hill so should be fine!
    I live in a village which has the word "hill" in the name so I will be too but you may find quite a lot of sodden Londoners wanting to share your space.
    London is however extraordinarily low-lying. I'm 200 metres away from the beach up a hill, and yet the sea would only be halfway up to my front door before much of London is underwater, leaving Hampstead as an island.
    Hackney Marshes would become Lake Hackney.

    Hampstead would be safe though, and socially speaking it's an island already.
    I used to play rugby on the East Marsh at Hackney Marshes, on one of two rugby pitches among 8 gazillion football pitches. You could hear whenever Orient scored from behind New Spitalfields market. They moved the rugby pitches to the main Marsh when they were temporarily using the East Marsh as a car park for the Olympics and they're still there.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 9,309

    Barnesian said:

    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Jonathan said:

    “Nothing” is a direct result of Sunak’s lack of political experience.

    His political message is that he is there to fix problems. It’s all he talks about. As such it’s hardly surprising that there is a consensus that he has inherited nothing but problems. He wanted to contrast himself with Truss and Johnson.

    Whilst it’s true that he’s inherited an ungodly mess of the Tories making, a more experienced politician would have a balanced the message with a positive project building on a past success. Tough to do given the raw material, but he has created a rod for his own back.

    He's going to be terrible in a GE campaign. He's so fucking awkward and small and rich. The tories need Johnson back for the GE as he was, until recently, none of those things and is still not two of them.
    He performed dreadfully on his brief first visit to Scotland this week. He hasn’t the faintest idea what he’s doing.

    https://twitter.com/dinosofos/status/1614190496775012352?s=46&t=C4zYaZLgIvXtpNX6w60Bbw
    Sunak should just say Shut up, Fuck off, You had a vote in 2014 - that’s it for 20 years

    Because that is the truth. And the truth has a virtue of its own
    @Leon here is a credible calamity story that you seem to have missed, despite AI playing a small role in it as well.
    https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/1/13/2147015/-Somewhere-on-Thwaites-Glacier-is-a-fissure-so-deep-that-it-threatens-the-world-s-coastlines
    Basically the Thwaites glacier and sea ice sheet has been protected by large icebergs that had grounded on undersea mountains. They are now breaking free and when they do, within the next few years, the sea ice behind them will collapse driving sea levels up by 2 feet fairly quickly and ultimately by 10 feet once the Thwaites glacier collapses into the sea. A likely trigger point for this is the El Nino effect which starts this year.

    Its going to get a little damp in London and many other coastal cities.
    Bits of London, perhaps. I live near the top a hill so should be fine!
    Where do you live? I might have to join you.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telegraph_Hill,_Lewisham

    Join us, it's a very nice place, "the new Hampstead Heath" according to the Daily Mail.
    Hmm. Even as a local patriot I think that would be pushing it a tad.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,036

    Keir Starmer wants the NHS to directly employ GPs, and end their gatekeeper role by allowing patients to refer themselves (at least to physiotherapists). Labour would also (as already announced) double the number of new nurses and doctors qualifying each year.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64279654

    Interesting

    So a fight with the GPs…

    The way I would do it, is rather than trying to nationalise the GPs, is to setup directly employed practises in areas where the service has fallen below X. “We are relieving the pressure” etc

    The gatekeeper thing is one where they could take a leaf out of private medicine - they’ve taken using phone assessments for whether you go straight to the consultant or see a private GP.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 14,983
    TimS said:

    Barnesian said:

    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Jonathan said:

    “Nothing” is a direct result of Sunak’s lack of political experience.

    His political message is that he is there to fix problems. It’s all he talks about. As such it’s hardly surprising that there is a consensus that he has inherited nothing but problems. He wanted to contrast himself with Truss and Johnson.

    Whilst it’s true that he’s inherited an ungodly mess of the Tories making, a more experienced politician would have a balanced the message with a positive project building on a past success. Tough to do given the raw material, but he has created a rod for his own back.

    He's going to be terrible in a GE campaign. He's so fucking awkward and small and rich. The tories need Johnson back for the GE as he was, until recently, none of those things and is still not two of them.
    He performed dreadfully on his brief first visit to Scotland this week. He hasn’t the faintest idea what he’s doing.

    https://twitter.com/dinosofos/status/1614190496775012352?s=46&t=C4zYaZLgIvXtpNX6w60Bbw
    Sunak should just say Shut up, Fuck off, You had a vote in 2014 - that’s it for 20 years

    Because that is the truth. And the truth has a virtue of its own
    @Leon here is a credible calamity story that you seem to have missed, despite AI playing a small role in it as well.
    https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/1/13/2147015/-Somewhere-on-Thwaites-Glacier-is-a-fissure-so-deep-that-it-threatens-the-world-s-coastlines
    Basically the Thwaites glacier and sea ice sheet has been protected by large icebergs that had grounded on undersea mountains. They are now breaking free and when they do, within the next few years, the sea ice behind them will collapse driving sea levels up by 2 feet fairly quickly and ultimately by 10 feet once the Thwaites glacier collapses into the sea. A likely trigger point for this is the El Nino effect which starts this year.

    Its going to get a little damp in London and many other coastal cities.
    Bits of London, perhaps. I live near the top a hill so should be fine!
    Where do you live? I might have to join you.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telegraph_Hill,_Lewisham

    Join us, it's a very nice place, "the new Hampstead Heath" according to the Daily Mail.
    Hmm. Even as a local patriot I think that would be pushing it a tad.
    Yes it did make me laugh. The view from the top of the hill is very lovely - until you realise you're looking at North London.
  • UnpopularUnpopular Posts: 778
    Taz said:

    Unpopular said:

    Leon said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Jonathan said:

    “Nothing” is a direct result of Sunak’s lack of political experience.

    His political message is that he is there to fix problems. It’s all he talks about. As such it’s hardly surprising that there is a consensus that he has inherited nothing but problems. He wanted to contrast himself with Truss and Johnson.

    Whilst it’s true that he’s inherited an ungodly mess of the Tories making, a more experienced politician would have a balanced the message with a positive project building on a past success. Tough to do given the raw material, but he has created a rod for his own back.

    He's going to be terrible in a GE campaign. He's so fucking awkward and small and rich. The tories need Johnson back for the GE as he was, until recently, none of those things and is still not two of them.
    He performed dreadfully on his brief first visit to Scotland this week. He hasn’t the faintest idea what he’s doing.

    https://twitter.com/dinosofos/status/1614190496775012352?s=46&t=C4zYaZLgIvXtpNX6w60Bbw
    Sunak should just say Shut up, Fuck off, You had a vote in 2014 - that’s it for 20 years

    Because that is the truth. And the truth has a virtue of its own
    While I can see the cathartic appeal, I'm not sure that's the best way to win hearts and minds to keep Scotland in 'our family of nations' longterm. If the UK spends the next 20 years telling Scotland to shut up and fuck off, they will do so.
    If they want to go let them go. It’s not in any of our interests to hold them in a union if they don’t want to be a part of it.

    I’d let them have their second referendum after Brexit and if they want to leave one union and jump into another so be it.
    I agree. Keeping Scotland in the Union against the will of the people of Scotland is pointless and would cause much political strife. That said, I have no problem with the UK advocating, even advocating strongly, that it is in all our interests that Scotland stays in the Union. Indeed, I agree with that also.

    That's why I despair at the attitudes of so-called patriots, especially those within the Conservative and Unionist party. Their rhetoric and actions risk the Union that they very loudly claim to love. It's funny that despite the fancy educations these politicians don't understand that it is not enough to conquer but that one must learn to seduce.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 14,983
    carnforth said:

    Roger said:

    I shouldn't think Stanley's too haopy either battling with the 90 day rule.

    You will no doubt be pleased to learn that Stanley is a french citizen.
    Ha ha, of course.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,911

    Good morning, everyone.

    Football: well, Lorient did fail to win, which is a shame, but Manchester United did, which is nice. Green for the last set of bets, probably still just in the red overall this year (haven't updated my records yet).

    Politics: Conservatives are in a rough spot, partly of their own making (the prior two PMs) and partly due to strategic reasons. Easy Labour win next time round, but what they actually do when they inherit problems that can't be fixed by an abundance of straightforward spending due to an economy in fantastic shape will make it trickier to govern than campaign.

    Good grief, Morris. Don't tell me there are two Orient supporters on here?

    Mind you, things are looking up and we're no longer a Protected Species. Sell out at Brisbane Road again yesterday.

    Shame about the game.
    Never felt the same about them since they changed their name. I used to love having a football league team simply called Orient.
    They were originally Clapton Orient, based at Millfields near the River Lea and named after the Orient Tea Company. They played to huge crowds at the vast Clapton Stadium for many years in the old Division Three South, but the owners of the ground wanted to use it exclusively for Greyhound Racing and the O's had to decamp north to Leyton and their current home at Brisbane Road. The crowds didn't follow them though and they hemorraged support to West Ham, Tottenham and Arsenal. It's been tough being a fan ever since, with only the occasional bright spot (promotion to the old Div 1 in 1962/63) to cheer.

    The name changed to Orient as a result of a spat between chairman Brian Winstone and the local Council and stayed that way for many years after he left. Can't remember when it went back to Leyton Orient but I prefer it. The ground is, after all, in Leyton.

    Recent years have been a real roller coaster. They were pretty successful under the excellent stewardship of Barry Hearn and got within one penalty kick of the Championship. He then sold out - a decision he now regrets - and the club was taken over by a bunch of crooks (literally). Results deteriorated sharply; they dropped out of the football league and almost out of existence completely. They are now in the hands of a small group of wealthy supporters and are prospering again under the management of Richie Wellens. They look certain for promotion back to Div 1, which is probably where they belong.
    Of course Orient were also managed from 1949 to 1959 by Ron Manager.

    Football was a much happier place with the likes of Alec Stock on board.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,944
    Roger said:

    I heard Rachel Johnson say her New Year's Resolution was to stop being angry about Brexit. I shouldn't think Stanley's too haopy either battling with the 90 day rule.

    SJ upgraded his passport to a French one last year so he is sorted.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 14,983
    Roger said:

    I heard Rachel Johnson say her New Year's Resolution was to stop being angry about Brexit. I shouldn't think Stanley's too haopy either battling with the 90 day rule.

    It occured to me that the only possibility for Johnson's rehabillitation would be to admit that Brexit has been an unmittigated failure and that we should now learn from our mistakes and try to rejoin.

    It is perhaps the only policy that could give him an instant platform and more importantly for him put him centre stage again. He was a dreadful Prime Minister but a good campaigner and for a man without scruples this could be the perfect route to a comeback

    I'm sure that Remainders are going to stop bring angry about Brexit way before most Leavers will.
  • Keir Starmer wants the NHS to directly employ GPs, and end their gatekeeper role by allowing patients to refer themselves (at least to physiotherapists). Labour would also (as already announced) double the number of new nurses and doctors qualifying each year.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64279654

    Interesting

    So a fight with the GPs…

    The way I would do it, is rather than trying to nationalise the GPs, is to setup directly employed practises in areas where the service has fallen below X. “We are relieving the pressure” etc

    The gatekeeper thing is one where they could take a leaf out of private medicine - they’ve taken using phone assessments for whether you go straight to the consultant or see a private GP.
    What the NHS currently says

    Finding a physiotherapist
    Physiotherapy is available through the NHS or privately.

    You may need a referral from your GP to have physiotherapy on the NHS, although in some areas it's possible to refer yourself directly.

    To find out whether self-referral is available in your area, ask the reception staff at your GP surgery or contact your local hospital trust.

    Waiting lists for NHS treatment can be long and some people choose to pay for private treatment. Most private physiotherapists accept direct self-referrals.

    https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/physiotherapy/

    so what difference sks proposes to make isn't clear.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,036
    TimS said:

    Foxy said:

    Good morning

    Listening to Starmer on the NHS he really does seem determined to reform it root and branch and take on the vested interests including the BMA

    I believe the NHS needs to lose its religious zeal and change and frankly Starmer is best placed to take this huge issue on as he will be, lest we forget, a Labour PM

    The reforms he suggests are trivial. A substantial proportion of GPs are already salaried, not least because new GPs don't want the hassles of partnership. Direct referral to physios and some carefully selected specialists aren't some magic solution.
    The NHS has had too many ‘reforms’, the last one being possibly the least thought through.
    Like any huge organisation, public or private, I would expect it to need constant reform just to stand still. Continuous improvement.
    Yes. More importantly, try a new technology or reform in a limited area, iterate to get the best out of it, then make a decision as to whether to expand it, gradually through the rest of the NHS.

    Big Bang changes are nearly never the answer.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,976

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    Yep.

    And "grumpy" is to put it mildly. I've never known such anger.

    They're in for a shellacking.

    Worse than 1997? That's fighting talk, to be sure, but you may be right. My recollection of those days was that, for all people hated the Conservatives, there was still some residual sympathy for Major. I don't get that vibe this time.

    Challenge: fill in the gap in the sentence "This government has to go, but X is alright." I'm finding myself landing on Gove, which ought to be unthinkable.
    Opinium yesterday gives Labour a majority closer to 2005 than 1997.

    Voters may not like Sunak much but he is still seen as more competent than Major 1997 was and Starmer lacks the charisma and appeal to Middle England Blair had, he is more John Smith
    John Smith was becoming ever more popular. Might have done better than Blair, although probably wouldn’t have had the tacit ‘deal’ with Ashdown.
    Smith would have got a majority of about 100 in 1997, not the 179 majority Blair got in 1997
    Shrewer politician than Blair though. Huge loss.
    Best PM we never had
    Clarke and Healey are the more usual nominees for that title, but John Smith would be up there.
    And Heseltine. Had he taken the leadership in 1990 instead of Major the history of the UK would have been quite different. A real mover and shaker, and capable of changing the political weather which is the mark of a significant leader. I was impressed with John Smith personally but he was a pretty typical old-style Labour politician.
    I agree. Smith had a strong moral core built upon his Christian socialism beliefs which made him an exceptionally decent person, well liked by all who knew him. But Blair, for all his deficiencies, took the Labour appeal places Smith never could or would. He completely got aspiration and consumerism, Mondeo man and Worcester women were supporters that he could attract that Smith would not have.

    I suspect as PM the limitations of the world view of John Smith would have become very apparent.
    A bit of limited world view re. Iraq would have been most welcome.
    A fair point.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,944

    Switzerland has blocked the supply of Aspide air defense systems to Ukraine.
    The Swiss had NO problem selling air defence systems to Qatar to protect stadiums during the soccer World Cup.

    https://twitter.com/eastveterans/status/1614193611654025218

    Can this seriously be right? Jesus.

    The UK does things for Qatar (2 joint squadrons) that it wouldn't dream of doing for Ukraine.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 9,309

    Roger said:

    I heard Rachel Johnson say her New Year's Resolution was to stop being angry about Brexit. I shouldn't think Stanley's too haopy either battling with the 90 day rule.

    It occured to me that the only possibility for Johnson's rehabillitation would be to admit that Brexit has been an unmittigated failure and that we should now learn from our mistakes and try to rejoin.

    It is perhaps the only policy that could give him an instant platform and more importantly for him put him centre stage again. He was a dreadful Prime Minister but a good campaigner and for a man without scruples this could be the perfect route to a comeback

    I'm sure that Remainders are going to stop bring angry about Brexit way before most Leavers will.
    Understandable.

    Waiter: “Would you like a dessert”
    Customer 1: “oh yes, the knickerbocker glory please”
    Customer 2 (patting tummy): “no thanks, I’m stuffed”

    10 minutes later

    “Your desserts - 2 crème brûlées”
    “I didn’t order dessert. But oh well, I’ll have a spoon or two”
    “This isn’t the dessert I ordered. Where’s my knickerbocker glory? I specifically ordered it because I used to love them as a kid in the 50s”
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    carnforth said:

    Roger said:

    I shouldn't think Stanley's too haopy either battling with the 90 day rule.

    You will no doubt be pleased to learn that Stanley is a french citizen.
    Not pleased. Jealous. French property taxes are expensive so I can well understand how good he must feel not being limited by his f**king son's 90 day deal.
  • Zahawi story should be a hold the front page PB header.

    Not a criticism of PB editorial policy, an indication of what we now accept as the norm from the tories.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 9,309
    Roger said:

    carnforth said:

    Roger said:

    I shouldn't think Stanley's too haopy either battling with the 90 day rule.

    You will no doubt be pleased to learn that Stanley is a french citizen.
    Not pleased. Jealous. French property taxes are expensive so I can well understand how good he must feel not being limited by his f**king son's 90 day deal.
    I have a second home in France and the property tax is tiny. Much lower than equivalent council tax. Maybe I’m lucky.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,911

    Zahawi story should be a hold the front page PB header.

    Not a criticism of PB editorial policy, an indication of what we now accept as the norm from the tories.

    It's not PB's fault, no one seems that concerned. It is simply par for the course for this Government and it's personnel.

    Move along, nothing too see.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891

    Roger said:

    I heard Rachel Johnson say her New Year's Resolution was to stop being angry about Brexit. I shouldn't think Stanley's too haopy either battling with the 90 day rule.

    It occured to me that the only possibility for Johnson's rehabillitation would be to admit that Brexit has been an unmittigated failure and that we should now learn from our mistakes and try to rejoin.

    It is perhaps the only policy that could give him an instant platform and more importantly for him put him centre stage again. He was a dreadful Prime Minister but a good campaigner and for a man without scruples this could be the perfect route to a comeback

    So you'd vote for the Tories if Johnson said "let's rejoin"? I think brexit is sub optimal, and I voted for it (we all have to live with the choices we make), but you're so crazed by brexit, you'd want Johnson back in power to rejoin? That's serious barminess.
    I would vote for anyone who could bring about our rejoining. It is the worst single political decision in my lifetime and by a distance. I would even support Farage if he could reverse the decision and there's no British politician I like less
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,911
    Dura_Ace said:

    Switzerland has blocked the supply of Aspide air defense systems to Ukraine.
    The Swiss had NO problem selling air defence systems to Qatar to protect stadiums during the soccer World Cup.

    https://twitter.com/eastveterans/status/1614193611654025218

    Can this seriously be right? Jesus.

    The UK does things for Qatar (2 joint squadrons) that it wouldn't dream of doing for Ukraine.
    Like a Thai call girl would for a Wall St. millionaire but wouldn't for a Scunthorpe plasterer?
  • Roger said:

    Roger said:

    I heard Rachel Johnson say her New Year's Resolution was to stop being angry about Brexit. I shouldn't think Stanley's too haopy either battling with the 90 day rule.

    It occured to me that the only possibility for Johnson's rehabillitation would be to admit that Brexit has been an unmittigated failure and that we should now learn from our mistakes and try to rejoin.

    It is perhaps the only policy that could give him an instant platform and more importantly for him put him centre stage again. He was a dreadful Prime Minister but a good campaigner and for a man without scruples this could be the perfect route to a comeback

    So you'd vote for the Tories if Johnson said "let's rejoin"? I think brexit is sub optimal, and I voted for it (we all have to live with the choices we make), but you're so crazed by brexit, you'd want Johnson back in power to rejoin? That's serious barminess.
    I would vote for anyone who could bring about our rejoining. It is the worst single political decision in my lifetime and by a distance. I would even support Farage if he could reverse the decision and there's no British politician I like less
    Crazy
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,045
    edited January 2023

    Zahawi story should be a hold the front page PB header.

    Not a criticism of PB editorial policy, an indication of what we now accept as the norm from the tories.

    It's not PB's fault, no one seems that concerned. It is simply par for the course for this Government and it's personnel.

    Move along, nothing too see.
    Of all the ministers who have crashed and burned on getting to cabinet, which isn't a short list, Zahawi must be the greatest disappointment. After his success with the vaccines brief, he looked to be a serious talent.

    I can only conclude there was somebody else (or some several others) who genuinely was/were brilliant and did the work while he took the credit.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,911
    Roger said:

    Roger said:

    I heard Rachel Johnson say her New Year's Resolution was to stop being angry about Brexit. I shouldn't think Stanley's too haopy either battling with the 90 day rule.

    It occured to me that the only possibility for Johnson's rehabillitation would be to admit that Brexit has been an unmittigated failure and that we should now learn from our mistakes and try to rejoin.

    It is perhaps the only policy that could give him an instant platform and more importantly for him put him centre stage again. He was a dreadful Prime Minister but a good campaigner and for a man without scruples this could be the perfect route to a comeback

    So you'd vote for the Tories if Johnson said "let's rejoin"? I think brexit is sub optimal, and I voted for it (we all have to live with the choices we make), but you're so crazed by brexit, you'd want Johnson back in power to rejoin? That's serious barminess.
    I would vote for anyone who could bring about our rejoining. It is the worst single political decision in my lifetime and by a distance. I would even support Farage if he could reverse the decision and there's no British politician I like less
    Surely none of; Tice, Farage, Johnson, Mogg, Patel, Braverman, Bridgen, Francois, Bone, Philip Davies and Chope (plus a handful of others I can't remember).

    They could offer no strings attached full EU membership coated with strawberry sauce and hundreds and thousands and I would vote for anyone else!
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,793
    @CamillaTominey: RT @GBNEWS: 'The biggest challenge really is the useless Tory government.'

    GB News Political Reporter @OlivaUtley asks the Peo… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1614566004927102979
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,075
    Roger said:

    Roger said:

    I heard Rachel Johnson say her New Year's Resolution was to stop being angry about Brexit. I shouldn't think Stanley's too haopy either battling with the 90 day rule.

    It occured to me that the only possibility for Johnson's rehabillitation would be to admit that Brexit has been an unmittigated failure and that we should now learn from our mistakes and try to rejoin.

    It is perhaps the only policy that could give him an instant platform and more importantly for him put him centre stage again. He was a dreadful Prime Minister but a good campaigner and for a man without scruples this could be the perfect route to a comeback

    So you'd vote for the Tories if Johnson said "let's rejoin"? I think brexit is sub optimal, and I voted for it (we all have to live with the choices we make), but you're so crazed by brexit, you'd want Johnson back in power to rejoin? That's serious barminess.
    I would vote for anyone who could bring about our rejoining. It is the worst single political decision in my lifetime and by a distance. I would even support Farage if he could reverse the decision and there's no British politician I like less
    No British politician can bring about our Rejoining. Remainers/Rejoiners are as bad as Brexiters in denying the EU and its 27 Member States agency. It’s not in our gift. I think Starmer realises that he can’t deliver Rejoin (or SM/CU) so why campaign on it?
  • Scott_xP said:

    @CamillaTominey: RT @GBNEWS: 'The biggest challenge really is the useless Tory government.'

    GB News Political Reporter @OlivaUtley asks the Peo… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1614566004927102979

    GBeebies must be gutted
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,911
    ydoethur said:

    Zahawi story should be a hold the front page PB header.

    Not a criticism of PB editorial policy, an indication of what we now accept as the norm from the tories.

    It's not PB's fault, no one seems that concerned. It is simply par for the course for this Government and it's personnel.

    Move along, nothing too see.
    Of all the ministers who have crashed and burned on getting to cabinet, which isn't a short list, Zahawi must be the greatest disappointment. After his success with the vaccines brief, he looked to be a serious talent.

    I can only conclude there was somebody else (or some several others) who genuinely was/were brilliant and did the work while he took the credit.
    If you or I stroked HMRC for a seven figure number we'd both make the Ledbury Reporter/Malvern Gazette and The Forester!
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,793
    ydoethur said:

    Zahawi story should be a hold the front page PB header.

    Not a criticism of PB editorial policy, an indication of what we now accept as the norm from the tories.

    It's not PB's fault, no one seems that concerned. It is simply par for the course for this Government and it's personnel.

    Move along, nothing too see.
    Of all the ministers who have crashed and burned on getting to cabinet, which isn't a short list, Zahawi must be the greatest disappointment. After his success with the vaccines brief, he looked to be a serious talent.

    I can only conclude there was somebody else (or some several others) who genuinely was/were brilliant and did the work while he took the credit.
    No, he was always crap.

    The fact that the vaccine rollout did not crash and burn suggests he did not actually do anything while in charge.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,639

    Keir Starmer wants the NHS to directly employ GPs, and end their gatekeeper role by allowing patients to refer themselves (at least to physiotherapists). Labour would also (as already announced) double the number of new nurses and doctors qualifying each year.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64279654

    Interesting

    So a fight with the GPs…

    The way I would do it, is rather than trying to nationalise the GPs, is to setup directly employed practises in areas where the service has fallen below X. “We are relieving the pressure” etc

    The gatekeeper thing is one where they could take a leaf out of private medicine - they’ve taken using phone assessments for whether you go straight to the consultant or see a private GP.
    What the NHS currently says

    Finding a physiotherapist
    Physiotherapy is available through the NHS or privately.

    You may need a referral from your GP to have physiotherapy on the NHS, although in some areas it's possible to refer yourself directly.

    To find out whether self-referral is available in your area, ask the reception staff at your GP surgery or contact your local hospital trust.

    Waiting lists for NHS treatment can be long and some people choose to pay for private treatment. Most private physiotherapists accept direct self-referrals.

    https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/physiotherapy/

    so what difference sks proposes to make isn't clear.
    I referred myself to a physiotherapist just a few weeks ago, in Scotland. More precisely I phoned the practice to make a GP appointment, the receptionist asked me what it was about. She explained you might as well go straight to the physio for which we have immediate appointments as the GP will just refer you to the physio anyway.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,908
    edited January 2023
    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    Yep.

    And "grumpy" is to put it mildly. I've never known such anger.

    They're in for a shellacking.

    Worse than 1997? That's fighting talk, to be sure, but you may be right. My recollection of those days was that, for all people hated the Conservatives, there was still some residual sympathy for Major. I don't get that vibe this time.

    Challenge: fill in the gap in the sentence "This government has to go, but X is alright." I'm finding myself landing on Gove, which ought to be unthinkable.
    Opinium yesterday gives Labour a majority closer to 2005 than 1997.

    Voters may not like Sunak much but he is still seen as more competent than Major 1997 was and Starmer lacks the charisma and appeal to Middle England Blair had, he is more John Smith
    John Smith was becoming ever more popular. Might have done better than Blair, although probably wouldn’t have had the tacit ‘deal’ with Ashdown.
    Smith would have got a majority of about 100 in 1997, not the 179 majority Blair got in 1997
    Shrewer politician than Blair though. Huge loss.
    Best PM we never had
    Clarke and Healey are the more usual nominees for that title, but John Smith would be up there.
    And Heseltine. Had he taken the leadership in 1990 instead of Major the history of the UK would have been quite different. A real mover and shaker, and capable of changing the political weather which is the mark of a significant leader. I was impressed with John Smith personally but he was a pretty typical old-style Labour politician.
    I agree. Smith had a strong moral core built upon his Christian socialism beliefs which made him an exceptionally decent person, well liked by all who knew him. But Blair, for all his deficiencies, took the Labour appeal places Smith never could or would. He completely got aspiration and consumerism, Mondeo man and Worcester women were supporters that he could attract that Smith would not have.

    I suspect as PM the limitations of the world view of John Smith would have become very apparent.
    Indeed, the 2001 election would have been closer under Smith though I suspect he would have kept the UK out of Iraq so might not have leaked as much to the LDs as Blair did in 2005

    Seats like Braintree, Scarborough and Whitby, Gillingham, Rugby and Kenilworth, Wimbledon, Upminster, Monmouth, Wellingborough, Enfield Southgate etc which Blair won in 1997 would probably never have gone Labour under John Smith
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,908

    MJW said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    He's going to be terrible in a GE campaign. He's so fucking awkward and small and rich. The tories need Johnson back for the GE as he was, until recently, none of those things and is still not two of them.

    BoZo not fucking awkward? He hid in a fridge to avoid answering questions. He ran away from Andrew Neil. He is brilliant as long as he doesn't have to speak to any journalists...
    There was also this doozy from the 2019 campaign. The URL says it all, really.

    https://www.itv.com/news/calendar/2019-12-09/boris-johnson-takes-itv-reporter-s-phone-after-refusing-to-look-at-photo-of-boy-on-hospital-floor

    Can't help but think in part Boris was helped by Corbyn as rather neutralised his weakness to scrutiny and detail. Boris chickening out of interviews or running from hacks would've been more leapt upon had Corbyn not had his own car crash moments that made headlines and were a gift to papers wanting to run those rather than a Boris fiasco.
    I’ve said many times, if Johnson had faced Starmer in GE19 it would have been a hung parliament
    It wouldn't as Boris won to get Brexit done, not just beat Corbyn
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,639
    edited January 2023

    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Good morning

    Listening to Starmer on the NHS he really does seem determined to reform it root and branch and take on the vested interests including the BMA

    I believe the NHS needs to lose its religious zeal and change and frankly Starmer is best placed to take this huge issue on as he will be, lest we forget, a Labour PM

    The reforms he suggests are trivial. A substantial proportion of GPs are already salaried, not least because new GPs don't want the hassles of partnership. Direct referral to physios and some carefully selected specialists aren't some magic solution.
    It is a genuine managerial problem. Over 1.3m employees spread over thousands of sites providing an ever increasingly complex series of products with little opportunity to improve productivity or efficiency. The sheer size of its database has many attractions but also has a legacy of incompatible and defective systems.

    Somehow, we need to retain the advantages of size, improve the efficiency of specialist units doing repeat orders on a mass production basis and yet make sure that most managerial decisions are made at a local level and then not replicated higher up the chain.

    It is bordering on the impossible, frankly. It's just too big.
    The current state of collapse in the NHS seems to be due to a lack of resilience. The system has been run at or beyond capacity for so long that it can't cope with additional stresses also hitting more resilient healthcare systems elsewhere.

    While intuitively a monster organisation like the NHS would suffer from managerial problems, these don't appear to be the root cause of the current crisis. If they are treated as such through imposed reform, it is likely to make the crisis even worse.

    Or to put it another way, healthcare, which has been plagued by short-termism for years needs immediate short term measures to make it functional again.
    We're treating the wrong things. We need a steady transition to prevention and education. Reduce hospitals filling up with diseases caused by poor lifestyle choices, pollution and poverty, then you can spend more time and money on treating the patients who need to be in hospital.
    Easier said than done, though!
    This is a very good point - from a long-term system management point of view, as well as improved wellbeing. If a system's capacity doesn't meet demand, we will need either to increase capacity or reduce demand.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,911
    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    Yep.

    And "grumpy" is to put it mildly. I've never known such anger.

    They're in for a shellacking.

    Worse than 1997? That's fighting talk, to be sure, but you may be right. My recollection of those days was that, for all people hated the Conservatives, there was still some residual sympathy for Major. I don't get that vibe this time.

    Challenge: fill in the gap in the sentence "This government has to go, but X is alright." I'm finding myself landing on Gove, which ought to be unthinkable.
    Opinium yesterday gives Labour a majority closer to 2005 than 1997.

    Voters may not like Sunak much but he is still seen as more competent than Major 1997 was and Starmer lacks the charisma and appeal to Middle England Blair had, he is more John Smith
    John Smith was becoming ever more popular. Might have done better than Blair, although probably wouldn’t have had the tacit ‘deal’ with Ashdown.
    Smith would have got a majority of about 100 in 1997, not the 179 majority Blair got in 1997
    Shrewer politician than Blair though. Huge loss.
    Best PM we never had
    Clarke and Healey are the more usual nominees for that title, but John Smith would be up there.
    And Heseltine. Had he taken the leadership in 1990 instead of Major the history of the UK would have been quite different. A real mover and shaker, and capable of changing the political weather which is the mark of a significant leader. I was impressed with John Smith personally but he was a pretty typical old-style Labour politician.
    I agree. Smith had a strong moral core built upon his Christian socialism beliefs which made him an exceptionally decent person, well liked by all who knew him. But Blair, for all his deficiencies, took the Labour appeal places Smith never could or would. He completely got aspiration and consumerism, Mondeo man and Worcester women were supporters that he could attract that Smith would not have.

    I suspect as PM the limitations of the world view of John Smith would have become very apparent.
    Indeed, the 2001 election would have been closer under Smith though I suspect he would have kept the UK out of Iraq so might not have leaked as much to the LDs as Blair did in 2005

    Seats like Braintree, Scarborough, Gillingham, Rugby and Kenilworth, Wimbledon, Upminster, Kettering, Monmouth etc which Blair won in 1997 would probably never have gone Labour under John Smith
    Maybe, maybe not. You were just a youngster in '97 (as of course was I). The Tories were universally hated. Every news bulletin brought another scandal.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,911
    HYUFD said:

    MJW said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    He's going to be terrible in a GE campaign. He's so fucking awkward and small and rich. The tories need Johnson back for the GE as he was, until recently, none of those things and is still not two of them.

    BoZo not fucking awkward? He hid in a fridge to avoid answering questions. He ran away from Andrew Neil. He is brilliant as long as he doesn't have to speak to any journalists...
    There was also this doozy from the 2019 campaign. The URL says it all, really.

    https://www.itv.com/news/calendar/2019-12-09/boris-johnson-takes-itv-reporter-s-phone-after-refusing-to-look-at-photo-of-boy-on-hospital-floor

    Can't help but think in part Boris was helped by Corbyn as rather neutralised his weakness to scrutiny and detail. Boris chickening out of interviews or running from hacks would've been more leapt upon had Corbyn not had his own car crash moments that made headlines and were a gift to papers wanting to run those rather than a Boris fiasco.
    I’ve said many times, if Johnson had faced Starmer in GE19 it would have been a hung parliament
    It wouldn't as Boris won to get Brexit done, not just beat Corbyn
    He did, but as Brexit appears to have been done badly, it might not play out so well next time.
  • FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Good morning

    Listening to Starmer on the NHS he really does seem determined to reform it root and branch and take on the vested interests including the BMA

    I believe the NHS needs to lose its religious zeal and change and frankly Starmer is best placed to take this huge issue on as he will be, lest we forget, a Labour PM

    The reforms he suggests are trivial. A substantial proportion of GPs are already salaried, not least because new GPs don't want the hassles of partnership. Direct referral to physios and some carefully selected specialists aren't some magic solution.
    It is a genuine managerial problem. Over 1.3m employees spread over thousands of sites providing an ever increasingly complex series of products with little opportunity to improve productivity or efficiency. The sheer size of its database has many attractions but also has a legacy of incompatible and defective systems.

    Somehow, we need to retain the advantages of size, improve the efficiency of specialist units doing repeat orders on a mass production basis and yet make sure that most managerial decisions are made at a local level and then not replicated higher up the chain.

    It is bordering on the impossible, frankly. It's just too big.
    The current state of collapse in the NHS seems to be due to a lack of resilience. The system has been run at or beyond capacity for so long that it can't cope with additional stresses also hitting more resilient healthcare systems elsewhere.

    While intuitively a monster organisation like the NHS would suffer from managerial problems, these don't appear to be the root cause of the current crisis. If they are treated as such through imposed reform, it is likely to make the crisis even worse.

    Or to put it another way, healthcare, which has been plagued by short-termism for years needs immediate short term measures to make it functional again.
    We're treating the wrong things. We need a steady transition to prevention and education. Reduce hospitals filling up with diseases caused by poor lifestyle choices, pollution and poverty, then you can spend more time and money on treating the patients who need to be in hospital.
    Easier said than done, though!
    This is a very good point - from a long-term system management point of view, as well as improved wellbeing. If a system's capacity doesn't meet demand, we will need either to increase capacity or reduce demand.
    Only a fairly good point, because the predominant cause of illness is old age. Making people healthier just prolongs them into their 80s and 90s, which costs.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,908
    edited January 2023

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    Yep.

    And "grumpy" is to put it mildly. I've never known such anger.

    They're in for a shellacking.

    Worse than 1997? That's fighting talk, to be sure, but you may be right. My recollection of those days was that, for all people hated the Conservatives, there was still some residual sympathy for Major. I don't get that vibe this time.

    Challenge: fill in the gap in the sentence "This government has to go, but X is alright." I'm finding myself landing on Gove, which ought to be unthinkable.
    Opinium yesterday gives Labour a majority closer to 2005 than 1997.

    Voters may not like Sunak much but he is still seen as more competent than Major 1997 was and Starmer lacks the charisma and appeal to Middle England Blair had, he is more John Smith
    John Smith was becoming ever more popular. Might have done better than Blair, although probably wouldn’t have had the tacit ‘deal’ with Ashdown.
    Smith would have got a majority of about 100 in 1997, not the 179 majority Blair got in 1997
    Shrewer politician than Blair though. Huge loss.
    Best PM we never had
    Clarke and Healey are the more usual nominees for that title, but John Smith would be up there.
    And Heseltine. Had he taken the leadership in 1990 instead of Major the history of the UK would have been quite different. A real mover and shaker, and capable of changing the political weather which is the mark of a significant leader. I was impressed with John Smith personally but he was a pretty typical old-style Labour politician.
    I agree. Smith had a strong moral core built upon his Christian socialism beliefs which made him an exceptionally decent person, well liked by all who knew him. But Blair, for all his deficiencies, took the Labour appeal places Smith never could or would. He completely got aspiration and consumerism, Mondeo man and Worcester women were supporters that he could attract that Smith would not have.

    I suspect as PM the limitations of the world view of John Smith would have become very apparent.
    Indeed, the 2001 election would have been closer under Smith though I suspect he would have kept the UK out of Iraq so might not have leaked as much to the LDs as Blair did in 2005

    Seats like Braintree, Scarborough, Gillingham, Rugby and Kenilworth, Wimbledon, Upminster, Kettering, Monmouth etc which Blair won in 1997 would probably never have gone Labour under John Smith
    Maybe, maybe not. You were just a youngster in '97 (as of course was I). The Tories were universally hated. Every news bulletin brought another scandal.
    The last Mori under Smith had Tories 29% Labour 44% in early May 1994.

    The first Mori under Blair had Labour 49% Tories 28%

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_1997_United_Kingdom_general_election

    By December 1994 Mori had New Labour on 61% and the Tories on just 22%, a bigger Labour voteshare than Starmer Labour has now v Sunak or even than it ever reached v Truss. Even if Major narrowed the gap by polling day

  • FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Good morning

    Listening to Starmer on the NHS he really does seem determined to reform it root and branch and take on the vested interests including the BMA

    I believe the NHS needs to lose its religious zeal and change and frankly Starmer is best placed to take this huge issue on as he will be, lest we forget, a Labour PM

    The reforms he suggests are trivial. A substantial proportion of GPs are already salaried, not least because new GPs don't want the hassles of partnership. Direct referral to physios and some carefully selected specialists aren't some magic solution.
    It is a genuine managerial problem. Over 1.3m employees spread over thousands of sites providing an ever increasingly complex series of products with little opportunity to improve productivity or efficiency. The sheer size of its database has many attractions but also has a legacy of incompatible and defective systems.

    Somehow, we need to retain the advantages of size, improve the efficiency of specialist units doing repeat orders on a mass production basis and yet make sure that most managerial decisions are made at a local level and then not replicated higher up the chain.

    It is bordering on the impossible, frankly. It's just too big.
    The current state of collapse in the NHS seems to be due to a lack of resilience. The system has been run at or beyond capacity for so long that it can't cope with additional stresses also hitting more resilient healthcare systems elsewhere.

    While intuitively a monster organisation like the NHS would suffer from managerial problems, these don't appear to be the root cause of the current crisis. If they are treated as such through imposed reform, it is likely to make the crisis even worse.

    Or to put it another way, healthcare, which has been plagued by short-termism for years needs immediate short term measures to make it functional again.
    We're treating the wrong things. We need a steady transition to prevention and education. Reduce hospitals filling up with diseases caused by poor lifestyle choices, pollution and poverty, then you can spend more time and money on treating the patients who need to be in hospital.
    Easier said than done, though!
    This is a very good point - from a long-term system management point of view, as well as improved wellbeing. If a system's capacity doesn't meet demand, we will need either to increase capacity or reduce demand.
    Only a fairly good point, because the predominant cause of illness is old age. Making people healthier just prolongs them into their 80s and 90s, which costs.
    We'll just Logan's Run all the oldies, then turn them into Soylent Green. Sorted.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,911
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    Yep.

    And "grumpy" is to put it mildly. I've never known such anger.

    They're in for a shellacking.

    Worse than 1997? That's fighting talk, to be sure, but you may be right. My recollection of those days was that, for all people hated the Conservatives, there was still some residual sympathy for Major. I don't get that vibe this time.

    Challenge: fill in the gap in the sentence "This government has to go, but X is alright." I'm finding myself landing on Gove, which ought to be unthinkable.
    Opinium yesterday gives Labour a majority closer to 2005 than 1997.

    Voters may not like Sunak much but he is still seen as more competent than Major 1997 was and Starmer lacks the charisma and appeal to Middle England Blair had, he is more John Smith
    John Smith was becoming ever more popular. Might have done better than Blair, although probably wouldn’t have had the tacit ‘deal’ with Ashdown.
    Smith would have got a majority of about 100 in 1997, not the 179 majority Blair got in 1997
    Shrewer politician than Blair though. Huge loss.
    Best PM we never had
    Clarke and Healey are the more usual nominees for that title, but John Smith would be up there.
    And Heseltine. Had he taken the leadership in 1990 instead of Major the history of the UK would have been quite different. A real mover and shaker, and capable of changing the political weather which is the mark of a significant leader. I was impressed with John Smith personally but he was a pretty typical old-style Labour politician.
    I agree. Smith had a strong moral core built upon his Christian socialism beliefs which made him an exceptionally decent person, well liked by all who knew him. But Blair, for all his deficiencies, took the Labour appeal places Smith never could or would. He completely got aspiration and consumerism, Mondeo man and Worcester women were supporters that he could attract that Smith would not have.

    I suspect as PM the limitations of the world view of John Smith would have become very apparent.
    Indeed, the 2001 election would have been closer under Smith though I suspect he would have kept the UK out of Iraq so might not have leaked as much to the LDs as Blair did in 2005

    Seats like Braintree, Scarborough, Gillingham, Rugby and Kenilworth, Wimbledon, Upminster, Kettering, Monmouth etc which Blair won in 1997 would probably never have gone Labour under John Smith
    Maybe, maybe not. You were just a youngster in '97 (as of course was I). The Tories were universally hated. Every news bulletin brought another scandal.
    The last Mori under Smith had Tories 29% Labour 44% in early May 1994.

    The first Mori under Blair had Labour 49% Tories 28%

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_1997_United_Kingdom_general_election

    Yeah but, you can't directly measure Smith-Labour 1994 against Blair- Labour 1997 because a lot of Tory s*** happened in those three years.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,045
    Scott_xP said:

    ydoethur said:

    Zahawi story should be a hold the front page PB header.

    Not a criticism of PB editorial policy, an indication of what we now accept as the norm from the tories.

    It's not PB's fault, no one seems that concerned. It is simply par for the course for this Government and it's personnel.

    Move along, nothing too see.
    Of all the ministers who have crashed and burned on getting to cabinet, which isn't a short list, Zahawi must be the greatest disappointment. After his success with the vaccines brief, he looked to be a serious talent.

    I can only conclude there was somebody else (or some several others) who genuinely was/were brilliant and did the work while he took the credit.
    No, he was always crap.

    The fact that the vaccine rollout did not crash and burn suggests he did not actually do anything while in charge.
    I'll have to take your word for it because I knew very little about him before vaccines. I imagine most people were in the same boat.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,036

    Roger said:

    Roger said:

    I heard Rachel Johnson say her New Year's Resolution was to stop being angry about Brexit. I shouldn't think Stanley's too haopy either battling with the 90 day rule.

    It occured to me that the only possibility for Johnson's rehabillitation would be to admit that Brexit has been an unmittigated failure and that we should now learn from our mistakes and try to rejoin.

    It is perhaps the only policy that could give him an instant platform and more importantly for him put him centre stage again. He was a dreadful Prime Minister but a good campaigner and for a man without scruples this could be the perfect route to a comeback

    So you'd vote for the Tories if Johnson said "let's rejoin"? I think brexit is sub optimal, and I voted for it (we all have to live with the choices we make), but you're so crazed by brexit, you'd want Johnson back in power to rejoin? That's serious barminess.
    I would vote for anyone who could bring about our rejoining. It is the worst single political decision in my lifetime and by a distance. I would even support Farage if he could reverse the decision and there's no British politician I like less
    Crazy
    Quite a lot of the Death To Johnson types would be genuflecting as his car passed, if he had backed the other side in the Referendum.

    Bit like how the prog left is now reciting alt-right talking points, from a couple of years ago ,about Elon Musk, since he isn’t on their team any more.

    Or Julian Assange is now a pariah who deserves 8000 years in a hole in the ground in the US. And was praised by the same haters, not so very long ago.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,639
    ydoethur said:

    Zahawi story should be a hold the front page PB header.

    Not a criticism of PB editorial policy, an indication of what we now accept as the norm from the tories.

    It's not PB's fault, no one seems that concerned. It is simply par for the course for this Government and it's personnel.

    Move along, nothing too see.
    Of all the ministers who have crashed and burned on getting to cabinet, which isn't a short list, Zahawi must be the greatest disappointment. After his success with the vaccines brief, he looked to be a serious talent.

    I can only conclude there was somebody else (or some several others) who genuinely was/were brilliant and did the work while he took the credit.
    Bosses taking credit for good work carried out by their reports is normal, and to an extent OK.

    To me the biggest disappointment as minster of recent times is David Cameron. I genuinely thought he was progressive and competent. Over time he has been revealed as a corrupt void.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,513

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Good morning

    Listening to Starmer on the NHS he really does seem determined to reform it root and branch and take on the vested interests including the BMA

    I believe the NHS needs to lose its religious zeal and change and frankly Starmer is best placed to take this huge issue on as he will be, lest we forget, a Labour PM

    The reforms he suggests are trivial. A substantial proportion of GPs are already salaried, not least because new GPs don't want the hassles of partnership. Direct referral to physios and some carefully selected specialists aren't some magic solution.
    It is a genuine managerial problem. Over 1.3m employees spread over thousands of sites providing an ever increasingly complex series of products with little opportunity to improve productivity or efficiency. The sheer size of its database has many attractions but also has a legacy of incompatible and defective systems.

    Somehow, we need to retain the advantages of size, improve the efficiency of specialist units doing repeat orders on a mass production basis and yet make sure that most managerial decisions are made at a local level and then not replicated higher up the chain.

    It is bordering on the impossible, frankly. It's just too big.
    The current state of collapse in the NHS seems to be due to a lack of resilience. The system has been run at or beyond capacity for so long that it can't cope with additional stresses also hitting more resilient healthcare systems elsewhere.

    While intuitively a monster organisation like the NHS would suffer from managerial problems, these don't appear to be the root cause of the current crisis. If they are treated as such through imposed reform, it is likely to make the crisis even worse.

    Or to put it another way, healthcare, which has been plagued by short-termism for years needs immediate short term measures to make it functional again.
    We're treating the wrong things. We need a steady transition to prevention and education. Reduce hospitals filling up with diseases caused by poor lifestyle choices, pollution and poverty, then you can spend more time and money on treating the patients who need to be in hospital.
    Easier said than done, though!
    This is a very good point - from a long-term system management point of view, as well as improved wellbeing. If a system's capacity doesn't meet demand, we will need either to increase capacity or reduce demand.
    Only a fairly good point, because the predominant cause of illness is old age. Making people healthier just prolongs them into their 80s and 90s, which costs.
    Encourage more pensioners to emigrate to the Med. Sorted.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,911

    Roger said:

    Roger said:

    I heard Rachel Johnson say her New Year's Resolution was to stop being angry about Brexit. I shouldn't think Stanley's too haopy either battling with the 90 day rule.

    It occured to me that the only possibility for Johnson's rehabillitation would be to admit that Brexit has been an unmittigated failure and that we should now learn from our mistakes and try to rejoin.

    It is perhaps the only policy that could give him an instant platform and more importantly for him put him centre stage again. He was a dreadful Prime Minister but a good campaigner and for a man without scruples this could be the perfect route to a comeback

    So you'd vote for the Tories if Johnson said "let's rejoin"? I think brexit is sub optimal, and I voted for it (we all have to live with the choices we make), but you're so crazed by brexit, you'd want Johnson back in power to rejoin? That's serious barminess.
    I would vote for anyone who could bring about our rejoining. It is the worst single political decision in my lifetime and by a distance. I would even support Farage if he could reverse the decision and there's no British politician I like less
    Crazy
    Quite a lot of the Death To Johnson types would be genuflecting as his car passed, if he had backed the other side in the Referendum.

    Bit like how the prog left is now reciting alt-right talking points, from a couple of years ago ,about Elon Musk, since he isn’t on their team any more.

    Or Julian Assange is now a pariah who deserves 8000 years in a hole in the ground in the US. And was praised by the same haters, not so very long ago.
    I've tried Google Translation and that post still makes no sense.
  • FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Good morning

    Listening to Starmer on the NHS he really does seem determined to reform it root and branch and take on the vested interests including the BMA

    I believe the NHS needs to lose its religious zeal and change and frankly Starmer is best placed to take this huge issue on as he will be, lest we forget, a Labour PM

    The reforms he suggests are trivial. A substantial proportion of GPs are already salaried, not least because new GPs don't want the hassles of partnership. Direct referral to physios and some carefully selected specialists aren't some magic solution.
    It is a genuine managerial problem. Over 1.3m employees spread over thousands of sites providing an ever increasingly complex series of products with little opportunity to improve productivity or efficiency. The sheer size of its database has many attractions but also has a legacy of incompatible and defective systems.

    Somehow, we need to retain the advantages of size, improve the efficiency of specialist units doing repeat orders on a mass production basis and yet make sure that most managerial decisions are made at a local level and then not replicated higher up the chain.

    It is bordering on the impossible, frankly. It's just too big.
    The current state of collapse in the NHS seems to be due to a lack of resilience. The system has been run at or beyond capacity for so long that it can't cope with additional stresses also hitting more resilient healthcare systems elsewhere.

    While intuitively a monster organisation like the NHS would suffer from managerial problems, these don't appear to be the root cause of the current crisis. If they are treated as such through imposed reform, it is likely to make the crisis even worse.

    Or to put it another way, healthcare, which has been plagued by short-termism for years needs immediate short term measures to make it functional again.
    We're treating the wrong things. We need a steady transition to prevention and education. Reduce hospitals filling up with diseases caused by poor lifestyle choices, pollution and poverty, then you can spend more time and money on treating the patients who need to be in hospital.
    Easier said than done, though!
    This is a very good point - from a long-term system management point of view, as well as improved wellbeing. If a system's capacity doesn't meet demand, we will need either to increase capacity or reduce demand.
    Only a fairly good point, because the predominant cause of illness is old age. Making people healthier just prolongs them into their 80s and 90s, which costs.
    We'll just Logan's Run all the oldies, then turn them into Soylent Green. Sorted.
    At 61ish I am really taken with the no medical interventions after 75 policy (as a personal decision not a blanket ban). I am told this means i am really a Nazi euthanaser at heart.

    But we could end up with everyone who can afford it paying a socking great one off insurance premium to cover the combined risks of needing healthcare and needing care after that age.
  • FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Good morning

    Listening to Starmer on the NHS he really does seem determined to reform it root and branch and take on the vested interests including the BMA

    I believe the NHS needs to lose its religious zeal and change and frankly Starmer is best placed to take this huge issue on as he will be, lest we forget, a Labour PM

    The reforms he suggests are trivial. A substantial proportion of GPs are already salaried, not least because new GPs don't want the hassles of partnership. Direct referral to physios and some carefully selected specialists aren't some magic solution.
    It is a genuine managerial problem. Over 1.3m employees spread over thousands of sites providing an ever increasingly complex series of products with little opportunity to improve productivity or efficiency. The sheer size of its database has many attractions but also has a legacy of incompatible and defective systems.

    Somehow, we need to retain the advantages of size, improve the efficiency of specialist units doing repeat orders on a mass production basis and yet make sure that most managerial decisions are made at a local level and then not replicated higher up the chain.

    It is bordering on the impossible, frankly. It's just too big.
    The current state of collapse in the NHS seems to be due to a lack of resilience. The system has been run at or beyond capacity for so long that it can't cope with additional stresses also hitting more resilient healthcare systems elsewhere.

    While intuitively a monster organisation like the NHS would suffer from managerial problems, these don't appear to be the root cause of the current crisis. If they are treated as such through imposed reform, it is likely to make the crisis even worse.

    Or to put it another way, healthcare, which has been plagued by short-termism for years needs immediate short term measures to make it functional again.
    We're treating the wrong things. We need a steady transition to prevention and education. Reduce hospitals filling up with diseases caused by poor lifestyle choices, pollution and poverty, then you can spend more time and money on treating the patients who need to be in hospital.
    Easier said than done, though!
    This is a very good point - from a long-term system management point of view, as well as improved wellbeing. If a system's capacity doesn't meet demand, we will need either to increase capacity or reduce demand.
    Only a fairly good point, because the predominant cause of illness is old age. Making people healthier just prolongs them into their 80s and 90s, which costs.
    Encourage more pensioners to emigrate to the Med. Sorted.
    Brexit was a masterstroke, part 94.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,829
    One interesting thing about Zahawi is that Rory Stewart rates (or rated) him, describing him as genial and hard working.

    Nevertheless, he appears to be a massive crook.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 14,983

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Good morning

    Listening to Starmer on the NHS he really does seem determined to reform it root and branch and take on the vested interests including the BMA

    I believe the NHS needs to lose its religious zeal and change and frankly Starmer is best placed to take this huge issue on as he will be, lest we forget, a Labour PM

    The reforms he suggests are trivial. A substantial proportion of GPs are already salaried, not least because new GPs don't want the hassles of partnership. Direct referral to physios and some carefully selected specialists aren't some magic solution.
    It is a genuine managerial problem. Over 1.3m employees spread over thousands of sites providing an ever increasingly complex series of products with little opportunity to improve productivity or efficiency. The sheer size of its database has many attractions but also has a legacy of incompatible and defective systems.

    Somehow, we need to retain the advantages of size, improve the efficiency of specialist units doing repeat orders on a mass production basis and yet make sure that most managerial decisions are made at a local level and then not replicated higher up the chain.

    It is bordering on the impossible, frankly. It's just too big.
    The current state of collapse in the NHS seems to be due to a lack of resilience. The system has been run at or beyond capacity for so long that it can't cope with additional stresses also hitting more resilient healthcare systems elsewhere.

    While intuitively a monster organisation like the NHS would suffer from managerial problems, these don't appear to be the root cause of the current crisis. If they are treated as such through imposed reform, it is likely to make the crisis even worse.

    Or to put it another way, healthcare, which has been plagued by short-termism for years needs immediate short term measures to make it functional again.
    We're treating the wrong things. We need a steady transition to prevention and education. Reduce hospitals filling up with diseases caused by poor lifestyle choices, pollution and poverty, then you can spend more time and money on treating the patients who need to be in hospital.
    Easier said than done, though!
    This is a very good point - from a long-term system management point of view, as well as improved wellbeing. If a system's capacity doesn't meet demand, we will need either to increase capacity or reduce demand.
    Only a fairly good point, because the predominant cause of illness is old age. Making people healthier just prolongs them into their 80s and 90s, which costs.
    Encourage more pensioners to emigrate to the Med. Sorted.
    Much harder now, unfortunately.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,911

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Good morning

    Listening to Starmer on the NHS he really does seem determined to reform it root and branch and take on the vested interests including the BMA

    I believe the NHS needs to lose its religious zeal and change and frankly Starmer is best placed to take this huge issue on as he will be, lest we forget, a Labour PM

    The reforms he suggests are trivial. A substantial proportion of GPs are already salaried, not least because new GPs don't want the hassles of partnership. Direct referral to physios and some carefully selected specialists aren't some magic solution.
    It is a genuine managerial problem. Over 1.3m employees spread over thousands of sites providing an ever increasingly complex series of products with little opportunity to improve productivity or efficiency. The sheer size of its database has many attractions but also has a legacy of incompatible and defective systems.

    Somehow, we need to retain the advantages of size, improve the efficiency of specialist units doing repeat orders on a mass production basis and yet make sure that most managerial decisions are made at a local level and then not replicated higher up the chain.

    It is bordering on the impossible, frankly. It's just too big.
    The current state of collapse in the NHS seems to be due to a lack of resilience. The system has been run at or beyond capacity for so long that it can't cope with additional stresses also hitting more resilient healthcare systems elsewhere.

    While intuitively a monster organisation like the NHS would suffer from managerial problems, these don't appear to be the root cause of the current crisis. If they are treated as such through imposed reform, it is likely to make the crisis even worse.

    Or to put it another way, healthcare, which has been plagued by short-termism for years needs immediate short term measures to make it functional again.
    We're treating the wrong things. We need a steady transition to prevention and education. Reduce hospitals filling up with diseases caused by poor lifestyle choices, pollution and poverty, then you can spend more time and money on treating the patients who need to be in hospital.
    Easier said than done, though!
    This is a very good point - from a long-term system management point of view, as well as improved wellbeing. If a system's capacity doesn't meet demand, we will need either to increase capacity or reduce demand.
    Only a fairly good point, because the predominant cause of illness is old age. Making people healthier just prolongs them into their 80s and 90s, which costs.
    We'll just Logan's Run all the oldies, then turn them into Soylent Green. Sorted.
    At 61ish I am really taken with the no medical interventions after 75 policy (as a personal decision not a blanket ban). I am told this means i am really a Nazi euthanaser at heart.

    But we could end up with everyone who can afford it paying a socking great one off insurance premium to cover the combined risks of needing healthcare and needing care after that age.
    I'm 61 in a fortnight. Can we make it 80 please?
This discussion has been closed.