politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

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

Sign In Register

Categories

Just three days to go in the SNP leadership election – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,133
edited March 2023 in General
imageJust three days to go in the SNP leadership election – politicalbetting.com

Read the full story here

«13456789

Comments

  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,630
    First twice in a row? Surely not.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,126
    Second, like democracy.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,630
    Cookie said:

    First twice in a row? Surely not.

    Anyway, on thread - surely not. Yousaf has all Nicola Sturgeon's negatives and none of her positives. I don't really see what consituency he appeals to.

    Not my party, obviously, and I don't know the selectorate. But when other parties have elected leaders who don't necessarily speak to the wider electorate, they've done so because they represent an obvious strain of what that party believes. I would have thought the SNP equivalent would be more akin to Ash Regan. Yousaf strikes me as neither one to connect to the wider electorate nor one to boldly fight the battle for independence whatever public opinion believes.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,645
    Interesting to see the photos at the top, just realised I wouldn't have recognised any of them, even vaguely, despite all the campaigning and reading this blog pretty much daily.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 6,805
    Rather embarrassing for Macron to have to delay the state visit.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,597
    edited March 2023
    Looking back at the FPT DeSantis discussion, his foreign policy 'evolution' - on Taiwan as well as Ukraine - is uncannily foreshadowed by the pushback he got from Republican senators.
    For example:
    https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/3907413-senate-republican-says-desantis-ukraine-remark-may-very-well-be-primary-politics/amp/

    If nothing else, it does differentiate him from Trump.
    Though if he's going to have any chance of the nomination, he'll have to take Trump on directly, rather than avoiding the confrontation as he's done up until now.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,640
    LAB Landslide nailed on

    Westminster voting intention:

    LAB: 49% (+3)
    CON: 23% (-4)
    LDEM: 10% (-1)
    GRN: 6% (-)
    REF: 6% (-)

    via
    @YouGov
    , this week
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 21,861
    edited March 2023
    MaxPB said:

    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    Nigel_Foremain said:

    Here is the reality on doctors' pay. The UK is not the highest payer in Europe for hospital doctors but it is well above the median. It is also considerably higher than the nearest comparable system, Sweden, which has a nationalised system unlike most other "mixed economy" health systems

    Additionally UK doctors have the safest jobs than any other walk of life, even by public sector standards. It is almost impossible to sack a hospital doctor in the NHS, even when they are incompetent. They also have highly lucrative pension schemes which see them retire on pensions that give them a take home payment that is in excess of double what the average taxpayer earns, and hospital consultants often also have lucrative private practices that are effectively conflicts of interest, but the NHS turns a blind eye to it.

    Most so-called "junior" doctors (those below consultant level) earn salaries that are very comparative to other non-partner level professionals such as lawyers and accountants that are outside the distorted salaries found in London.

    As for GPs: they are raking it in! The reality is that if doctors were a little less greedy there would be the possibility to be more generous to other health professionals who are probably underpaid.

    In summary, those that are swallowing the line of the doctors unions that they are underpaid, I have a bridge to sell you.

    BIB: that GPs are raking in £80,000 a year does not mean junior hospital doctors are not underpaid (or overworked or working antisocial hours).
    As a junior analyst I worked from 7am to 10pm fairly often despite my contract hours being 8am to 5pm, I got paid fuck all to do it as well. Junior doctoring is exactly the same, short term shite while you're in your 20s so you can climb the earnings ladder and once you hit 30 you've got a substantial income.

    If we're going to change the model to pay more at an earlier stage then pay later in medical careers needs to fall.

    What I don't understand is why doctors think they should be treated any differently to other high yielding industry, all lawyers, financiers, analysts etc... will start on shit wages for long hours, it's called paying one's dues. Doctors seem to want to have their cake and eat it.
    That's a reasonable point Max in general.

    But in specific at the moment the previously already lower wages that junior doctors are getting paid aren't just being frozen in real terms, but a proposed substantial cut. While taxpayers money is going to pay others a double-digit rise, including the state pension of retired doctors on defined benefit schemes.

    That's f***ed up is it not?

    Should a retired doctor on a defined benefit scheme get a double-digit percentage increase in their state pension, while a junior doctor sees a nearly double-digit percentage cut in their real terms income from their already lower wage? Is that paying their dues?

    Keeping lower wages flat, while other wages are flat, is entirely reasonable. But cutting some wages in real terms while increasing others by double digit percentages . . . that's a political choice, not necessity.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,918
    It was always going to be Humza wasn't it? The party was happy with Sturgeon and he's the Sturgeon candidate.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,375
    If Oddschecker is correct a lot of bookies have left this market, after being in it at the start. Hills (and Ladbrokes?) certainly have. Is this because they have come to regard it as unpriceable, or perhaps that the challenges to the process will lead to a stewards' enquiry under Jockey Club rules.

    I don't think Forbes is impossible, but I don't understand Scottish politics - except that she is an obvious and stand out star. But then so was Boris.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,800
    BartholomewRoberts said:

    MaxPB said:

    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    Nigel_Foremain said:

    Here is the reality on doctors' pay. The UK is not the highest payer in Europe for hospital doctors but it is well above the median. It is also considerably higher than the nearest comparable system, Sweden, which has a nationalised system unlike most other "mixed economy" health systems

    Additionally UK doctors have the safest jobs than any other walk of life, even by public sector standards. It is almost impossible to sack a hospital doctor in the NHS, even when they are incompetent. They also have highly lucrative pension schemes which see them retire on pensions that give them a take home payment that is in excess of double what the average taxpayer earns, and hospital consultants often also have lucrative private practices that are effectively conflicts of interest, but the NHS turns a blind eye to it.

    Most so-called "junior" doctors (those below consultant level) earn salaries that are very comparative to other non-partner level professionals such as lawyers and accountants that are outside the distorted salaries found in London.

    As for GPs: they are raking it in! The reality is that if doctors were a little less greedy there would be the possibility to be more generous to other health professionals who are probably underpaid.

    In summary, those that are swallowing the line of the doctors unions that they are underpaid, I have a bridge to sell you.

    BIB: that GPs are raking in £80,000 a year does not mean junior hospital doctors are not underpaid (or overworked or working antisocial hours).
    As a junior analyst I worked from 7am to 10pm fairly often despite my contract hours being 8am to 5pm, I got paid fuck all to do it as well. Junior doctoring is exactly the same, short term shite while you're in your 20s so you can climb the earnings ladder and once you hit 30 you've got a substantial income.

    If we're going to change the model to pay more at an earlier stage then pay later in medical careers needs to fall.

    What I don't understand is why doctors think they should be treated any differently to other high yielding industry, all lawyers, financiers, analysts etc... will start on shit wages for long hours, it's called paying one's dues. Doctors seem to want to have their cake and eat it.
    That's a reasonable point Max in general.

    But in specific at the moment the previously already lower wages that junior doctors are getting paid aren't just being frozen in real terms, but a proposed substantial cut. While taxpayers money is going to pay others a double-digit rise, including the state pension of retired doctors on defined benefit schemes.

    That's f***ed up is it not?

    Should a retired doctor on a defined benefit scheme get a double-digit percentage increase in their state pension, while a junior doctor sees a nearly double-digit percentage cut in their real terms income from their already lower wage? Is that paying their dues?

    Keeping lower wages flat, while other wages are flat, is entirely reasonable. But cutting some wages in real terms while increasing others by double digit percentages . . . that's a political choice, not necessity.
    You have been admirably consistent about wanting a free market in labour. There is a free market for junior doctors in fact there is surplus demand. Hence by your own estimation, as indeed you have noted, wages should fall as they are competed downwards. They shouldn't rise.

    Plus the NPV of a "junior doctors" wages is substantially higher than many others and as we know they are bright enough to have worked this out.

    What happens to senior consultants or investment bankers is neither here nor there.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    numbertwelve said:

    Rather embarrassing for Macron to have to delay the state visit.

    That's nothing to what happened in London when the state pension age was pushed from 65 to 67.

    If I recall correctly we all went 'huh' and carried on.

    That showed the Government we would not be pushed around...


    https://twitter.com/VigJimmy/status/1639218632134893572?s=20
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,836
    edited March 2023
    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    First twice in a row? Surely not.

    Anyway, on thread - surely not. Yousaf has all Nicola Sturgeon's negatives and none of her positives. I don't really see what consituency he appeals to.

    Not my party, obviously, and I don't know the selectorate. But when other parties have elected leaders who don't necessarily speak to the wider electorate, they've done so because they represent an obvious strain of what that party believes. I would have thought the SNP equivalent would be more akin to Ash Regan. Yousaf strikes me as neither one to connect to the wider electorate nor one to boldly fight the battle for independence whatever public opinion believes.

    The obvious strain of party belief which Regan represents belongs to Alba, the bleedin’ obvious evidence of which is that her official endorsements remain Cherry, Salmond and Murray.


  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,375
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    bigjohnowls said:

    LAB Landslide nailed on

    Westminster voting intention:

    LAB: 49% (+3)
    CON: 23% (-4)
    LDEM: 10% (-1)
    GRN: 6% (-)
    REF: 6% (-)

    via
    @YouGov
    , this week

    SKS fans please explain!
    What needs explaining is the Tory poll veering from 20-35% in a few days. The run of Tory figures recently (see Wiki) is symptomatic of something seriously odd. But what? The Lab vote is steady.

  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,309
    FPT
    Anabobazina said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Britain Elects
    @BritainElects
    Westminster voting intention:

    LAB: 43% (-2)
    CON: 22% (+2)
    LDEM: 10% (+1)
    REF: 9% (+3)
    GRN: 8% (-5)

    via
    @PeoplePolling
    , 22 Mar"

    Still an utterly ridiculous poll. All those Greens tilting to Ref and Con is a bit of a giggle.
    It’s Matt “Godwin” Goodwin’s gang, so obviously dodgy in some way. The man is a clown, although has a devotee in @Andy_JS on here, for reasons unknown.
    Why do you think I'm a devotee of him in particular.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,597
    algarkirk said:

    If Oddschecker is correct a lot of bookies have left this market, after being in it at the start. Hills (and Ladbrokes?) certainly have. Is this because they have come to regard it as unpriceable, or perhaps that the challenges to the process will lead to a stewards' enquiry under Jockey Club rules.

    I don't think Forbes is impossible, but I don't understand Scottish politics - except that she is an obvious and stand out star. But then so was Boris.

    They're all impossible one way or another.
    But someone will get the job.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,918
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Thoughts and prayers for Enoch Powell’s ghost if it is Humza.

    So like the UK, Scotland would have a darkie with the whip hand over the white man.

    And white women, no need to be offensive now.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,411
    Nigelb said:

    Looking back at the FPT DeSantis discussion, his foreign policy 'evolution' - on Taiwan as well as Ukraine - is uncannily foreshadowed by the pushback he got from Republican senators.
    For example:
    https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/3907413-senate-republican-says-desantis-ukraine-remark-may-very-well-be-primary-politics/amp/

    If nothing else, it does differentiate him from Trump.
    Though if he's going to have any chance of the nomination, he'll have to take Trump on directly, rather than avoiding the confrontation as he's done up until now.

    It’s the major difference between being governor and being president. The latter spends a huge proportion of his time on foreign policy issues, and someone wanting the promotion needs to at least have thought through the major foreign policy issues of the day.

    If RDS wants to stand for the top job (and I’m still not sure he’s going for it in 2024, rather than waiting for 2028), then he’ll need to be spending a lot more time researching and getting briefings on world affairs.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 8,629
    algarkirk said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    bigjohnowls said:

    LAB Landslide nailed on

    Westminster voting intention:

    LAB: 49% (+3)
    CON: 23% (-4)
    LDEM: 10% (-1)
    GRN: 6% (-)
    REF: 6% (-)

    via
    @YouGov
    , this week

    SKS fans please explain!
    What needs explaining is the Tory poll veering from 20-35% in a few days. The run of Tory figures recently (see Wiki) is symptomatic of something seriously odd. But what? The Lab vote is steady.

    Aren't some pollsters using previous vote for "don't know"s or at least making adjusments to assign some don't knows? I think I remembe posts along those lines. Given a lot of Con GE2019 has moved to don't know, rather than another party, that could explain a lot.

    Remains to be seen how good those adjustments are, but for habitual voters who don't know, the same vote as last time (at least for a fair minority) could be likely. The catch might be any rare voters who turned out last time for Boris and Brexit and might simply not bother this time.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,641
    Theuniondivvie said:

    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    First twice in a row? Surely not.

    Anyway, on thread - surely not. Yousaf has all Nicola Sturgeon's negatives and none of her positives. I don't really see what consituency he appeals to.

    Not my party, obviously, and I don't know the selectorate. But when other parties have elected leaders who don't necessarily speak to the wider electorate, they've done so because they represent an obvious strain of what that party believes. I would have thought the SNP equivalent would be more akin to Ash Regan. Yousaf strikes me as neither one to connect to the wider electorate nor one to boldly fight the battle for independence whatever public opinion believes.

    The obvious strain of party belief which Regan represents belongs to Alba, the bleedin’ obvious evidence of which is that her official endorsements remain Cherry, Salmond and Murray.


    Also: NB that the betting question is "next FM" not "next SNP leader".
  • SirNorfolkPassmoreSirNorfolkPassmore Posts: 7,129
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Thoughts and prayers for Enoch Powell’s ghost if it is Humza.

    So like the UK, Scotland would have a darkie with the whip hand over the white man.

    It's just Mark Drakeford holding the line now. One shudders to think what would have happened if Vaughan Gething had bested him back in 2018.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,641
    SirNorfolkPassmore said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Thoughts and prayers for Enoch Powell’s ghost if it is Humza.

    So like the UK, Scotland would have a darkie with the whip hand over the white man.

    It's just Mark Drakeford holding the line now. One shudders to think what would have happened if Vaughan Gething had bested him back in 2018.
    Eh? NI not part of the UK?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,597
    Pretty impressive for military aircraft development if they meet this target.
    https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=347689

    It's taken longer (& probably cost more) for us to not deliver Ajax.

  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 8,629
    Carnyx said:

    SirNorfolkPassmore said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Thoughts and prayers for Enoch Powell’s ghost if it is Humza.

    So like the UK, Scotland would have a darkie with the whip hand over the white man.

    It's just Mark Drakeford holding the line now. One shudders to think what would have happened if Vaughan Gething had bested him back in 2018.
    Eh? NI not part of the UK?
    But technically no FM in NI at present, if Stormont not sitting?
  • SirNorfolkPassmoreSirNorfolkPassmore Posts: 7,129
    Carnyx said:

    SirNorfolkPassmore said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Thoughts and prayers for Enoch Powell’s ghost if it is Humza.

    So like the UK, Scotland would have a darkie with the whip hand over the white man.

    It's just Mark Drakeford holding the line now. One shudders to think what would have happened if Vaughan Gething had bested him back in 2018.
    Eh? NI not part of the UK?
    Position of First Minister of NI has been vacant for over a year.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,597
    TOPPING said:

    BartholomewRoberts said:

    MaxPB said:

    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    Nigel_Foremain said:

    Here is the reality on doctors' pay. The UK is not the highest payer in Europe for hospital doctors but it is well above the median. It is also considerably higher than the nearest comparable system, Sweden, which has a nationalised system unlike most other "mixed economy" health systems

    Additionally UK doctors have the safest jobs than any other walk of life, even by public sector standards. It is almost impossible to sack a hospital doctor in the NHS, even when they are incompetent. They also have highly lucrative pension schemes which see them retire on pensions that give them a take home payment that is in excess of double what the average taxpayer earns, and hospital consultants often also have lucrative private practices that are effectively conflicts of interest, but the NHS turns a blind eye to it.

    Most so-called "junior" doctors (those below consultant level) earn salaries that are very comparative to other non-partner level professionals such as lawyers and accountants that are outside the distorted salaries found in London.

    As for GPs: they are raking it in! The reality is that if doctors were a little less greedy there would be the possibility to be more generous to other health professionals who are probably underpaid.

    In summary, those that are swallowing the line of the doctors unions that they are underpaid, I have a bridge to sell you.

    BIB: that GPs are raking in £80,000 a year does not mean junior hospital doctors are not underpaid (or overworked or working antisocial hours).
    As a junior analyst I worked from 7am to 10pm fairly often despite my contract hours being 8am to 5pm, I got paid fuck all to do it as well. Junior doctoring is exactly the same, short term shite while you're in your 20s so you can climb the earnings ladder and once you hit 30 you've got a substantial income.

    If we're going to change the model to pay more at an earlier stage then pay later in medical careers needs to fall.

    What I don't understand is why doctors think they should be treated any differently to other high yielding industry, all lawyers, financiers, analysts etc... will start on shit wages for long hours, it's called paying one's dues. Doctors seem to want to have their cake and eat it.
    That's a reasonable point Max in general.

    But in specific at the moment the previously already lower wages that junior doctors are getting paid aren't just being frozen in real terms, but a proposed substantial cut. While taxpayers money is going to pay others a double-digit rise, including the state pension of retired doctors on defined benefit schemes.

    That's f***ed up is it not?

    Should a retired doctor on a defined benefit scheme get a double-digit percentage increase in their state pension, while a junior doctor sees a nearly double-digit percentage cut in their real terms income from their already lower wage? Is that paying their dues?

    Keeping lower wages flat, while other wages are flat, is entirely reasonable. But cutting some wages in real terms while increasing others by double digit percentages . . . that's a political choice, not necessity.
    You have been admirably consistent about wanting a free market in labour. There is a free market for junior doctors in fact there is surplus demand. Hence by your own estimation, as indeed you have noted, wages should fall as they are competed downwards. They shouldn't rise.

    Plus the NPV of a "junior doctors" wages is substantially higher than many others and as we know they are bright enough to have worked this out.

    What happens to senior consultants or investment bankers is neither here nor there.
    Hence the strike.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,411
    Nigelb said:

    Pretty impressive for military aircraft development if they meet this target.
    https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=347689

    It's taken longer (& probably cost more) for us to not deliver Ajax.

    The project started in 2001, and they’re hoping to have them operational by 2026.

    Looks pretty standard for military procurement.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 8,629
    Nigelb said:

    Pretty impressive for military aircraft development if they meet this target.
    https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=347689

    It's taken longer (& probably cost more) for us to not deliver Ajax.

    We'll really clean up when it arrives though :wink:
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,597
    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Looking back at the FPT DeSantis discussion, his foreign policy 'evolution' - on Taiwan as well as Ukraine - is uncannily foreshadowed by the pushback he got from Republican senators.
    For example:
    https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/3907413-senate-republican-says-desantis-ukraine-remark-may-very-well-be-primary-politics/amp/

    If nothing else, it does differentiate him from Trump.
    Though if he's going to have any chance of the nomination, he'll have to take Trump on directly, rather than avoiding the confrontation as he's done up until now.

    It’s the major difference between being governor and being president. The latter spends a huge proportion of his time on foreign policy issues, and someone wanting the promotion needs to at least have thought through the major foreign policy issues of the day.

    If RDS wants to stand for the top job (and I’m still not sure he’s going for it in 2024, rather than waiting for 2028), then he’ll need to be spending a lot more time researching and getting briefings on world affairs.
    Like Trump, he'll say whatever he needs to get elected.
    Which will have very little influence at all on what he actually might do.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,641
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Thoughts and prayers for Enoch Powell’s ghost if it is Humza.

    So like the UK, Scotland would have a darkie with the whip hand over the white man.

    Surprised Mr Sarwar isn't in the betting. Look at the wording of the question.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541
    bigjohnowls said:

    LAB Landslide nailed on

    Westminster voting intention:

    LAB: 49% (+3)
    CON: 23% (-4)
    LDEM: 10% (-1)
    GRN: 6% (-)
    REF: 6% (-)

    via
    @YouGov
    , this week

    Have they changes their leader while I wasn't looking BJO?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,836
    edited March 2023
    Carnyx said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    First twice in a row? Surely not.

    Anyway, on thread - surely not. Yousaf has all Nicola Sturgeon's negatives and none of her positives. I don't really see what consituency he appeals to.

    Not my party, obviously, and I don't know the selectorate. But when other parties have elected leaders who don't necessarily speak to the wider electorate, they've done so because they represent an obvious strain of what that party believes. I would have thought the SNP equivalent would be more akin to Ash Regan. Yousaf strikes me as neither one to connect to the wider electorate nor one to boldly fight the battle for independence whatever public opinion believes.

    The obvious strain of party belief which Regan represents belongs to Alba, the bleedin’ obvious evidence of which is that her official endorsements remain Cherry, Salmond and Murray.


    Also: NB that the betting question is "next FM" not "next SNP leader".
    If Forbes wins the leadership it’ll be interesting to see how the FM vote goes. I imagine the agreement with the Greens will be down the tubes, in that scenario would the Greens sit on their hands?
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,621
    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Looking back at the FPT DeSantis discussion, his foreign policy 'evolution' - on Taiwan as well as Ukraine - is uncannily foreshadowed by the pushback he got from Republican senators.
    For example:
    https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/3907413-senate-republican-says-desantis-ukraine-remark-may-very-well-be-primary-politics/amp/

    If nothing else, it does differentiate him from Trump.
    Though if he's going to have any chance of the nomination, he'll have to take Trump on directly, rather than avoiding the confrontation as he's done up until now.

    It’s the major difference between being governor and being president. The latter spends a huge proportion of his time on foreign policy issues, and someone wanting the promotion needs to at least have thought through the major foreign policy issues of the day.

    If RDS wants to stand for the top job (and I’m still not sure he’s going for it in 2024, rather than waiting for 2028), then he’ll need to be spending a lot more time researching and getting briefings on world affairs.
    And if DeSantis does wait for 2028 then probably his better bet is to continue avoiding confrontations with Trump in the hope of inheriting his MAGA supporters next time.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 49,637
    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Pretty impressive for military aircraft development if they meet this target.
    https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=347689

    It's taken longer (& probably cost more) for us to not deliver Ajax.

    The project started in 2001, and they’re hoping to have them operational by 2026.

    Looks pretty standard for military procurement.
    Yup.

    Though the Ukraine war has demonstrated, once again, that when the politics and other bullshit are out of the way, weapons procurement can go very fast.

    See land launched Brimstone for Ukraine.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,411
    On topic, interested to note that the highlighted market has only £36k traded on it. It wouldn’t take much cash to move it a lot.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,381
    numbertwelve said:

    Rather embarrassing for Macron to have to delay the state visit.

    The postponement is headline news in Germany too.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,597
    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Pretty impressive for military aircraft development if they meet this target.
    https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=347689

    It's taken longer (& probably cost more) for us to not deliver Ajax.

    The project started in 2001, and they’re hoping to have them operational by 2026.

    Looks pretty standard for military procurement.
    If you look at the timeline, serious funding R&D only really started in 2011, and full scale development in 2015.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/KAI_KF-21_Boramae
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 21,861
    edited March 2023
    TOPPING said:

    BartholomewRoberts said:

    MaxPB said:

    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    Nigel_Foremain said:

    Here is the reality on doctors' pay. The UK is not the highest payer in Europe for hospital doctors but it is well above the median. It is also considerably higher than the nearest comparable system, Sweden, which has a nationalised system unlike most other "mixed economy" health systems

    Additionally UK doctors have the safest jobs than any other walk of life, even by public sector standards. It is almost impossible to sack a hospital doctor in the NHS, even when they are incompetent. They also have highly lucrative pension schemes which see them retire on pensions that give them a take home payment that is in excess of double what the average taxpayer earns, and hospital consultants often also have lucrative private practices that are effectively conflicts of interest, but the NHS turns a blind eye to it.

    Most so-called "junior" doctors (those below consultant level) earn salaries that are very comparative to other non-partner level professionals such as lawyers and accountants that are outside the distorted salaries found in London.

    As for GPs: they are raking it in! The reality is that if doctors were a little less greedy there would be the possibility to be more generous to other health professionals who are probably underpaid.

    In summary, those that are swallowing the line of the doctors unions that they are underpaid, I have a bridge to sell you.

    BIB: that GPs are raking in £80,000 a year does not mean junior hospital doctors are not underpaid (or overworked or working antisocial hours).
    As a junior analyst I worked from 7am to 10pm fairly often despite my contract hours being 8am to 5pm, I got paid fuck all to do it as well. Junior doctoring is exactly the same, short term shite while you're in your 20s so you can climb the earnings ladder and once you hit 30 you've got a substantial income.

    If we're going to change the model to pay more at an earlier stage then pay later in medical careers needs to fall.

    What I don't understand is why doctors think they should be treated any differently to other high yielding industry, all lawyers, financiers, analysts etc... will start on shit wages for long hours, it's called paying one's dues. Doctors seem to want to have their cake and eat it.
    That's a reasonable point Max in general.

    But in specific at the moment the previously already lower wages that junior doctors are getting paid aren't just being frozen in real terms, but a proposed substantial cut. While taxpayers money is going to pay others a double-digit rise, including the state pension of retired doctors on defined benefit schemes.

    That's f***ed up is it not?

    Should a retired doctor on a defined benefit scheme get a double-digit percentage increase in their state pension, while a junior doctor sees a nearly double-digit percentage cut in their real terms income from their already lower wage? Is that paying their dues?

    Keeping lower wages flat, while other wages are flat, is entirely reasonable. But cutting some wages in real terms while increasing others by double digit percentages . . . that's a political choice, not necessity.
    You have been admirably consistent about wanting a free market in labour. There is a free market for junior doctors in fact there is surplus demand. Hence by your own estimation, as indeed you have noted, wages should fall as they are competed downwards. They shouldn't rise.

    Plus the NPV of a "junior doctors" wages is substantially higher than many others and as we know they are bright enough to have worked this out.

    What happens to senior consultants or investment bankers is neither here nor there.
    Absolutely Topping.

    If there's more qualified job applicants for the junior doctors role to replace them, rather than pay what they're demanding, then I have no qualms with that being done. Sack the strikers and replace them with those equally qualified who are willing to do the job at the offered rate instead of a higher rate.

    But I'm curious about what you mean by surplus demand meaning wages should fall? Surplus demand for junior doctors would mean the wage rises, surplus supply of people willing to do the job would mean a fall, and I'm not sure there's any evidence that there's surplus supply of people wanting and qualified to do that role.

    If there is surplus supply, let the market do its thing and let any who end up without a job consider how they might have acted differently. But I don't think there is.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,641
    edited March 2023
    Theuniondivvie said:

    Carnyx said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    First twice in a row? Surely not.

    Anyway, on thread - surely not. Yousaf has all Nicola Sturgeon's negatives and none of her positives. I don't really see what consituency he appeals to.

    Not my party, obviously, and I don't know the selectorate. But when other parties have elected leaders who don't necessarily speak to the wider electorate, they've done so because they represent an obvious strain of what that party believes. I would have thought the SNP equivalent would be more akin to Ash Regan. Yousaf strikes me as neither one to connect to the wider electorate nor one to boldly fight the battle for independence whatever public opinion believes.

    The obvious strain of party belief which Regan represents belongs to Alba, the bleedin’ obvious evidence of which is that her official endorsements remain Cherry, Salmond and Murray.


    Also: NB that the betting question is "next FM" not "next SNP leader".
    If Forbes wins the leadership it’ll be interesting to see how the FM vote goes. I imagine the agreement with the Greens will be down the tubes, in that scenario would the Greens sit on their hands?
    Exactly. At the moment it's all down to one of the Greens, Ms Johnstone, volunteering to be PO that the SNP even have precisely half the seats. If there is illness or whatever in any party ...

    edit: normally Ms J would cast her vote for the status quo.
  • TazTaz Posts: 14,225
    The next domino to fall ?

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/deutsche-bank-shares-slide-9-after-sudden-spike-in-the-cost-of-insuring-against-its-default/ar-AA191tDQ
  • SirNorfolkPassmoreSirNorfolkPassmore Posts: 7,129
    Sandpit said:

    On topic, interested to note that the highlighted market has only £36k traded on it. It wouldn’t take much cash to move it a lot.

    Firstly, why would anyone want to move it a lot as the votes have essentially now been cast? Secondly, it would take a lot of money to shift it as you'd immediately create an arbitrage opportunity.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,411
    edited March 2023
    Malmesbury said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Pretty impressive for military aircraft development if they meet this target.
    https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=347689

    It's taken longer (& probably cost more) for us to not deliver Ajax.

    The project started in 2001, and they’re hoping to have them operational by 2026.

    Looks pretty standard for military procurement.
    Yup.

    Though the Ukraine war has demonstrated, once again, that when the politics and other bullshit are out of the way, weapons procurement can go very fast.

    See land launched Brimstone for Ukraine.
    The usual military project delays, are caused by loads of silly scope changes from the customer, IIRC 1,200 changes on the MoD Ajax.

    That won’t happen when there’s an actual war going on, it will be a case of we’ll take what can be delivered yesterday, and make it work in the field.

    Hopefully, this war has been a wake-up call to Europe, about the need to be less reliant on the US. No matter who is the next President, the States will in future be looking more to China than Russia as the enemy,

    Europe will have a few years though, there’s pretty much nothing left of the Russian army at the moment. They are already pulling T-55 tanks out of museums, by the summer they’ll be pulling T-33s off WWII memorials.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 49,637
    Taz said:

    The next domino to fall ?

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/deutsche-bank-shares-slide-9-after-sudden-spike-in-the-cost-of-insuring-against-its-default/ar-AA191tDQ

    No

    The German government would do anything to prevent DB going down. Anything.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,597
    Trump calls for removal of every top official investigating him
    https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3914607-trump-calls-for-removal-of-every-top-official-investigating-him/
  • eekeek Posts: 28,116
    Malmesbury said:

    Taz said:

    The next domino to fall ?

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/deutsche-bank-shares-slide-9-after-sudden-spike-in-the-cost-of-insuring-against-its-default/ar-AA191tDQ

    No

    The German government would do anything to prevent DB going down. Anything.
    And will have to…
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,852
    BartholomewRoberts said:

    Roger said:

    Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.

    I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.

    Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.

    As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
    FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,840
    Nigelb said:

    Trump calls for removal of every top official investigating him
    https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3914607-trump-calls-for-removal-of-every-top-official-investigating-him/

    Quite right too. If they are investigating him, it is proof that they are corrupt.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,411
    Taz said:

    The next domino to fall ?

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/deutsche-bank-shares-slide-9-after-sudden-spike-in-the-cost-of-insuring-against-its-default/ar-AA191tDQ

    If DB falls, it’ll make 2008 seem like a brief and technical recession.

    The German government won’t let it happen though, and the EU will be told to get off should they try and intervene.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,836
    Carnyx said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Carnyx said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    First twice in a row? Surely not.

    Anyway, on thread - surely not. Yousaf has all Nicola Sturgeon's negatives and none of her positives. I don't really see what consituency he appeals to.

    Not my party, obviously, and I don't know the selectorate. But when other parties have elected leaders who don't necessarily speak to the wider electorate, they've done so because they represent an obvious strain of what that party believes. I would have thought the SNP equivalent would be more akin to Ash Regan. Yousaf strikes me as neither one to connect to the wider electorate nor one to boldly fight the battle for independence whatever public opinion believes.

    The obvious strain of party belief which Regan represents belongs to Alba, the bleedin’ obvious evidence of which is that her official endorsements remain Cherry, Salmond and Murray.


    Also: NB that the betting question is "next FM" not "next SNP leader".
    If Forbes wins the leadership it’ll be interesting to see how the FM vote goes. I imagine the agreement with the Greens will be down the tubes, in that scenario would the Greens sit on their hands?
    Exactly. At the moment it's all down to one of the Greens, Ms Johnstone, volunteering to be PO that the SNP even have precisely half the seats. If there is illness or whatever in any party ...

    edit: normally Ms J would cast her vote for the status quo.
    Harvie & co may want to side with party leaders who were solidly behind GRA reform (ie Sarwar & Cole Hamilton)..
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 6,805
    I have very little to go off here, but my gut is that the higher Tory poll ratings are more likely to the accurate ones.

    Not because I want them to be, but because I suspect the spiral of silence is now even more pronounced than it was pre-Truss. It’s not exactly easy to say you support the government right now.

    What I am not sure about is whether the relevant pollsters that are showing higher Tory ratings are adjusting more aggressively to counter that. I am sure someone more in tune with the methodology would be able to tell me!
  • SirNorfolkPassmoreSirNorfolkPassmore Posts: 7,129
    RochdalePioneers said:

    Nigelb said:

    Trump calls for removal of every top official investigating him
    https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3914607-trump-calls-for-removal-of-every-top-official-investigating-him/

    Quite right too. If they are investigating him, it is proof that they are corrupt.
    Bad people. Very bad people. DRAIN THE SWAMP!
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 5,923
    algarkirk said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    bigjohnowls said:

    LAB Landslide nailed on

    Westminster voting intention:

    LAB: 49% (+3)
    CON: 23% (-4)
    LDEM: 10% (-1)
    GRN: 6% (-)
    REF: 6% (-)

    via
    @YouGov
    , this week

    SKS fans please explain!
    What needs explaining is the Tory poll veering from 20-35% in a few days. The run of Tory figures recently (see Wiki) is symptomatic of something seriously odd. But what? The Lab vote is steady.

    Yes and no. Eyeballing it, and unscientifically because I have no time to do it properly, if you strip out the outliers then both Tory and Labour numbers have about the same variance. Hence, away from the trend (Tory a bit up and Labour a bit down) it’s all polling methodology differences.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 6,805
    williamglenn said:

    numbertwelve said:

    Rather embarrassing for Macron to have to delay the state visit.

    The postponement is headline news in Germany too.
    Complete schadenfreude at my end, but it is quite nice to have the focus taken off us a little as being the ungovernable and chaotic lot!
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 21,861
    Roger said:

    BartholomewRoberts said:

    Roger said:

    Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.

    I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.

    Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.

    As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
    FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
    Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.

    The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.

    I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.

    Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,879
    Theuniondivvie said:

    Carnyx said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    First twice in a row? Surely not.

    Anyway, on thread - surely not. Yousaf has all Nicola Sturgeon's negatives and none of her positives. I don't really see what consituency he appeals to.

    Not my party, obviously, and I don't know the selectorate. But when other parties have elected leaders who don't necessarily speak to the wider electorate, they've done so because they represent an obvious strain of what that party believes. I would have thought the SNP equivalent would be more akin to Ash Regan. Yousaf strikes me as neither one to connect to the wider electorate nor one to boldly fight the battle for independence whatever public opinion believes.

    The obvious strain of party belief which Regan represents belongs to Alba, the bleedin’ obvious evidence of which is that her official endorsements remain Cherry, Salmond and Murray.


    Also: NB that the betting question is "next FM" not "next SNP leader".
    If Forbes wins the leadership it’ll be interesting to see how the FM vote goes. I imagine the agreement with the Greens will be down the tubes, in that scenario would the Greens sit on their hands?
    I still can't see any reason why there's a worse outcome for the new SNP leader than Sturgeon got in 2016 - elected by a minority with only a handful of votes for another candidate and mass abstentions from the opposition parties.

    The new SNP leader might not have a majority, but nobody else will either.
  • SirNorfolkPassmoreSirNorfolkPassmore Posts: 7,129
    numbertwelve said:

    I have very little to go off here, but my gut is that the higher Tory poll ratings are more likely to the accurate ones.

    Not because I want them to be, but because I suspect the spiral of silence is now even more pronounced than it was pre-Truss. It’s not exactly easy to say you support the government right now.

    What I am not sure about is whether the relevant pollsters that are showing higher Tory ratings are adjusting more aggressively to counter that. I am sure someone more in tune with the methodology would be able to tell me!

    I don't really get why you think the spiral of silence would be worse than previously. It isn't that difficult for someone who supports the Government (of which I am not one) to say, "Sunak is a competent bloke in difficult circumstances, who is trying to stop the boats". Why is that more embarrassing to admit than backing Johnson at the height of Partygate?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,641
    Theuniondivvie said:

    Carnyx said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Carnyx said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    First twice in a row? Surely not.

    Anyway, on thread - surely not. Yousaf has all Nicola Sturgeon's negatives and none of her positives. I don't really see what consituency he appeals to.

    Not my party, obviously, and I don't know the selectorate. But when other parties have elected leaders who don't necessarily speak to the wider electorate, they've done so because they represent an obvious strain of what that party believes. I would have thought the SNP equivalent would be more akin to Ash Regan. Yousaf strikes me as neither one to connect to the wider electorate nor one to boldly fight the battle for independence whatever public opinion believes.

    The obvious strain of party belief which Regan represents belongs to Alba, the bleedin’ obvious evidence of which is that her official endorsements remain Cherry, Salmond and Murray.


    Also: NB that the betting question is "next FM" not "next SNP leader".
    If Forbes wins the leadership it’ll be interesting to see how the FM vote goes. I imagine the agreement with the Greens will be down the tubes, in that scenario would the Greens sit on their hands?
    Exactly. At the moment it's all down to one of the Greens, Ms Johnstone, volunteering to be PO that the SNP even have precisely half the seats. If there is illness or whatever in any party ...

    edit: normally Ms J would cast her vote for the status quo.
    Harvie & co may want to side with party leaders who were solidly behind GRA reform (ie Sarwar & Cole Hamilton)..
    That's one thing I was wondering: but will the SGs see Slab as solid enough now SKS has recanted and gone back on things? SKS wouldn't want Slab to be doing their own thing in this particular, sorry, transaction.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,641
    Driver said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Carnyx said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    First twice in a row? Surely not.

    Anyway, on thread - surely not. Yousaf has all Nicola Sturgeon's negatives and none of her positives. I don't really see what consituency he appeals to.

    Not my party, obviously, and I don't know the selectorate. But when other parties have elected leaders who don't necessarily speak to the wider electorate, they've done so because they represent an obvious strain of what that party believes. I would have thought the SNP equivalent would be more akin to Ash Regan. Yousaf strikes me as neither one to connect to the wider electorate nor one to boldly fight the battle for independence whatever public opinion believes.

    The obvious strain of party belief which Regan represents belongs to Alba, the bleedin’ obvious evidence of which is that her official endorsements remain Cherry, Salmond and Murray.


    Also: NB that the betting question is "next FM" not "next SNP leader".
    If Forbes wins the leadership it’ll be interesting to see how the FM vote goes. I imagine the agreement with the Greens will be down the tubes, in that scenario would the Greens sit on their hands?
    I still can't see any reason why there's a worse outcome for the new SNP leader than Sturgeon got in 2016 - elected by a minority with only a handful of votes for another candidate and mass abstentions from the opposition parties.

    The new SNP leader might not have a majority, but nobody else will either.
    Wasn't a minority. Exactrly 50%, the PO not normally voting unless it is tied.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,411
    SirNorfolkPassmore said:

    RochdalePioneers said:

    Nigelb said:

    Trump calls for removal of every top official investigating him
    https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3914607-trump-calls-for-removal-of-every-top-official-investigating-him/

    Quite right too. If they are investigating him, it is proof that they are corrupt.
    Bad people. Very bad people. DRAIN THE SWAMP!
    To be fair to Trump (yes, I know), the prosecutor he’s been arguing with this week is an elected Democrat from New York, whose manifesto was basically we’ll get the bad orange man. Mixing politics and law like this, is pretty much always a bad idea.

    It does now appear that the Grand Jury can’t be convinced to issue charges, in this particular case anyway.
  • NickyBreakspearNickyBreakspear Posts: 771
    BBC u-turn on the BBC Singers and will look at alternative funding solutions.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/statements/bbc-singers-funding

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,492
    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    The next domino to fall ?

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/deutsche-bank-shares-slide-9-after-sudden-spike-in-the-cost-of-insuring-against-its-default/ar-AA191tDQ

    If DB falls, it’ll make 2008 seem like a brief and technical recession.

    The German government won’t let it happen though, and the EU will be told to get off should they try and intervene.
    Just two weeks ago I was mocked by the PB "masters of the universe" for suggesting that the FTSE was rather toppy, and that it was wise to dump financial stocks.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,879
    Carnyx said:

    Driver said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Carnyx said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    First twice in a row? Surely not.

    Anyway, on thread - surely not. Yousaf has all Nicola Sturgeon's negatives and none of her positives. I don't really see what consituency he appeals to.

    Not my party, obviously, and I don't know the selectorate. But when other parties have elected leaders who don't necessarily speak to the wider electorate, they've done so because they represent an obvious strain of what that party believes. I would have thought the SNP equivalent would be more akin to Ash Regan. Yousaf strikes me as neither one to connect to the wider electorate nor one to boldly fight the battle for independence whatever public opinion believes.

    The obvious strain of party belief which Regan represents belongs to Alba, the bleedin’ obvious evidence of which is that her official endorsements remain Cherry, Salmond and Murray.


    Also: NB that the betting question is "next FM" not "next SNP leader".
    If Forbes wins the leadership it’ll be interesting to see how the FM vote goes. I imagine the agreement with the Greens will be down the tubes, in that scenario would the Greens sit on their hands?
    I still can't see any reason why there's a worse outcome for the new SNP leader than Sturgeon got in 2016 - elected by a minority with only a handful of votes for another candidate and mass abstentions from the opposition parties.

    The new SNP leader might not have a majority, but nobody else will either.
    Wasn't a minority. Exactrly 50%, the PO not normally voting unless it is tied.
    Semantics, and arguably not very accurate semantics at that.

    Your repeated argument of "the new SNP leader isn't necessarily going to be the new FM" relies on all other parties coalescing around a single candidate.

    Come on.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,479
    bigjohnowls said:

    LAB Landslide nailed on

    Westminster voting intention:

    LAB: 49% (+3)
    CON: 23% (-4)
    LDEM: 10% (-1)
    GRN: 6% (-)
    REF: 6% (-)

    via
    @YouGov
    , this week

    What ‘trend’ is not my friend @MarqueeMark ??
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,492
    SirNorfolkPassmore said:

    RochdalePioneers said:

    Nigelb said:

    Trump calls for removal of every top official investigating him
    https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3914607-trump-calls-for-removal-of-every-top-official-investigating-him/

    Quite right too. If they are investigating him, it is proof that they are corrupt.
    Bad people. Very bad people. DRAIN THE SWAMP!
    Just as the people all knew that Johnson was a liar, the American people know Trump is a crook with a vendetta.

    The problem was always that they don't care and vote for them anyway.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,479
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    bigjohnowls said:

    LAB Landslide nailed on

    Westminster voting intention:

    LAB: 49% (+3)
    CON: 23% (-4)
    LDEM: 10% (-1)
    GRN: 6% (-)
    REF: 6% (-)

    via
    @YouGov
    , this week

    SKS fans please explain!
    Boris is the gift who keeps on giving. Labour will be praying he sticks around.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,641
    Driver said:

    Carnyx said:

    Driver said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Carnyx said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    First twice in a row? Surely not.

    Anyway, on thread - surely not. Yousaf has all Nicola Sturgeon's negatives and none of her positives. I don't really see what consituency he appeals to.

    Not my party, obviously, and I don't know the selectorate. But when other parties have elected leaders who don't necessarily speak to the wider electorate, they've done so because they represent an obvious strain of what that party believes. I would have thought the SNP equivalent would be more akin to Ash Regan. Yousaf strikes me as neither one to connect to the wider electorate nor one to boldly fight the battle for independence whatever public opinion believes.

    The obvious strain of party belief which Regan represents belongs to Alba, the bleedin’ obvious evidence of which is that her official endorsements remain Cherry, Salmond and Murray.


    Also: NB that the betting question is "next FM" not "next SNP leader".
    If Forbes wins the leadership it’ll be interesting to see how the FM vote goes. I imagine the agreement with the Greens will be down the tubes, in that scenario would the Greens sit on their hands?
    I still can't see any reason why there's a worse outcome for the new SNP leader than Sturgeon got in 2016 - elected by a minority with only a handful of votes for another candidate and mass abstentions from the opposition parties.

    The new SNP leader might not have a majority, but nobody else will either.
    Wasn't a minority. Exactrly 50%, the PO not normally voting unless it is tied.
    Semantics, and arguably not very accurate semantics at that.

    Your repeated argument of "the new SNP leader isn't necessarily going to be the new FM" relies on all other parties coalescing around a single candidate.

    Come on.
    We're not in Westminster. *There are separate votes for each candidate*.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,479
    Andy_JS said:

    FPT

    Anabobazina said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Britain Elects
    @BritainElects
    Westminster voting intention:

    LAB: 43% (-2)
    CON: 22% (+2)
    LDEM: 10% (+1)
    REF: 9% (+3)
    GRN: 8% (-5)

    via
    @PeoplePolling
    , 22 Mar"

    Still an utterly ridiculous poll. All those Greens tilting to Ref and Con is a bit of a giggle.
    It’s Matt “Godwin” Goodwin’s gang, so obviously dodgy in some way. The man is a clown, although has a devotee in @Andy_JS on here, for reasons unknown.
    Why do you think I'm a devotee of him in particular.
    You follow him around and seem to quote and retweet him frequently
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,126
    Sack the lot:

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/24/top-lawyers-defy-bar-declare-will-not-prosecute-peaceful-climate-protesters
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,800
    BartholomewRoberts said:

    TOPPING said:

    BartholomewRoberts said:

    MaxPB said:

    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    Nigel_Foremain said:

    Here is the reality on doctors' pay. The UK is not the highest payer in Europe for hospital doctors but it is well above the median. It is also considerably higher than the nearest comparable system, Sweden, which has a nationalised system unlike most other "mixed economy" health systems

    Additionally UK doctors have the safest jobs than any other walk of life, even by public sector standards. It is almost impossible to sack a hospital doctor in the NHS, even when they are incompetent. They also have highly lucrative pension schemes which see them retire on pensions that give them a take home payment that is in excess of double what the average taxpayer earns, and hospital consultants often also have lucrative private practices that are effectively conflicts of interest, but the NHS turns a blind eye to it.

    Most so-called "junior" doctors (those below consultant level) earn salaries that are very comparative to other non-partner level professionals such as lawyers and accountants that are outside the distorted salaries found in London.

    As for GPs: they are raking it in! The reality is that if doctors were a little less greedy there would be the possibility to be more generous to other health professionals who are probably underpaid.

    In summary, those that are swallowing the line of the doctors unions that they are underpaid, I have a bridge to sell you.

    BIB: that GPs are raking in £80,000 a year does not mean junior hospital doctors are not underpaid (or overworked or working antisocial hours).
    As a junior analyst I worked from 7am to 10pm fairly often despite my contract hours being 8am to 5pm, I got paid fuck all to do it as well. Junior doctoring is exactly the same, short term shite while you're in your 20s so you can climb the earnings ladder and once you hit 30 you've got a substantial income.

    If we're going to change the model to pay more at an earlier stage then pay later in medical careers needs to fall.

    What I don't understand is why doctors think they should be treated any differently to other high yielding industry, all lawyers, financiers, analysts etc... will start on shit wages for long hours, it's called paying one's dues. Doctors seem to want to have their cake and eat it.
    That's a reasonable point Max in general.

    But in specific at the moment the previously already lower wages that junior doctors are getting paid aren't just being frozen in real terms, but a proposed substantial cut. While taxpayers money is going to pay others a double-digit rise, including the state pension of retired doctors on defined benefit schemes.

    That's f***ed up is it not?

    Should a retired doctor on a defined benefit scheme get a double-digit percentage increase in their state pension, while a junior doctor sees a nearly double-digit percentage cut in their real terms income from their already lower wage? Is that paying their dues?

    Keeping lower wages flat, while other wages are flat, is entirely reasonable. But cutting some wages in real terms while increasing others by double digit percentages . . . that's a political choice, not necessity.
    You have been admirably consistent about wanting a free market in labour. There is a free market for junior doctors in fact there is surplus demand. Hence by your own estimation, as indeed you have noted, wages should fall as they are competed downwards. They shouldn't rise.

    Plus the NPV of a "junior doctors" wages is substantially higher than many others and as we know they are bright enough to have worked this out.

    What happens to senior consultants or investment bankers is neither here nor there.
    Absolutely Topping.

    If there's more qualified job applicants for the junior doctors role to replace them, rather than pay what they're demanding, then I have no qualms with that being done. Sack the strikers and replace them with those equally qualified who are willing to do the job at the offered rate instead of a higher rate.

    But I'm curious about what you mean by surplus demand meaning wages should fall? Surplus demand for junior doctors would mean the wage rises, surplus supply of people willing to do the job would mean a fall, and I'm not sure there's any evidence that there's surplus supply of people wanting and qualified to do that role.

    If there is surplus supply, let the market do its thing and let any who end up without a job consider how they might have acted differently. But I don't think there is.
    I believe there is surplus demand for junior doctors jobs.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,411
    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    The next domino to fall ?

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/deutsche-bank-shares-slide-9-after-sudden-spike-in-the-cost-of-insuring-against-its-default/ar-AA191tDQ

    If DB falls, it’ll make 2008 seem like a brief and technical recession.

    The German government won’t let it happen though, and the EU will be told to get off should they try and intervene.
    Just two weeks ago I was mocked by the PB "masters of the universe" for suggesting that the FTSE was rather toppy, and that it was wise to dump financial stocks.
    I came into a sum of money at the start of the year, low-to-mid five figures. It’s still sitting in cash, rather than transferred to the investment account. A good decision so far, even with inflation.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,396
    edited March 2023
    Whoever wins on Monday it is likely all downhill for the SNP and all uphill for Scottish Labour.

    A new Scottish Ipsos poll for the Times gives Sturgeon a still healthy +8% rating. Forbes though is on -8%, behind Scottish Labour Leader Sarwar on -4%.

    Yousaf is on an abysmal -20% with Scottish voters and Regan an even
    worse -23%. Sir Keir by contrast is on -9% with Scots

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/snp-leadership-candidates-unpopular-with-voters-gkxmj5hwj
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,411
    TOPPING said:

    BartholomewRoberts said:

    TOPPING said:

    BartholomewRoberts said:

    MaxPB said:

    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    Nigel_Foremain said:

    Here is the reality on doctors' pay. The UK is not the highest payer in Europe for hospital doctors but it is well above the median. It is also considerably higher than the nearest comparable system, Sweden, which has a nationalised system unlike most other "mixed economy" health systems

    Additionally UK doctors have the safest jobs than any other walk of life, even by public sector standards. It is almost impossible to sack a hospital doctor in the NHS, even when they are incompetent. They also have highly lucrative pension schemes which see them retire on pensions that give them a take home payment that is in excess of double what the average taxpayer earns, and hospital consultants often also have lucrative private practices that are effectively conflicts of interest, but the NHS turns a blind eye to it.

    Most so-called "junior" doctors (those below consultant level) earn salaries that are very comparative to other non-partner level professionals such as lawyers and accountants that are outside the distorted salaries found in London.

    As for GPs: they are raking it in! The reality is that if doctors were a little less greedy there would be the possibility to be more generous to other health professionals who are probably underpaid.

    In summary, those that are swallowing the line of the doctors unions that they are underpaid, I have a bridge to sell you.

    BIB: that GPs are raking in £80,000 a year does not mean junior hospital doctors are not underpaid (or overworked or working antisocial hours).
    As a junior analyst I worked from 7am to 10pm fairly often despite my contract hours being 8am to 5pm, I got paid fuck all to do it as well. Junior doctoring is exactly the same, short term shite while you're in your 20s so you can climb the earnings ladder and once you hit 30 you've got a substantial income.

    If we're going to change the model to pay more at an earlier stage then pay later in medical careers needs to fall.

    What I don't understand is why doctors think they should be treated any differently to other high yielding industry, all lawyers, financiers, analysts etc... will start on shit wages for long hours, it's called paying one's dues. Doctors seem to want to have their cake and eat it.
    That's a reasonable point Max in general.

    But in specific at the moment the previously already lower wages that junior doctors are getting paid aren't just being frozen in real terms, but a proposed substantial cut. While taxpayers money is going to pay others a double-digit rise, including the state pension of retired doctors on defined benefit schemes.

    That's f***ed up is it not?

    Should a retired doctor on a defined benefit scheme get a double-digit percentage increase in their state pension, while a junior doctor sees a nearly double-digit percentage cut in their real terms income from their already lower wage? Is that paying their dues?

    Keeping lower wages flat, while other wages are flat, is entirely reasonable. But cutting some wages in real terms while increasing others by double digit percentages . . . that's a political choice, not necessity.
    You have been admirably consistent about wanting a free market in labour. There is a free market for junior doctors in fact there is surplus demand. Hence by your own estimation, as indeed you have noted, wages should fall as they are competed downwards. They shouldn't rise.

    Plus the NPV of a "junior doctors" wages is substantially higher than many others and as we know they are bright enough to have worked this out.

    What happens to senior consultants or investment bankers is neither here nor there.
    Absolutely Topping.

    If there's more qualified job applicants for the junior doctors role to replace them, rather than pay what they're demanding, then I have no qualms with that being done. Sack the strikers and replace them with those equally qualified who are willing to do the job at the offered rate instead of a higher rate.

    But I'm curious about what you mean by surplus demand meaning wages should fall? Surplus demand for junior doctors would mean the wage rises, surplus supply of people willing to do the job would mean a fall, and I'm not sure there's any evidence that there's surplus supply of people wanting and qualified to do that role.

    If there is surplus supply, let the market do its thing and let any who end up without a job consider how they might have acted differently. But I don't think there is.
    I believe there is surplus demand for junior doctors jobs.
    The surplus supply is for med school entry at 18. Medicine is one of the most over-subscribed courses. There needs to be a large expansion in med school places, which until recently have been opposed by the BMA because they quite like the scarcity.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 5,257
    Anabobazina said:

    bigjohnowls said:

    LAB Landslide nailed on

    Westminster voting intention:

    LAB: 49% (+3)
    CON: 23% (-4)
    LDEM: 10% (-1)
    GRN: 6% (-)
    REF: 6% (-)

    via
    @YouGov
    , this week

    What ‘trend’ is not my friend @MarqueeMark ??
    Trend would say Labour's lead is a touch below 20% now where is was a bit above 20% in Sunak's early months. There is a definite movement now of perhaps 4% in the average lead. But the variation between pollsters and directions of travel from previous comparator are still all over the place.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 21,973
    TOPPING said:

    BartholomewRoberts said:

    TOPPING said:

    BartholomewRoberts said:

    MaxPB said:

    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    Nigel_Foremain said:

    Here is the reality on doctors' pay. The UK is not the highest payer in Europe for hospital doctors but it is well above the median. It is also considerably higher than the nearest comparable system, Sweden, which has a nationalised system unlike most other "mixed economy" health systems

    Additionally UK doctors have the safest jobs than any other walk of life, even by public sector standards. It is almost impossible to sack a hospital doctor in the NHS, even when they are incompetent. They also have highly lucrative pension schemes which see them retire on pensions that give them a take home payment that is in excess of double what the average taxpayer earns, and hospital consultants often also have lucrative private practices that are effectively conflicts of interest, but the NHS turns a blind eye to it.

    Most so-called "junior" doctors (those below consultant level) earn salaries that are very comparative to other non-partner level professionals such as lawyers and accountants that are outside the distorted salaries found in London.

    As for GPs: they are raking it in! The reality is that if doctors were a little less greedy there would be the possibility to be more generous to other health professionals who are probably underpaid.

    In summary, those that are swallowing the line of the doctors unions that they are underpaid, I have a bridge to sell you.

    BIB: that GPs are raking in £80,000 a year does not mean junior hospital doctors are not underpaid (or overworked or working antisocial hours).
    As a junior analyst I worked from 7am to 10pm fairly often despite my contract hours being 8am to 5pm, I got paid fuck all to do it as well. Junior doctoring is exactly the same, short term shite while you're in your 20s so you can climb the earnings ladder and once you hit 30 you've got a substantial income.

    If we're going to change the model to pay more at an earlier stage then pay later in medical careers needs to fall.

    What I don't understand is why doctors think they should be treated any differently to other high yielding industry, all lawyers, financiers, analysts etc... will start on shit wages for long hours, it's called paying one's dues. Doctors seem to want to have their cake and eat it.
    That's a reasonable point Max in general.

    But in specific at the moment the previously already lower wages that junior doctors are getting paid aren't just being frozen in real terms, but a proposed substantial cut. While taxpayers money is going to pay others a double-digit rise, including the state pension of retired doctors on defined benefit schemes.

    That's f***ed up is it not?

    Should a retired doctor on a defined benefit scheme get a double-digit percentage increase in their state pension, while a junior doctor sees a nearly double-digit percentage cut in their real terms income from their already lower wage? Is that paying their dues?

    Keeping lower wages flat, while other wages are flat, is entirely reasonable. But cutting some wages in real terms while increasing others by double digit percentages . . . that's a political choice, not necessity.
    You have been admirably consistent about wanting a free market in labour. There is a free market for junior doctors in fact there is surplus demand. Hence by your own estimation, as indeed you have noted, wages should fall as they are competed downwards. They shouldn't rise.

    Plus the NPV of a "junior doctors" wages is substantially higher than many others and as we know they are bright enough to have worked this out.

    What happens to senior consultants or investment bankers is neither here nor there.
    Absolutely Topping.

    If there's more qualified job applicants for the junior doctors role to replace them, rather than pay what they're demanding, then I have no qualms with that being done. Sack the strikers and replace them with those equally qualified who are willing to do the job at the offered rate instead of a higher rate.

    But I'm curious about what you mean by surplus demand meaning wages should fall? Surplus demand for junior doctors would mean the wage rises, surplus supply of people willing to do the job would mean a fall, and I'm not sure there's any evidence that there's surplus supply of people wanting and qualified to do that role.

    If there is surplus supply, let the market do its thing and let any who end up without a job consider how they might have acted differently. But I don't think there is.
    I believe there is surplus demand for junior doctors jobs.
    Not enough places at med school, rather than not enough wanting to become docs.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,879
    Carnyx said:

    Driver said:

    Carnyx said:

    Driver said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Carnyx said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    First twice in a row? Surely not.

    Anyway, on thread - surely not. Yousaf has all Nicola Sturgeon's negatives and none of her positives. I don't really see what consituency he appeals to.

    Not my party, obviously, and I don't know the selectorate. But when other parties have elected leaders who don't necessarily speak to the wider electorate, they've done so because they represent an obvious strain of what that party believes. I would have thought the SNP equivalent would be more akin to Ash Regan. Yousaf strikes me as neither one to connect to the wider electorate nor one to boldly fight the battle for independence whatever public opinion believes.

    The obvious strain of party belief which Regan represents belongs to Alba, the bleedin’ obvious evidence of which is that her official endorsements remain Cherry, Salmond and Murray.


    Also: NB that the betting question is "next FM" not "next SNP leader".
    If Forbes wins the leadership it’ll be interesting to see how the FM vote goes. I imagine the agreement with the Greens will be down the tubes, in that scenario would the Greens sit on their hands?
    I still can't see any reason why there's a worse outcome for the new SNP leader than Sturgeon got in 2016 - elected by a minority with only a handful of votes for another candidate and mass abstentions from the opposition parties.

    The new SNP leader might not have a majority, but nobody else will either.
    Wasn't a minority. Exactrly 50%, the PO not normally voting unless it is tied.
    Semantics, and arguably not very accurate semantics at that.

    Your repeated argument of "the new SNP leader isn't necessarily going to be the new FM" relies on all other parties coalescing around a single candidate.

    Come on.
    We're not in Westminster. *There are separate votes for each candidate*.
    That seems like a misleading description of the process.

    https://www.parliament.scot/chamber-and-committees/official-report/search-what-was-said-in-parliament/meeting-of-parliament-17-05-2016?meeting=10450&iob=96268

    As the result is valid, and as Nicola Sturgeon has received more votes than the total number of votes for the other candidate, I declare that Nicola Sturgeon is selected as the Parliament’s nominee for appointment as First Minister. As required by the Scotland Act 1998, I shall now recommend to Her Majesty that she appoint Nicola Sturgeon as the First Minister.

    All the SNP MSPs are going to vote for the new SNP leader. What "other candidate" is going to get more votes?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 62,787
    edited March 2023
    Anabobazina said:

    bigjohnowls said:

    LAB Landslide nailed on

    Westminster voting intention:

    LAB: 49% (+3)
    CON: 23% (-4)
    LDEM: 10% (-1)
    GRN: 6% (-)
    REF: 6% (-)

    via
    @YouGov
    , this week

    What ‘trend’ is not my friend @MarqueeMark ??
    Selecting the poll one likes is not the same as a trend when 2 more have been published with a + conservative vote share

    Techne

    Labour 46 -1

    Conservative 31 +1

    People polling

    Labour 43 -2

    Conservative 22 +2

    Additionally the conservatives increased their vote share last night

    https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1639239824488972289?t=t2Q1mdiK-Kef9_kaVhEwdg&s=19

    It seems their is an uptick for Sunak and his party but a long way to go
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,411
    tlg86 said:

    Sack the lot:

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/24/top-lawyers-defy-bar-declare-will-not-prosecute-peaceful-climate-protesters

    That must be wrong, we all know that “Lefty lawyers” is a lie perpetuated by the Mail and Express to rile up their working-class readership.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,396
    BartholomewRoberts said:

    Roger said:

    BartholomewRoberts said:

    Roger said:

    Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.

    I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.

    Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.

    As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
    FPT. Sorry I wasn't able to reply. I like your sentiments but the proof of the pudding is in the Prime Minister's appointment of Suella Braverman. Her statements about the people in dinghies have been pretty disgusting yet considered to be just what the Red Wallers want to hear to bring them back on side. If they were unattractive to that vital voting block I'm sure Sunak would have removed her.
    Or Sunak recognises that the Red Wall could be lost either way and Suella is there to appeal to more traditionally blue seats to keep them happy and in the blue column.

    The kind of seats from which all these comments projecting onto the Red Wall their own prejudices seem to be coming from anyway.

    I can't think of a single commentator on this site from a Red Wall seat who is expressing those views or endorsing Suella Braverman. Those who seem to be doing so, seem to be in more typically safe blue seats than Red Wall seats.

    Red Wall has become a flippant byline for people's own prejudices rather than thinking seriously about what people here actually want.
    Redwall Leave seats are more anti immigration than Remain or soft Leave Bluewall seats, as the polling shows
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,879
    edited March 2023
    tlg86 said:

    Sack the lot:

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/24/top-lawyers-defy-bar-declare-will-not-prosecute-peaceful-climate-protesters

    Jolyon Maugham KC, the head of the Good Law Project and a key signatory of the declaration

    Well, there's a shock.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,230
    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    First twice in a row? Surely not.

    Anyway, on thread - surely not. Yousaf has all Nicola Sturgeon's negatives and none of her positives. I don't really see what consituency he appeals to.

    Not my party, obviously, and I don't know the selectorate. But when other parties have elected leaders who don't necessarily speak to the wider electorate, they've done so because they represent an obvious strain of what that party believes. I would have thought the SNP equivalent would be more akin to Ash Regan. Yousaf strikes me as neither one to connect to the wider electorate nor one to boldly fight the battle for independence whatever public opinion believes.
    It beggars belief given it is supposed to be party of independence and only Regan has any real interest in it
  • kamskikamski Posts: 5,160
    numbertwelve said:

    williamglenn said:

    numbertwelve said:

    Rather embarrassing for Macron to have to delay the state visit.

    The postponement is headline news in Germany too.
    Complete schadenfreude at my end, but it is quite nice to have the focus taken off us a little as being the ungovernable and chaotic lot!
    Although it is fairly rare that the news in Germany focuses on the UK being chaotic and ungovernable(!), got enough problems of our own...

    Here is the latest German news midday today:
    https://www.tagesschau.de/sendung/letzte-sendung/

    First item is the coming transport strikes in Germany on Monday.
    Second: the EU summit discussing rules on when the sale ICE cars will be banned, and the banking crisis.
    Third: war in Ukraine.
    Fourth: arguments about the funding of future corona vaccinations in Germany.
    Fifth: the financial markets.
    Sixth: state of high-speed internet in Germany.
    Seventh: Ramadan in Germany.
    Eighth: Bayern reportedly parting with Nagelsmann.

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,641
    Driver said:

    Carnyx said:

    Driver said:

    Carnyx said:

    Driver said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Carnyx said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    First twice in a row? Surely not.

    Anyway, on thread - surely not. Yousaf has all Nicola Sturgeon's negatives and none of her positives. I don't really see what consituency he appeals to.

    Not my party, obviously, and I don't know the selectorate. But when other parties have elected leaders who don't necessarily speak to the wider electorate, they've done so because they represent an obvious strain of what that party believes. I would have thought the SNP equivalent would be more akin to Ash Regan. Yousaf strikes me as neither one to connect to the wider electorate nor one to boldly fight the battle for independence whatever public opinion believes.

    The obvious strain of party belief which Regan represents belongs to Alba, the bleedin’ obvious evidence of which is that her official endorsements remain Cherry, Salmond and Murray.


    Also: NB that the betting question is "next FM" not "next SNP leader".
    If Forbes wins the leadership it’ll be interesting to see how the FM vote goes. I imagine the agreement with the Greens will be down the tubes, in that scenario would the Greens sit on their hands?
    I still can't see any reason why there's a worse outcome for the new SNP leader than Sturgeon got in 2016 - elected by a minority with only a handful of votes for another candidate and mass abstentions from the opposition parties.

    The new SNP leader might not have a majority, but nobody else will either.
    Wasn't a minority. Exactrly 50%, the PO not normally voting unless it is tied.
    Semantics, and arguably not very accurate semantics at that.

    Your repeated argument of "the new SNP leader isn't necessarily going to be the new FM" relies on all other parties coalescing around a single candidate.

    Come on.
    We're not in Westminster. *There are separate votes for each candidate*.
    That seems like a misleading description of the process.

    https://www.parliament.scot/chamber-and-committees/official-report/search-what-was-said-in-parliament/meeting-of-parliament-17-05-2016?meeting=10450&iob=96268

    As the result is valid, and as Nicola Sturgeon has received more votes than the total number of votes for the other candidate, I declare that Nicola Sturgeon is selected as the Parliament’s nominee for appointment as First Minister. As required by the Scotland Act 1998, I shall now recommend to Her Majesty that she appoint Nicola Sturgeon as the First Minister.

    All the SNP MSPs are going to vote for the new SNP leader. What "other candidate" is going to get more votes?
    Nevertheless, it's true (I checked). It's possible for abstentions or illness to happen in any party. And people do not, so far as I can see, have to be consistent in their voting.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 21,861
    edited March 2023
    TOPPING said:

    BartholomewRoberts said:

    TOPPING said:

    BartholomewRoberts said:

    MaxPB said:

    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    Nigel_Foremain said:

    Here is the reality on doctors' pay. The UK is not the highest payer in Europe for hospital doctors but it is well above the median. It is also considerably higher than the nearest comparable system, Sweden, which has a nationalised system unlike most other "mixed economy" health systems

    Additionally UK doctors have the safest jobs than any other walk of life, even by public sector standards. It is almost impossible to sack a hospital doctor in the NHS, even when they are incompetent. They also have highly lucrative pension schemes which see them retire on pensions that give them a take home payment that is in excess of double what the average taxpayer earns, and hospital consultants often also have lucrative private practices that are effectively conflicts of interest, but the NHS turns a blind eye to it.

    Most so-called "junior" doctors (those below consultant level) earn salaries that are very comparative to other non-partner level professionals such as lawyers and accountants that are outside the distorted salaries found in London.

    As for GPs: they are raking it in! The reality is that if doctors were a little less greedy there would be the possibility to be more generous to other health professionals who are probably underpaid.

    In summary, those that are swallowing the line of the doctors unions that they are underpaid, I have a bridge to sell you.

    BIB: that GPs are raking in £80,000 a year does not mean junior hospital doctors are not underpaid (or overworked or working antisocial hours).
    As a junior analyst I worked from 7am to 10pm fairly often despite my contract hours being 8am to 5pm, I got paid fuck all to do it as well. Junior doctoring is exactly the same, short term shite while you're in your 20s so you can climb the earnings ladder and once you hit 30 you've got a substantial income.

    If we're going to change the model to pay more at an earlier stage then pay later in medical careers needs to fall.

    What I don't understand is why doctors think they should be treated any differently to other high yielding industry, all lawyers, financiers, analysts etc... will start on shit wages for long hours, it's called paying one's dues. Doctors seem to want to have their cake and eat it.
    That's a reasonable point Max in general.

    But in specific at the moment the previously already lower wages that junior doctors are getting paid aren't just being frozen in real terms, but a proposed substantial cut. While taxpayers money is going to pay others a double-digit rise, including the state pension of retired doctors on defined benefit schemes.

    That's f***ed up is it not?

    Should a retired doctor on a defined benefit scheme get a double-digit percentage increase in their state pension, while a junior doctor sees a nearly double-digit percentage cut in their real terms income from their already lower wage? Is that paying their dues?

    Keeping lower wages flat, while other wages are flat, is entirely reasonable. But cutting some wages in real terms while increasing others by double digit percentages . . . that's a political choice, not necessity.
    You have been admirably consistent about wanting a free market in labour. There is a free market for junior doctors in fact there is surplus demand. Hence by your own estimation, as indeed you have noted, wages should fall as they are competed downwards. They shouldn't rise.

    Plus the NPV of a "junior doctors" wages is substantially higher than many others and as we know they are bright enough to have worked this out.

    What happens to senior consultants or investment bankers is neither here nor there.
    Absolutely Topping.

    If there's more qualified job applicants for the junior doctors role to replace them, rather than pay what they're demanding, then I have no qualms with that being done. Sack the strikers and replace them with those equally qualified who are willing to do the job at the offered rate instead of a higher rate.

    But I'm curious about what you mean by surplus demand meaning wages should fall? Surplus demand for junior doctors would mean the wage rises, surplus supply of people willing to do the job would mean a fall, and I'm not sure there's any evidence that there's surplus supply of people wanting and qualified to do that role.

    If there is surplus supply, let the market do its thing and let any who end up without a job consider how they might have acted differently. But I don't think there is.
    I believe there is surplus demand for junior doctors jobs.
    I see no evidence for that. If there is, then hire the applicants.

    I believe there is surplus demand for medical school places, but that is essentially a limiter preventing a surplus supply of potential junior doctors from existing.

    If you want to increase the supply of potential junior doctors then expanding medical schools would be an option, but that would take time and money that is not in place today. To be a Junior Doctor requires you to be qualified for that role, not simply a medical school applicant.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,175
    Yousaf as SNP leader?

    If so, Keir Starmer must be the best lawyer ever. He's sold his soul to the devil and still swindled him.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,879
    edited March 2023
    Carnyx said:

    Driver said:

    Carnyx said:

    Driver said:

    Carnyx said:

    Driver said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Carnyx said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    First twice in a row? Surely not.

    Anyway, on thread - surely not. Yousaf has all Nicola Sturgeon's negatives and none of her positives. I don't really see what consituency he appeals to.

    Not my party, obviously, and I don't know the selectorate. But when other parties have elected leaders who don't necessarily speak to the wider electorate, they've done so because they represent an obvious strain of what that party believes. I would have thought the SNP equivalent would be more akin to Ash Regan. Yousaf strikes me as neither one to connect to the wider electorate nor one to boldly fight the battle for independence whatever public opinion believes.

    The obvious strain of party belief which Regan represents belongs to Alba, the bleedin’ obvious evidence of which is that her official endorsements remain Cherry, Salmond and Murray.


    Also: NB that the betting question is "next FM" not "next SNP leader".
    If Forbes wins the leadership it’ll be interesting to see how the FM vote goes. I imagine the agreement with the Greens will be down the tubes, in that scenario would the Greens sit on their hands?
    I still can't see any reason why there's a worse outcome for the new SNP leader than Sturgeon got in 2016 - elected by a minority with only a handful of votes for another candidate and mass abstentions from the opposition parties.

    The new SNP leader might not have a majority, but nobody else will either.
    Wasn't a minority. Exactrly 50%, the PO not normally voting unless it is tied.
    Semantics, and arguably not very accurate semantics at that.

    Your repeated argument of "the new SNP leader isn't necessarily going to be the new FM" relies on all other parties coalescing around a single candidate.

    Come on.
    We're not in Westminster. *There are separate votes for each candidate*.
    That seems like a misleading description of the process.

    https://www.parliament.scot/chamber-and-committees/official-report/search-what-was-said-in-parliament/meeting-of-parliament-17-05-2016?meeting=10450&iob=96268

    As the result is valid, and as Nicola Sturgeon has received more votes than the total number of votes for the other candidate, I declare that Nicola Sturgeon is selected as the Parliament’s nominee for appointment as First Minister. As required by the Scotland Act 1998, I shall now recommend to Her Majesty that she appoint Nicola Sturgeon as the First Minister.

    All the SNP MSPs are going to vote for the new SNP leader. What "other candidate" is going to get more votes?
    Nevertheless, it's true (I checked). It's possible for abstentions or illness to happen in any party. And people do not, so far as I can see, have to be consistent in their voting.
    I literally checked the Official Report from 2016. There are "separate votes" only in the sense that MSPs aren't given a ballot paper with options "SNP leader, token opposition party candidate, abstain", they vote electronically sequentially for one of the options.

    In the real world, all SNP MSPs are going to vote for the new SNP leader to be FM and no other single candidate is going to get enough votes to overcome that. Why are you wasting time denying the obvious?
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,375
    tlg86 said:

    Sack the lot:

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/24/top-lawyers-defy-bar-declare-will-not-prosecute-peaceful-climate-protesters

    I wonder how many of them have, within the last five years, prosecuted a handler/ABH/possession/shop lifter/glassing at Snaresbrook Crown Court, or indeed anywhere.

    (Apropos of nothing: Apocryphal judge: "You leave this court with no stain on your character save that of an acquittal by a Snaresbrook jury")

  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,840
    Sandpit said:

    SirNorfolkPassmore said:

    RochdalePioneers said:

    Nigelb said:

    Trump calls for removal of every top official investigating him
    https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3914607-trump-calls-for-removal-of-every-top-official-investigating-him/

    Quite right too. If they are investigating him, it is proof that they are corrupt.
    Bad people. Very bad people. DRAIN THE SWAMP!
    To be fair to Trump (yes, I know), the prosecutor he’s been arguing with this week is an elected Democrat from New York, whose manifesto was basically we’ll get the bad orange man. Mixing politics and law like this, is pretty much always a bad idea.

    It does now appear that the Grand Jury can’t be convinced to issue charges, in this particular case anyway.
    America is absurd the way it has prosecutors and police chiefs elected. So yes of course it looks corrupt that a democrat is the prosecutor. And it is! But does that mean the Donald is innocent?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,836
    Driver said:

    Carnyx said:

    Driver said:

    Carnyx said:

    Driver said:

    Carnyx said:

    Driver said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Carnyx said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    First twice in a row? Surely not.

    Anyway, on thread - surely not. Yousaf has all Nicola Sturgeon's negatives and none of her positives. I don't really see what consituency he appeals to.

    Not my party, obviously, and I don't know the selectorate. But when other parties have elected leaders who don't necessarily speak to the wider electorate, they've done so because they represent an obvious strain of what that party believes. I would have thought the SNP equivalent would be more akin to Ash Regan. Yousaf strikes me as neither one to connect to the wider electorate nor one to boldly fight the battle for independence whatever public opinion believes.

    The obvious strain of party belief which Regan represents belongs to Alba, the bleedin’ obvious evidence of which is that her official endorsements remain Cherry, Salmond and Murray.


    Also: NB that the betting question is "next FM" not "next SNP leader".
    If Forbes wins the leadership it’ll be interesting to see how the FM vote goes. I imagine the agreement with the Greens will be down the tubes, in that scenario would the Greens sit on their hands?
    I still can't see any reason why there's a worse outcome for the new SNP leader than Sturgeon got in 2016 - elected by a minority with only a handful of votes for another candidate and mass abstentions from the opposition parties.

    The new SNP leader might not have a majority, but nobody else will either.
    Wasn't a minority. Exactrly 50%, the PO not normally voting unless it is tied.
    Semantics, and arguably not very accurate semantics at that.

    Your repeated argument of "the new SNP leader isn't necessarily going to be the new FM" relies on all other parties coalescing around a single candidate.

    Come on.
    We're not in Westminster. *There are separate votes for each candidate*.
    That seems like a misleading description of the process.

    https://www.parliament.scot/chamber-and-committees/official-report/search-what-was-said-in-parliament/meeting-of-parliament-17-05-2016?meeting=10450&iob=96268

    As the result is valid, and as Nicola Sturgeon has received more votes than the total number of votes for the other candidate, I declare that Nicola Sturgeon is selected as the Parliament’s nominee for appointment as First Minister. As required by the Scotland Act 1998, I shall now recommend to Her Majesty that she appoint Nicola Sturgeon as the First Minister.

    All the SNP MSPs are going to vote for the new SNP leader. What "other candidate" is going to get more votes?
    Nevertheless, it's true (I checked). It's possible for abstentions or illness to happen in any party. And people do not, so far as I can see, have to be consistent in their voting.
    I literally checked the Official Report from 2016. There are "separate votes" only in the sense that MSPs aren't given a ballot paper with options "SNP leader, token opposition party candidate, abstain", they vote electronically sequentially for one of the options.

    In the real world, all SNP MSPs are going to vote for the new SNP leader to be FM and no other single candidate is going to get enough votes to overcome that. Why are you wasting time denying the obvious?
    You seem to have wasted an awful lot of time on a parliamentary process in a country not your own.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,641
    edited March 2023
    Driver said:

    Carnyx said:

    Driver said:

    Carnyx said:

    Driver said:

    Carnyx said:

    Driver said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Carnyx said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    First twice in a row? Surely not.

    Anyway, on thread - surely not. Yousaf has all Nicola Sturgeon's negatives and none of her positives. I don't really see what consituency he appeals to.

    Not my party, obviously, and I don't know the selectorate. But when other parties have elected leaders who don't necessarily speak to the wider electorate, they've done so because they represent an obvious strain of what that party believes. I would have thought the SNP equivalent would be more akin to Ash Regan. Yousaf strikes me as neither one to connect to the wider electorate nor one to boldly fight the battle for independence whatever public opinion believes.

    The obvious strain of party belief which Regan represents belongs to Alba, the bleedin’ obvious evidence of which is that her official endorsements remain Cherry, Salmond and Murray.


    Also: NB that the betting question is "next FM" not "next SNP leader".
    If Forbes wins the leadership it’ll be interesting to see how the FM vote goes. I imagine the agreement with the Greens will be down the tubes, in that scenario would the Greens sit on their hands?
    I still can't see any reason why there's a worse outcome for the new SNP leader than Sturgeon got in 2016 - elected by a minority with only a handful of votes for another candidate and mass abstentions from the opposition parties.

    The new SNP leader might not have a majority, but nobody else will either.
    Wasn't a minority. Exactrly 50%, the PO not normally voting unless it is tied.
    Semantics, and arguably not very accurate semantics at that.

    Your repeated argument of "the new SNP leader isn't necessarily going to be the new FM" relies on all other parties coalescing around a single candidate.

    Come on.
    We're not in Westminster. *There are separate votes for each candidate*.
    That seems like a misleading description of the process.

    https://www.parliament.scot/chamber-and-committees/official-report/search-what-was-said-in-parliament/meeting-of-parliament-17-05-2016?meeting=10450&iob=96268

    As the result is valid, and as Nicola Sturgeon has received more votes than the total number of votes for the other candidate, I declare that Nicola Sturgeon is selected as the Parliament’s nominee for appointment as First Minister. As required by the Scotland Act 1998, I shall now recommend to Her Majesty that she appoint Nicola Sturgeon as the First Minister.

    All the SNP MSPs are going to vote for the new SNP leader. What "other candidate" is going to get more votes?
    Nevertheless, it's true (I checked). It's possible for abstentions or illness to happen in any party. And people do not, so far as I can see, have to be consistent in their voting.
    I literally checked the Official Report from 2016. There are "separate votes" only in the sense that MSPs aren't given a ballot paper with options "SNP leader, token opposition party candidate, abstain", they vote electronically sequentially for one of the options.

    In the real world, all SNP MSPs are going to vote for the new SNP leader to be FM and no other single candidate is going to get enough votes to overcome that. Why are you wasting time denying the obvious?
    That depends on how many SNP MPs there are once the new leader is elected, and then how many are present and willing to vote; and ditto which way the Greens vote, if at all. Unlike Westminster, there is such a thing as a Green + Unionist Coalition phenomenon, as has happened before on occasion, notably the Edinburgh Trams. The Greens [edit: and the Edinburgh Labour and LD folk] wabnted the trams,. the Unionists saw it as an opportunity to wreck things. ,
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,840
    malcolmg said:

    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    First twice in a row? Surely not.

    Anyway, on thread - surely not. Yousaf has all Nicola Sturgeon's negatives and none of her positives. I don't really see what consituency he appeals to.

    Not my party, obviously, and I don't know the selectorate. But when other parties have elected leaders who don't necessarily speak to the wider electorate, they've done so because they represent an obvious strain of what that party believes. I would have thought the SNP equivalent would be more akin to Ash Regan. Yousaf strikes me as neither one to connect to the wider electorate nor one to boldly fight the battle for independence whatever public opinion believes.
    It beggars belief given it is supposed to be party of independence and only Regan has any real interest in it
    Surely they all have real interest in it? The basic problem remains that not enough voters share that interest. And unless you can move people from no to yes, you are left howling at the moon.

    From what I saw Forbes gets this rather simple concept and the others don't.
  • WillGWillG Posts: 2,366
    RochdalePioneers said:

    Sandpit said:

    SirNorfolkPassmore said:

    RochdalePioneers said:

    Nigelb said:

    Trump calls for removal of every top official investigating him
    https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3914607-trump-calls-for-removal-of-every-top-official-investigating-him/

    Quite right too. If they are investigating him, it is proof that they are corrupt.
    Bad people. Very bad people. DRAIN THE SWAMP!
    To be fair to Trump (yes, I know), the prosecutor he’s been arguing with this week is an elected Democrat from New York, whose manifesto was basically we’ll get the bad orange man. Mixing politics and law like this, is pretty much always a bad idea.

    It does now appear that the Grand Jury can’t be convinced to issue charges, in this particular case anyway.
    America is absurd the way it has prosecutors and police chiefs elected. So yes of course it looks corrupt that a democrat is the prosecutor. And it is! But does that mean the Donald is innocent?
    What is corrupt about this investigation at all? Its rubbish that the man was elected on a "get Trump" platform. This is the sort of shit conservatives just make up.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,254
    kamski said:

    numbertwelve said:

    williamglenn said:

    numbertwelve said:

    Rather embarrassing for Macron to have to delay the state visit.

    The postponement is headline news in Germany too.
    Complete schadenfreude at my end, but it is quite nice to have the focus taken off us a little as being the ungovernable and chaotic lot!
    Although it is fairly rare that the news in Germany focuses on the UK being chaotic and ungovernable(!), got enough problems of our own...

    Here is the latest German news midday today:
    https://www.tagesschau.de/sendung/letzte-sendung/

    First item is the coming transport strikes in Germany on Monday.
    Second: the EU summit discussing rules on when the sale ICE cars will be banned, and the banking crisis.
    Third: war in Ukraine.
    Fourth: arguments about the funding of future corona vaccinations in Germany.
    Fifth: the financial markets.
    Sixth: state of high-speed internet in Germany.
    Seventh: Ramadan in Germany.
    Eighth: Bayern reportedly parting with Nagelsmann.

    That cannot be right; the UK is the center of the known universe. ;)
  • WillGWillG Posts: 2,366
    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    BartholomewRoberts said:

    MaxPB said:

    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    Nigel_Foremain said:

    Here is the reality on doctors' pay. The UK is not the highest payer in Europe for hospital doctors but it is well above the median. It is also considerably higher than the nearest comparable system, Sweden, which has a nationalised system unlike most other "mixed economy" health systems

    Additionally UK doctors have the safest jobs than any other walk of life, even by public sector standards. It is almost impossible to sack a hospital doctor in the NHS, even when they are incompetent. They also have highly lucrative pension schemes which see them retire on pensions that give them a take home payment that is in excess of double what the average taxpayer earns, and hospital consultants often also have lucrative private practices that are effectively conflicts of interest, but the NHS turns a blind eye to it.

    Most so-called "junior" doctors (those below consultant level) earn salaries that are very comparative to other non-partner level professionals such as lawyers and accountants that are outside the distorted salaries found in London.

    As for GPs: they are raking it in! The reality is that if doctors were a little less greedy there would be the possibility to be more generous to other health professionals who are probably underpaid.

    In summary, those that are swallowing the line of the doctors unions that they are underpaid, I have a bridge to sell you.

    BIB: that GPs are raking in £80,000 a year does not mean junior hospital doctors are not underpaid (or overworked or working antisocial hours).
    As a junior analyst I worked from 7am to 10pm fairly often despite my contract hours being 8am to 5pm, I got paid fuck all to do it as well. Junior doctoring is exactly the same, short term shite while you're in your 20s so you can climb the earnings ladder and once you hit 30 you've got a substantial income.

    If we're going to change the model to pay more at an earlier stage then pay later in medical careers needs to fall.

    What I don't understand is why doctors think they should be treated any differently to other high yielding industry, all lawyers, financiers, analysts etc... will start on shit wages for long hours, it's called paying one's dues. Doctors seem to want to have their cake and eat it.
    That's a reasonable point Max in general.

    But in specific at the moment the previously already lower wages that junior doctors are getting paid aren't just being frozen in real terms, but a proposed substantial cut. While taxpayers money is going to pay others a double-digit rise, including the state pension of retired doctors on defined benefit schemes.

    That's f***ed up is it not?

    Should a retired doctor on a defined benefit scheme get a double-digit percentage increase in their state pension, while a junior doctor sees a nearly double-digit percentage cut in their real terms income from their already lower wage? Is that paying their dues?

    Keeping lower wages flat, while other wages are flat, is entirely reasonable. But cutting some wages in real terms while increasing others by double digit percentages . . . that's a political choice, not necessity.
    You have been admirably consistent about wanting a free market in labour. There is a free market for junior doctors in fact there is surplus demand. Hence by your own estimation, as indeed you have noted, wages should fall as they are competed downwards. They shouldn't rise.

    Plus the NPV of a "junior doctors" wages is substantially higher than many others and as we know they are bright enough to have worked this out.

    What happens to senior consultants or investment bankers is neither here nor there.
    But it's not a free market, there has been surplus demand for doctors for going on 30 years and yet supply of doctors has been held down artificially by the state.

    I've already said it many times, it's time for the government to lift the cap on medical school places so universities and hospitals can train as many doctors as are necessary and then we'll see what the NPV of doctoring actually is, if it turns out we train too many we end up becoming a next exporter of doctors for a while until the NPV rises again.
    Medical degrees are very expensive, so there is actually a subsidy there. I think tuition costs should actually be increased and you only get them paid off if you work for the NHS for 10 years. And of course the state monopsony keeps pay down.

    If you want to look at a free market in doctors looks like for pay, it is the USA.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 10,774
    HYUFD said:

    Whoever wins on Monday it is likely all downhill for the SNP and all uphill for Scottish Labour.

    A new Scottish Ipsos poll for the Times gives Sturgeon a still healthy +8% rating. Forbes though is on -8%, behind Scottish Labour Leader Sarwar on -4%.

    Yousaf is on an abysmal -20% with Scottish voters and Regan an even
    worse -23%. Sir Keir by contrast is on -9% with Scots

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/snp-leadership-candidates-unpopular-with-voters-gkxmj5hwj

    Sturgeon’s approval went up, but then it’s easy to think well of someone on their way out. Haven’t we seen these boosts in approval ratings for departing politicians before?

    Equally, whatever their approval ratings now, whoever becomes the new FM will immediately be seen differently. I suspect the winner will see some boost in his or her ratings.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,918
    RochdalePioneers said:

    Sandpit said:

    SirNorfolkPassmore said:

    RochdalePioneers said:

    Nigelb said:

    Trump calls for removal of every top official investigating him
    https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3914607-trump-calls-for-removal-of-every-top-official-investigating-him/

    Quite right too. If they are investigating him, it is proof that they are corrupt.
    Bad people. Very bad people. DRAIN THE SWAMP!
    To be fair to Trump (yes, I know), the prosecutor he’s been arguing with this week is an elected Democrat from New York, whose manifesto was basically we’ll get the bad orange man. Mixing politics and law like this, is pretty much always a bad idea.

    It does now appear that the Grand Jury can’t be convinced to issue charges, in this particular case anyway.
    America is absurd the way it has prosecutors and police chiefs elected. So yes of course it looks corrupt that a democrat is the prosecutor. And it is! But does that mean the Donald is innocent?
    Quite. Some people have outright stated that even if an ex-President were guilty of an offence which might carry jail time they should not be charged, despite fig leaf talk about no one being above the law. Some paint it as inevitabily a political stitch up, yet if they think that why have the system they do?.

    It certainly is going to be true that some of the cases will be stronger than others and political DAs might try their luck - this New York one actually looks rather tricky to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. But there is legal recourse to deal with that sort of thing, it would not make its way through when there is money and clout fighting anything insufficient.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,081
    BartholomewRoberts said:

    TOPPING said:

    BartholomewRoberts said:

    TOPPING said:

    BartholomewRoberts said:

    MaxPB said:

    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    Nigel_Foremain said:

    Here is the reality on doctors' pay. The UK is not the highest payer in Europe for hospital doctors but it is well above the median. It is also considerably higher than the nearest comparable system, Sweden, which has a nationalised system unlike most other "mixed economy" health systems

    Additionally UK doctors have the safest jobs than any other walk of life, even by public sector standards. It is almost impossible to sack a hospital doctor in the NHS, even when they are incompetent. They also have highly lucrative pension schemes which see them retire on pensions that give them a take home payment that is in excess of double what the average taxpayer earns, and hospital consultants often also have lucrative private practices that are effectively conflicts of interest, but the NHS turns a blind eye to it.

    Most so-called "junior" doctors (those below consultant level) earn salaries that are very comparative to other non-partner level professionals such as lawyers and accountants that are outside the distorted salaries found in London.

    As for GPs: they are raking it in! The reality is that if doctors were a little less greedy there would be the possibility to be more generous to other health professionals who are probably underpaid.

    In summary, those that are swallowing the line of the doctors unions that they are underpaid, I have a bridge to sell you.

    BIB: that GPs are raking in £80,000 a year does not mean junior hospital doctors are not underpaid (or overworked or working antisocial hours).
    As a junior analyst I worked from 7am to 10pm fairly often despite my contract hours being 8am to 5pm, I got paid fuck all to do it as well. Junior doctoring is exactly the same, short term shite while you're in your 20s so you can climb the earnings ladder and once you hit 30 you've got a substantial income.

    If we're going to change the model to pay more at an earlier stage then pay later in medical careers needs to fall.

    What I don't understand is why doctors think they should be treated any differently to other high yielding industry, all lawyers, financiers, analysts etc... will start on shit wages for long hours, it's called paying one's dues. Doctors seem to want to have their cake and eat it.
    That's a reasonable point Max in general.

    But in specific at the moment the previously already lower wages that junior doctors are getting paid aren't just being frozen in real terms, but a proposed substantial cut. While taxpayers money is going to pay others a double-digit rise, including the state pension of retired doctors on defined benefit schemes.

    That's f***ed up is it not?

    Should a retired doctor on a defined benefit scheme get a double-digit percentage increase in their state pension, while a junior doctor sees a nearly double-digit percentage cut in their real terms income from their already lower wage? Is that paying their dues?

    Keeping lower wages flat, while other wages are flat, is entirely reasonable. But cutting some wages in real terms while increasing others by double digit percentages . . . that's a political choice, not necessity.
    You have been admirably consistent about wanting a free market in labour. There is a free market for junior doctors in fact there is surplus demand. Hence by your own estimation, as indeed you have noted, wages should fall as they are competed downwards. They shouldn't rise.

    Plus the NPV of a "junior doctors" wages is substantially higher than many others and as we know they are bright enough to have worked this out.

    What happens to senior consultants or investment bankers is neither here nor there.
    Absolutely Topping.

    If there's more qualified job applicants for the junior doctors role to replace them, rather than pay what they're demanding, then I have no qualms with that being done. Sack the strikers and replace them with those equally qualified who are willing to do the job at the offered rate instead of a higher rate.

    But I'm curious about what you mean by surplus demand meaning wages should fall? Surplus demand for junior doctors would mean the wage rises, surplus supply of people willing to do the job would mean a fall, and I'm not sure there's any evidence that there's surplus supply of people wanting and qualified to do that role.

    If there is surplus supply, let the market do its thing and let any who end up without a job consider how they might have acted differently. But I don't think there is.
    I believe there is surplus demand for junior doctors jobs.
    I see no evidence for that. If there is, then hire the applicants.

    I believe there is surplus demand for medical school places, but that is essentially a limiter preventing a surplus supply of potential junior doctors from existing.

    If you want to increase the supply of potential junior doctors then expanding medical schools would be an option, but that would take time and money that is not in place today. To be a Junior Doctor requires you to be qualified for that role, not simply a medical school applicant.
    I've got half a memory of @Foxy saying that a very large percentage of realistic medical school applicants get a place in the end, though it takes some two goes.

    But ultimately, a medical degree is expensive to deliver, and the benefits to the NHS arrive around a decade later.

    And we have a political system and culture that favours spending money on us now.
This discussion has been closed.