If we had twice as many doctors and nurses so that we could have a much better health service, would doctors and nurses pay go up or down?
Depends, how did you encourage people to become doctors and nurses to reach the twice as many figure? Or did we bring in cheaper labour from outside?
You might have to give them a 90% real terms increase over a decade, then no increase over the next ten years
That obviously works well
Simple way, get rid of gp's and make them hospital doctors. Let's face it not like gp's are of use to most people as we can't even get to see them when we are ill.
According to the Bank of England, £10 in 1997 was equivalent to £11.41 in 2006, with average annual inflation of 1.5%
This is the graph of average doctor's pay (so not just junior doctors, but still) covering the same period, from the BMJ
It DOUBLES over that 97-06 period
But reduces since 2010 - hardly surprising they are not happy.
They got a 90% real terms increase over the previous decade
Their 35% demand is ignorant and insolent
It's neither. Their pay has pretty much stagnated for 20 years; they have a case.
Now, many could argue that they're in the same or similar boat but MPs for example have seen their pay go up by 31% since 2010.
MPs might only have their job for a year
Doctors have a job for as long as they want
Increasingly many do not want to keep it, at least in this country. Therein lies the problem.
Retention of skilled medical and nursing staff is not entirely a pay related issue, but that is a large part of it.
The Junior doctors dispute is the first real Generation Z strike. A group of people who did everything that they should at school, deferred gratification etc, but realise that they will never get to what the Boomers, or Gen X have. Their pay cannot get them a decent flat. Doctors are unusually intelligent, good at networking, and a bit entitled, so have a solidarity unknown to other Gen Z, but this strike is a harbinger of the future.
I note too that the protesters in France are similarly motivated, with few fifty-somethings and many twenty-somethings far from retirement.
They see the rug being pulled out from under them by the ageing Boomers and don't like it much.
You want to be looked after in your comfortable retirement? Then don't piss off the people that you will need.
If we had twice as many doctors and nurses so that we could have a much better health service, would doctors and nurses pay go up or down?
Depends, how did you encourage people to become doctors and nurses to reach the twice as many figure? Or did we bring in cheaper labour from outside?
You might have to give them a 90% real terms increase over a decade, then no increase over the next ten years
That obviously works well
Simple way, get rid of gp's and make them hospital doctors. Let's face it not like gp's are of use to most people as we can't even get to see them when we are ill.
90% of health service Consultations are with GPs, who are less than half the medical workforce. 68% are face to face and 41% the same day.
According to the Bank of England, £10 in 1997 was equivalent to £11.41 in 2006, with average annual inflation of 1.5%
This is the graph of average doctor's pay (so not just junior doctors, but still) covering the same period, from the BMJ
It DOUBLES over that 97-06 period
But reduces since 2010 - hardly surprising they are not happy.
They got a 90% real terms increase over the previous decade
Their 35% demand is ignorant and insolent
It's neither. Their pay has pretty much stagnated for 20 years; they have a case.
Now, many could argue that they're in the same or similar boat but MPs for example have seen their pay go up by 31% since 2010.
MPs might only have their job for a year
Doctors have a job for as long as they want
Increasingly many do not want to keep it, at least in this country. Therein lies the problem.
Retention of skilled medical and nursing staff is not entirely a pay related issue, but that is a large part of it.
The Junior doctors dispute is the first real Generation Z strike. A group of people who did everything that they should at school, deferred gratification etc, but realise that they will never get to what the Boomers, or Gen X have. Their pay cannot get them a decent flat. Doctors are unusually intelligent, good at networking, and a bit entitled, so have a solidarity unknown to other Gen Z, but this strike is a harbinger of the future.
I note too that the protesters in France are similarly motivated, with few fifty-somethings and many twenty-somethings far from retirement.
They see the rug being pulled out from under them by the ageing Boomers and don't like it much.
You want to be looked after in your comfortable retirement? Then don't piss off the people that you will need.
Gen Z are screwed and they know it. For many of them, there is simply no point in working long hours because it will never get them notably ahead.
The modern economy, not just in the UK, is severing the connection between effort and wealth.
Great japes from Ocado, if you click their 'Fit for A King' coronation special offer the first item is an 'American' pizza from Pizza Express (where his brother loves to dine).
If we had twice as many doctors and nurses so that we could have a much better health service, would doctors and nurses pay go up or down?
Depends, how did you encourage people to become doctors and nurses to reach the twice as many figure? Or did we bring in cheaper labour from outside?
You might have to give them a 90% real terms increase over a decade, then no increase over the next ten years
That obviously works well
Simple way, get rid of gp's and make them hospital doctors. Let's face it not like gp's are of use to most people as we can't even get to see them when we are ill.
90% of health service Consultations are with GPs, who are less than half the medical workforce. 68% are face to face and 41% the same day.
41% are same day.....you really are taking the piss there I don't give a shit what you claim the stat's to be because I have yet to meet a single person who hasnt got a gripe about having to wait more than a week for an appointment. The last surgery I was with the average was 3 weeks. I haven't even bothered registering where I live now if I am ill I will just goto A and E
Tories 5 seats or less in London - anyone think they will do better than this?
Here are the safest dozen Conservative seats in London with their percentage majorities (don't know how much they will be affected by boundary changes);
Gareth Bacon Orpington 45.9 Julia Lopez Hornchurch and Upminster 43.2 Andrew Rosindell Romford 37.9 David Simmonds Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner31.0 David Evennett Bexleyheath and Crayford 30.3 Bob Stewart Beckenham 28.2 Greg Hands Chelsea and Fulham 24.0 Bob Neill Bromley and Chislehurst 23.9 Chris Philp Croydon South 20.8 Bob Blackman Harrow East 16.5 Paul Scully Sutton & Cheam16.5 Boris Johnson Uxbridge and South Ruislip 15.0 Mike Freer Finchley and Golders Green 11.9
Harrow East might be saved, thanks to local demographics, and everything from Croydon South upwards looks like awfully big swings to win. That would be 10 seats. But look at how few of them are unambiguously London. Northwood + Pinner, Chelsea + Fulham and a load of places that think of themselves as Essex, Kent or Surrey and would happily tell the Mayor where to stick his ULEZ.
Ahh. Orpington. Where I grew up. In the London Borough of Bromley. It's a place that no-one from anywhere else in South East England will believe that it is in London.
If we had twice as many doctors and nurses so that we could have a much better health service, would doctors and nurses pay go up or down?
Depends, how did you encourage people to become doctors and nurses to reach the twice as many figure? Or did we bring in cheaper labour from outside?
You might have to give them a 90% real terms increase over a decade, then no increase over the next ten years
That obviously works well
Simple way, get rid of gp's and make them hospital doctors. Let's face it not like gp's are of use to most people as we can't even get to see them when we are ill.
90% of health service Consultations are with GPs, who are less than half the medical workforce. 68% are face to face and 41% the same day.
41% are same day.....you really are taking the piss there I don't give a shit what you claim the stat's to be because I have yet to meet a single person who hasnt got a gripe about having to wait more than a week for an appointment. The last surgery I was with the average was 3 weeks. I haven't even bothered registering where I live now if I am ill I will just goto A and E
Those are the government statistics, as per the link.
If we had twice as many doctors and nurses so that we could have a much better health service, would doctors and nurses pay go up or down?
Depends, how did you encourage people to become doctors and nurses to reach the twice as many figure? Or did we bring in cheaper labour from outside?
You might have to give them a 90% real terms increase over a decade, then no increase over the next ten years
That obviously works well
Simple way, get rid of gp's and make them hospital doctors. Let's face it not like gp's are of use to most people as we can't even get to see them when we are ill.
90% of health service Consultations are with GPs, who are less than half the medical workforce. 68% are face to face and 41% the same day.
41% are same day.....you really are taking the piss there I don't give a shit what you claim the stat's to be because I have yet to meet a single person who hasnt got a gripe about having to wait more than a week for an appointment. The last surgery I was with the average was 3 weeks. I haven't even bothered registering where I live now if I am ill I will just goto A and E
Those are the government statistics, as per the link.
Told you don't give a shit what the statistics say they are obviously a stinking pile of ordure because I bet if you took a poll here of pb'ers the number than can ring up on the day and get an appointment that day will not be anywhere like 41%. There are lies, damned lies, statistics and government statistics.
I note too that the protesters in France are similarly motivated, with few fifty-somethings and many twenty-somethings far from retirement.
They see the rug being pulled out from under them by the ageing Boomers and don't like it much.
You want to be looked after in your comfortable retirement? Then don't piss off the people that you will need.
Is the rug being pulled out from under them or is it simply that the demographic changes have rendered the welfare state as it was unaffordable? I recall one stat, possibly not true, that the ratio of workers to pensioners started at 6:1 and is heading towards 2:1. If true the whole damn thing was a Ponzi scheme from the get go.
I note too that the protesters in France are similarly motivated, with few fifty-somethings and many twenty-somethings far from retirement.
They see the rug being pulled out from under them by the ageing Boomers and don't like it much.
You want to be looked after in your comfortable retirement? Then don't piss off the people that you will need.
Is the rug being pulled out from under them or is it simply that the demographic changes have rendered the welfare state as it was unaffordable? I recall one stat, possibly not true, that the ratio of workers to pensioners started at 6:1 and is heading towards 2:1. If true the whole damn thing was a Ponzi scheme from the get go.
Both. But regarding the Ponzi scheme, you are essentially saying that humanity itself a Ponzi, which is a bit depressing.
If we had twice as many doctors and nurses so that we could have a much better health service, would doctors and nurses pay go up or down?
Depends, how did you encourage people to become doctors and nurses to reach the twice as many figure? Or did we bring in cheaper labour from outside?
You might have to give them a 90% real terms increase over a decade, then no increase over the next ten years
That obviously works well
Simple way, get rid of gp's and make them hospital doctors. Let's face it not like gp's are of use to most people as we can't even get to see them when we are ill.
90% of health service Consultations are with GPs, who are less than half the medical workforce. 68% are face to face and 41% the same day.
41% are same day.....you really are taking the piss there I don't give a shit what you claim the stat's to be because I have yet to meet a single person who hasnt got a gripe about having to wait more than a week for an appointment. The last surgery I was with the average was 3 weeks. I haven't even bothered registering where I live now if I am ill I will just goto A and E
Those are the government statistics, as per the link.
Told you don't give a shit what the statistics say they are obviously a stinking pile of ordure because I bet if you took a poll here of pb'ers the number than can ring up on the day and get an appointment that day will not be anywhere like 41%. There are lies, damned lies, statistics and government statistics.
My suspicion is governement statistics on this are on the line of
1000 people asked to see there gp, 41 were seen on the same day, 900 cancelled appointments as they were better before their appointment date was due so those cancelled werent counted. Both labour and tories have form for cooking the books on stats
I know the lads like a holiday snap: belly full of Scotch lamb, local amber ale & Nerol d’Avolo, and before the midgie season. Not one of the famous lochs but no prizes for a correct guess.
Not many camper vans..
Loch Craignish?
Quite a way away, no salt water here. A House of Bruar cup of coffee voucher possibly available as a prize.
Tories 5 seats or less in London - anyone think they will do better than this?
Here are the safest dozen Conservative seats in London with their percentage majorities (don't know how much they will be affected by boundary changes);
Gareth Bacon Orpington 45.9 Julia Lopez Hornchurch and Upminster 43.2 Andrew Rosindell Romford 37.9 David Simmonds Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner31.0 David Evennett Bexleyheath and Crayford 30.3 Bob Stewart Beckenham 28.2 Greg Hands Chelsea and Fulham 24.0 Bob Neill Bromley and Chislehurst 23.9 Chris Philp Croydon South 20.8 Bob Blackman Harrow East 16.5 Paul Scully Sutton & Cheam16.5 Boris Johnson Uxbridge and South Ruislip 15.0 Mike Freer Finchley and Golders Green 11.9
Harrow East might be saved, thanks to local demographics, and everything from Croydon South upwards looks like awfully big swings to win. That would be 10 seats. But look at how few of them are unambiguously London. Northwood + Pinner, Chelsea + Fulham and a load of places that think of themselves as Essex, Kent or Surrey and would happily tell the Mayor where to stick his ULEZ.
Ahh. Orpington. Where I grew up. In the London Borough of Bromley. It's a place that no-one from anywhere else in South East England will believe that it is in London.
I note too that the protesters in France are similarly motivated, with few fifty-somethings and many twenty-somethings far from retirement.
They see the rug being pulled out from under them by the ageing Boomers and don't like it much.
You want to be looked after in your comfortable retirement? Then don't piss off the people that you will need.
Is the rug being pulled out from under them or is it simply that the demographic changes have rendered the welfare state as it was unaffordable? I recall one stat, possibly not true, that the ratio of workers to pensioners started at 6:1 and is heading towards 2:1. If true the whole damn thing was a Ponzi scheme from the get go.
Both. But regarding the Ponzi scheme, you are essentially saying that humanity itself a Ponzi, which is a bit depressing.
To some extent any part of civilisation that requires growth in perpetuity is a Ponzi scheme. People don't want to think about the really long term, let someone else deal with the future when it arrives, so we stay on paths that will ultimately lead to trouble.
I note too that the protesters in France are similarly motivated, with few fifty-somethings and many twenty-somethings far from retirement.
They see the rug being pulled out from under them by the ageing Boomers and don't like it much.
You want to be looked after in your comfortable retirement? Then don't piss off the people that you will need.
Is the rug being pulled out from under them or is it simply that the demographic changes have rendered the welfare state as it was unaffordable? I recall one stat, possibly not true, that the ratio of workers to pensioners started at 6:1 and is heading towards 2:1. If true the whole damn thing was a Ponzi scheme from the get go.
Both. But regarding the Ponzi scheme, you are essentially saying that humanity itself a Ponzi, which is a bit depressing.
To some extent any part of civilisation that requires growth in perpetuity is a Ponzi scheme. People don't want to think about the really long term, let someone else deal with the future when it arrives, so we stay on paths that will ultimately lead to trouble.
Humanity is definitely a ponzi scheme as we close off the natural culling mechanisms. Every species has a predator that keeps its numbers in check. Ours used to be war and pestilence...we are working hard to eradicate those
If we had twice as many doctors and nurses so that we could have a much better health service, would doctors and nurses pay go up or down?
Depends, how did you encourage people to become doctors and nurses to reach the twice as many figure? Or did we bring in cheaper labour from outside?
You might have to give them a 90% real terms increase over a decade, then no increase over the next ten years
That obviously works well
Simple way, get rid of gp's and make them hospital doctors. Let's face it not like gp's are of use to most people as we can't even get to see them when we are ill.
90% of health service Consultations are with GPs, who are less than half the medical workforce. 68% are face to face and 41% the same day.
41% are same day.....you really are taking the piss there I don't give a shit what you claim the stat's to be because I have yet to meet a single person who hasnt got a gripe about having to wait more than a week for an appointment. The last surgery I was with the average was 3 weeks. I haven't even bothered registering where I live now if I am ill I will just goto A and E
There are massive differences between areas and even individual surgeries. My London one (Fitzroy Square) is generally excellent.
I know the lads like a holiday snap: belly full of Scotch lamb, local amber ale & Nerol d’Avolo, and before the midgie season. Not one of the famous lochs but no prizes for a correct guess.
Not many camper vans..
Loch Craignish?
Hmmm. Definitely Argyll. Doesn't look quite right for Craignish though.
I wondered about Loch Goil but I'm not convinced by that either.
Tories 5 seats or less in London - anyone think they will do better than this?
Here are the safest dozen Conservative seats in London with their percentage majorities (don't know how much they will be affected by boundary changes);
Gareth Bacon Orpington 45.9 Julia Lopez Hornchurch and Upminster 43.2 Andrew Rosindell Romford 37.9 David Simmonds Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner31.0 David Evennett Bexleyheath and Crayford 30.3 Bob Stewart Beckenham 28.2 Greg Hands Chelsea and Fulham 24.0 Bob Neill Bromley and Chislehurst 23.9 Chris Philp Croydon South 20.8 Bob Blackman Harrow East 16.5 Paul Scully Sutton & Cheam16.5 Boris Johnson Uxbridge and South Ruislip 15.0 Mike Freer Finchley and Golders Green 11.9
Harrow East might be saved, thanks to local demographics, and everything from Croydon South upwards looks like awfully big swings to win. That would be 10 seats. But look at how few of them are unambiguously London. Northwood + Pinner, Chelsea + Fulham and a load of places that think of themselves as Essex, Kent or Surrey and would happily tell the Mayor where to stick his ULEZ.
Ahh. Orpington. Where I grew up. In the London Borough of Bromley. It's a place that no-one from anywhere else in South East England will believe that it is in London.
Bromley is in Kent innit?
No. Hasn’t been since the 1960s. The ignorance about London boundaries is widespread, and is particularly acute on PB.
If we had twice as many doctors and nurses so that we could have a much better health service, would doctors and nurses pay go up or down?
Depends, how did you encourage people to become doctors and nurses to reach the twice as many figure? Or did we bring in cheaper labour from outside?
You might have to give them a 90% real terms increase over a decade, then no increase over the next ten years
That obviously works well
Simple way, get rid of gp's and make them hospital doctors. Let's face it not like gp's are of use to most people as we can't even get to see them when we are ill.
90% of health service Consultations are with GPs, who are less than half the medical workforce. 68% are face to face and 41% the same day.
41% are same day.....you really are taking the piss there I don't give a shit what you claim the stat's to be because I have yet to meet a single person who hasnt got a gripe about having to wait more than a week for an appointment. The last surgery I was with the average was 3 weeks. I haven't even bothered registering where I live now if I am ill I will just goto A and E
There are massive differences between areas and even individual surgeries. My London one (Fitzroy Square) is generally excellent.
Serious question....do you personally believe the 41% same day stats here? It seems to go against the experience of just about everyone I know who are surprised if they get the same week
If we had twice as many doctors and nurses so that we could have a much better health service, would doctors and nurses pay go up or down?
Depends, how did you encourage people to become doctors and nurses to reach the twice as many figure? Or did we bring in cheaper labour from outside?
You might have to give them a 90% real terms increase over a decade, then no increase over the next ten years
That obviously works well
Simple way, get rid of gp's and make them hospital doctors. Let's face it not like gp's are of use to most people as we can't even get to see them when we are ill.
90% of health service Consultations are with GPs, who are less than half the medical workforce. 68% are face to face and 41% the same day.
41% are same day.....you really are taking the piss there I don't give a shit what you claim the stat's to be because I have yet to meet a single person who hasnt got a gripe about having to wait more than a week for an appointment. The last surgery I was with the average was 3 weeks. I haven't even bothered registering where I live now if I am ill I will just goto A and E
Whenever I've had to make an appointment for myself or a family member, we've usually been seen the same day. The difficulty is actually getting through to make an appointment in the first place.
Again, if Britain were to become a “science superpower” (not possible, but it’s reasonable to aim for top of the second rank), you would actually need to do something to get there.
For the Tories, It’s merely rhetoric for the Daily Mail and the like.
I know, I know! (actually I do, having done sciencing and stuff.)
1. Have enough space around Oxford and Cambridge for all the science firms that want to grow there.
2. Be part of the collaboration networks the scientists want, not the ones that are ideologically convenient.
3. Let the boffins boffin.
But when push comes to shove, the UK gives every impression of not actually wanting to be rich. To put it in terms that many Conservative voters would find cosy, we'd rather be Audrey fforbes-Hamilton than Peter de Vere.
It’s not a party political issue. Well, apart from each party will oppose different bits of any change.
I was watching a video in the company of a couple of councillors (different parties), a little while ago. The subject was a lady from the commerce commission from the Port of Brownsville, in Texas. She was describing the process by which SpaceX built their facility in the area.
Both councillors, nominally enemies, were united in condemnation. She had betrayed the local people, in their view, by not blocking such a development. To them, a vital part of local government is stopping inconvenience to even a few percent of the locals.
I was (by mistake) watching a youtube video with Elon Musk a while back. He was asked why he built his latest battery factory in Texas and said he'd managed to build it and make it start rolling product out the door in 18 months - less time it would have taken him to get a planning permit in California which would have just given the green light for NIMBY's to start legal action about it.
Not the whole story, obviously. But it rang a bell.
If we had twice as many doctors and nurses so that we could have a much better health service, would doctors and nurses pay go up or down?
Depends, how did you encourage people to become doctors and nurses to reach the twice as many figure? Or did we bring in cheaper labour from outside?
You might have to give them a 90% real terms increase over a decade, then no increase over the next ten years
That obviously works well
Simple way, get rid of gp's and make them hospital doctors. Let's face it not like gp's are of use to most people as we can't even get to see them when we are ill.
90% of health service Consultations are with GPs, who are less than half the medical workforce. 68% are face to face and 41% the same day.
41% are same day.....you really are taking the piss there I don't give a shit what you claim the stat's to be because I have yet to meet a single person who hasnt got a gripe about having to wait more than a week for an appointment. The last surgery I was with the average was 3 weeks. I haven't even bothered registering where I live now if I am ill I will just goto A and E
Whenever I've had to make an appointment for myself or a family member, we've usually been seen the same day. The difficulty is actually getting through to make an appointment in the first place.
My surgery almost killed me, I have asthma and use an inhaler. I lost mine asked for a repeat prescription. Told I need to come in as was overdue an assessment. Earliest they could fit me in was 3 weeks time. Few days later had an attack no inhaler....ended up calling a taxi to A&E. Taxi driver had to almost carry me into A&E as I was turning blue. So I might be a little biassed
Again, if Britain were to become a “science superpower” (not possible, but it’s reasonable to aim for top of the second rank), you would actually need to do something to get there.
For the Tories, It’s merely rhetoric for the Daily Mail and the like.
I know, I know! (actually I do, having done sciencing and stuff.)
1. Have enough space around Oxford and Cambridge for all the science firms that want to grow there.
2. Be part of the collaboration networks the scientists want, not the ones that are ideologically convenient.
3. Let the boffins boffin.
But when push comes to shove, the UK gives every impression of not actually wanting to be rich. To put it in terms that many Conservative voters would find cosy, we'd rather be Audrey fforbes-Hamilton than Peter de Vere.
It’s not a party political issue. Well, apart from each party will oppose different bits of any change.
I was watching a video in the company of a couple of councillors (different parties), a little while ago. The subject was a lady from the commerce commission from the Port of Brownsville, in Texas. She was describing the process by which SpaceX built their facility in the area.
Both councillors, nominally enemies, were united in condemnation. She had betrayed the local people, in their view, by not blocking such a development. To them, a vital part of local government is stopping inconvenience to even a few percent of the locals.
I was (by mistake) watching a youtube video with Elon Musk a while back. He was asked why he built his latest battery factory in Texas and said he'd managed to build it and make it start rolling product out the door in 18 months - less time it would have taken him to get a planning permit in California which would have just given the green light for NIMBY's to start legal action about it.
Not the whole story, obviously. But it rang a bell.
I note too that the protesters in France are similarly motivated, with few fifty-somethings and many twenty-somethings far from retirement.
They see the rug being pulled out from under them by the ageing Boomers and don't like it much.
You want to be looked after in your comfortable retirement? Then don't piss off the people that you will need.
Is the rug being pulled out from under them or is it simply that the demographic changes have rendered the welfare state as it was unaffordable? I recall one stat, possibly not true, that the ratio of workers to pensioners started at 6:1 and is heading towards 2:1. If true the whole damn thing was a Ponzi scheme from the get go.
Both. But regarding the Ponzi scheme, you are essentially saying that humanity itself a Ponzi, which is a bit depressing.
To some extent any part of civilisation that requires growth in perpetuity is a Ponzi scheme. People don't want to think about the really long term, let someone else deal with the future when it arrives, so we stay on paths that will ultimately lead to trouble.
So life itself is a Ponzi. I bet you’re a hit at parties.
If we had twice as many doctors and nurses so that we could have a much better health service, would doctors and nurses pay go up or down?
Depends, how did you encourage people to become doctors and nurses to reach the twice as many figure? Or did we bring in cheaper labour from outside?
You might have to give them a 90% real terms increase over a decade, then no increase over the next ten years
That obviously works well
Simple way, get rid of gp's and make them hospital doctors. Let's face it not like gp's are of use to most people as we can't even get to see them when we are ill.
90% of health service Consultations are with GPs, who are less than half the medical workforce. 68% are face to face and 41% the same day.
41% are same day.....you really are taking the piss there I don't give a shit what you claim the stat's to be because I have yet to meet a single person who hasnt got a gripe about having to wait more than a week for an appointment. The last surgery I was with the average was 3 weeks. I haven't even bothered registering where I live now if I am ill I will just goto A and E
There are massive differences between areas and even individual surgeries. My London one (Fitzroy Square) is generally excellent.
Serious question....do you personally believe the 41% same day stats here? It seems to go against the experience of just about everyone I know who are surprised if they get the same week
I suspect it is true, but misleading. As a general rule, people don't lie. (There are exceptions, obviously.)
My guess - fwiw - is that they include people who go to A&E (all of whom are seen) in the same day consultation statistics.
Tories 5 seats or less in London - anyone think they will do better than this?
Here are the safest dozen Conservative seats in London with their percentage majorities (don't know how much they will be affected by boundary changes);
Gareth Bacon Orpington 45.9 Julia Lopez Hornchurch and Upminster 43.2 Andrew Rosindell Romford 37.9 David Simmonds Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner31.0 David Evennett Bexleyheath and Crayford 30.3 Bob Stewart Beckenham 28.2 Greg Hands Chelsea and Fulham 24.0 Bob Neill Bromley and Chislehurst 23.9 Chris Philp Croydon South 20.8 Bob Blackman Harrow East 16.5 Paul Scully Sutton & Cheam16.5 Boris Johnson Uxbridge and South Ruislip 15.0 Mike Freer Finchley and Golders Green 11.9
Harrow East might be saved, thanks to local demographics, and everything from Croydon South upwards looks like awfully big swings to win. That would be 10 seats. But look at how few of them are unambiguously London. Northwood + Pinner, Chelsea + Fulham and a load of places that think of themselves as Essex, Kent or Surrey and would happily tell the Mayor where to stick his ULEZ.
Ahh. Orpington. Where I grew up. In the London Borough of Bromley. It's a place that no-one from anywhere else in South East England will believe that it is in London.
Bromley is in Kent innit?
No. Hasn’t been since the 1960s. The ignorance about London boundaries is widespread, and is particularly acute on PB.
If we had twice as many doctors and nurses so that we could have a much better health service, would doctors and nurses pay go up or down?
Depends, how did you encourage people to become doctors and nurses to reach the twice as many figure? Or did we bring in cheaper labour from outside?
You might have to give them a 90% real terms increase over a decade, then no increase over the next ten years
That obviously works well
Simple way, get rid of gp's and make them hospital doctors. Let's face it not like gp's are of use to most people as we can't even get to see them when we are ill.
90% of health service Consultations are with GPs, who are less than half the medical workforce. 68% are face to face and 41% the same day.
41% are same day.....you really are taking the piss there I don't give a shit what you claim the stat's to be because I have yet to meet a single person who hasnt got a gripe about having to wait more than a week for an appointment. The last surgery I was with the average was 3 weeks. I haven't even bothered registering where I live now if I am ill I will just goto A and E
There are massive differences between areas and even individual surgeries. My London one (Fitzroy Square) is generally excellent.
Serious question....do you personally believe the 41% same day stats here? It seems to go against the experience of just about everyone I know who are surprised if they get the same week
I suspect it is true, but misleading. As a general rule, people don't lie. (There are exceptions, obviously.)
My guess - fwiw - is that they include people who go to A&E (all of whom are seen) in the same day consultation statistics.
That would certainly explain the figures. Pretty much when I left slough most I knew were shifting to the just goto a&e mode. However that just puts more pressure on A&E. My view abolish gp's. Move them into walk in centres at A&E on contracted hours
According to the IMF’s latest data, real gross domestic product per head in the UK rose by a mere 6 per cent between 2008 and 2022. This was the second worst performance in the G7, above Italy’s. To put this dire outcome in context, UK real GDP per head rose by an impressive 33 per cent in the 14 years to 2008. Such weak growth ensured austerity. But the decision to make almost all the post-financial crisis fiscal adjustment by cutting spending made this even worse.
Tories 5 seats or less in London - anyone think they will do better than this?
Here are the safest dozen Conservative seats in London with their percentage majorities (don't know how much they will be affected by boundary changes);
Gareth Bacon Orpington 45.9 Julia Lopez Hornchurch and Upminster 43.2 Andrew Rosindell Romford 37.9 David Simmonds Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner31.0 David Evennett Bexleyheath and Crayford 30.3 Bob Stewart Beckenham 28.2 Greg Hands Chelsea and Fulham 24.0 Bob Neill Bromley and Chislehurst 23.9 Chris Philp Croydon South 20.8 Bob Blackman Harrow East 16.5 Paul Scully Sutton & Cheam16.5 Boris Johnson Uxbridge and South Ruislip 15.0 Mike Freer Finchley and Golders Green 11.9
Harrow East might be saved, thanks to local demographics, and everything from Croydon South upwards looks like awfully big swings to win. That would be 10 seats. But look at how few of them are unambiguously London. Northwood + Pinner, Chelsea + Fulham and a load of places that think of themselves as Essex, Kent or Surrey and would happily tell the Mayor where to stick his ULEZ.
Ahh. Orpington. Where I grew up. In the London Borough of Bromley. It's a place that no-one from anywhere else in South East England will believe that it is in London.
Bromley is in Kent innit?
No. Hasn’t been since the 1960s. The ignorance about London boundaries is widespread, and is particularly acute on PB.
Bromley is in Greater London, *and* in Kent.
It's in Kent as far as Royal Mail is concerned and afaik.
Again, if Britain were to become a “science superpower” (not possible, but it’s reasonable to aim for top of the second rank), you would actually need to do something to get there.
For the Tories, It’s merely rhetoric for the Daily Mail and the like.
I know, I know! (actually I do, having done sciencing and stuff.)
1. Have enough space around Oxford and Cambridge for all the science firms that want to grow there.
2. Be part of the collaboration networks the scientists want, not the ones that are ideologically convenient.
3. Let the boffins boffin.
But when push comes to shove, the UK gives every impression of not actually wanting to be rich. To put it in terms that many Conservative voters would find cosy, we'd rather be Audrey fforbes-Hamilton than Peter de Vere.
It’s not a party political issue. Well, apart from each party will oppose different bits of any change.
I was watching a video in the company of a couple of councillors (different parties), a little while ago. The subject was a lady from the commerce commission from the Port of Brownsville, in Texas. She was describing the process by which SpaceX built their facility in the area.
Both councillors, nominally enemies, were united in condemnation. She had betrayed the local people, in their view, by not blocking such a development. To them, a vital part of local government is stopping inconvenience to even a few percent of the locals.
I was (by mistake) watching a youtube video with Elon Musk a while back. He was asked why he built his latest battery factory in Texas and said he'd managed to build it and make it start rolling product out the door in 18 months - less time it would have taken him to get a planning permit in California which would have just given the green light for NIMBY's to start legal action about it.
Not the whole story, obviously. But it rang a bell.
That's why so much of Texas looks like shit.
And yet the Texans love it.
You have to question the taste of anyone who dresses like that other than as a fancy dress costume.
Tories 5 seats or less in London - anyone think they will do better than this?
Here are the safest dozen Conservative seats in London with their percentage majorities (don't know how much they will be affected by boundary changes);
Gareth Bacon Orpington 45.9 Julia Lopez Hornchurch and Upminster 43.2 Andrew Rosindell Romford 37.9 David Simmonds Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner31.0 David Evennett Bexleyheath and Crayford 30.3 Bob Stewart Beckenham 28.2 Greg Hands Chelsea and Fulham 24.0 Bob Neill Bromley and Chislehurst 23.9 Chris Philp Croydon South 20.8 Bob Blackman Harrow East 16.5 Paul Scully Sutton & Cheam16.5 Boris Johnson Uxbridge and South Ruislip 15.0 Mike Freer Finchley and Golders Green 11.9
Harrow East might be saved, thanks to local demographics, and everything from Croydon South upwards looks like awfully big swings to win. That would be 10 seats. But look at how few of them are unambiguously London. Northwood + Pinner, Chelsea + Fulham and a load of places that think of themselves as Essex, Kent or Surrey and would happily tell the Mayor where to stick his ULEZ.
Ahh. Orpington. Where I grew up. In the London Borough of Bromley. It's a place that no-one from anywhere else in South East England will believe that it is in London.
Bromley is in Kent innit?
No. Hasn’t been since the 1960s. The ignorance about London boundaries is widespread, and is particularly acute on PB.
Bromley is in Greater London, *and* in Kent.
It's in Kent as far as Royal Mail is concerned and afaik.
You know perfectly well that it’s in Greater London for municipal purposes.
Tories 5 seats or less in London - anyone think they will do better than this?
Here are the safest dozen Conservative seats in London with their percentage majorities (don't know how much they will be affected by boundary changes);
Gareth Bacon Orpington 45.9 Julia Lopez Hornchurch and Upminster 43.2 Andrew Rosindell Romford 37.9 David Simmonds Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner31.0 David Evennett Bexleyheath and Crayford 30.3 Bob Stewart Beckenham 28.2 Greg Hands Chelsea and Fulham 24.0 Bob Neill Bromley and Chislehurst 23.9 Chris Philp Croydon South 20.8 Bob Blackman Harrow East 16.5 Paul Scully Sutton & Cheam16.5 Boris Johnson Uxbridge and South Ruislip 15.0 Mike Freer Finchley and Golders Green 11.9
Harrow East might be saved, thanks to local demographics, and everything from Croydon South upwards looks like awfully big swings to win. That would be 10 seats. But look at how few of them are unambiguously London. Northwood + Pinner, Chelsea + Fulham and a load of places that think of themselves as Essex, Kent or Surrey and would happily tell the Mayor where to stick his ULEZ.
Ahh. Orpington. Where I grew up. In the London Borough of Bromley. It's a place that no-one from anywhere else in South East England will believe that it is in London.
Bromley is in Kent innit?
No. Hasn’t been since the 1960s. The ignorance about London boundaries is widespread, and is particularly acute on PB.
Bromley is in Greater London, *and* in Kent.
It's in Kent as far as Royal Mail is concerned and afaik.
You know perfectly well that it’s in Greater London for municipal purposes.
According to the IMF’s latest data, real gross domestic product per head in the UK rose by a mere 6 per cent between 2008 and 2022. This was the second worst performance in the G7, above Italy’s. To put this dire outcome in context, UK real GDP per head rose by an impressive 33 per cent in the 14 years to 2008. Such weak growth ensured austerity. But the decision to make almost all the post-financial crisis fiscal adjustment by cutting spending made this even worse.
Something for everyone there.
I do wish they'd stop pretending the growth from 1996 to 2008 was real, and thus a trendline to be compared against. Was there any scenario, post GFC, where that 33 per cent could have been had for another 14 years? Of course not.
If we had twice as many doctors and nurses so that we could have a much better health service, would doctors and nurses pay go up or down?
Depends, how did you encourage people to become doctors and nurses to reach the twice as many figure? Or did we bring in cheaper labour from outside?
You might have to give them a 90% real terms increase over a decade, then no increase over the next ten years
That obviously works well
Simple way, get rid of gp's and make them hospital doctors. Let's face it not like gp's are of use to most people as we can't even get to see them when we are ill.
90% of health service Consultations are with GPs, who are less than half the medical workforce. 68% are face to face and 41% the same day.
41% are same day.....you really are taking the piss there I don't give a shit what you claim the stat's to be because I have yet to meet a single person who hasnt got a gripe about having to wait more than a week for an appointment. The last surgery I was with the average was 3 weeks. I haven't even bothered registering where I live now if I am ill I will just goto A and E
Those are the government statistics, as per the link.
From personal experience, the variation between GP practises can be extreme.
Some are essentially uncontactable. Others do the nonsense of speed dialling at 8am to get an appointment - so you can't get one this week at 8:02. Others again are excellent. All next door to each other.
EDIT: I always get same day appointments because, when I worked from home, I have some code written which starts dialling at 7:59. It auto-redials until I get put through. So I fire it up and sit there with the headset on.....
If we had twice as many doctors and nurses so that we could have a much better health service, would doctors and nurses pay go up or down?
Depends, how did you encourage people to become doctors and nurses to reach the twice as many figure? Or did we bring in cheaper labour from outside?
You might have to give them a 90% real terms increase over a decade, then no increase over the next ten years
That obviously works well
Simple way, get rid of gp's and make them hospital doctors. Let's face it not like gp's are of use to most people as we can't even get to see them when we are ill.
90% of health service Consultations are with GPs, who are less than half the medical workforce. 68% are face to face and 41% the same day.
41% are same day.....you really are taking the piss there I don't give a shit what you claim the stat's to be because I have yet to meet a single person who hasnt got a gripe about having to wait more than a week for an appointment. The last surgery I was with the average was 3 weeks. I haven't even bothered registering where I live now if I am ill I will just goto A and E
There are massive differences between areas and even individual surgeries. My London one (Fitzroy Square) is generally excellent.
Serious question....do you personally believe the 41% same day stats here? It seems to go against the experience of just about everyone I know who are surprised if they get the same week
I suspect it is true, but misleading. As a general rule, people don't lie. (There are exceptions, obviously.)
My guess - fwiw - is that they include people who go to A&E (all of whom are seen) in the same day consultation statistics.
According to the IMF’s latest data, real gross domestic product per head in the UK rose by a mere 6 per cent between 2008 and 2022. This was the second worst performance in the G7, above Italy’s. To put this dire outcome in context, UK real GDP per head rose by an impressive 33 per cent in the 14 years to 2008. Such weak growth ensured austerity. But the decision to make almost all the post-financial crisis fiscal adjustment by cutting spending made this even worse.
Something for everyone there.
What do you expect when we encourages low skilled immigration from the EU. All those people coming to be bar staff and barista's may put 1% on GDP.....rising GDP however does not mean GDP per capita isnt falling
GDP 2.5 trillion for 40 million people
Add 5 million and GDP goes up 1% to 2.75 trillion gdp per capita goes down by almost 2%
According to the IMF’s latest data, real gross domestic product per head in the UK rose by a mere 6 per cent between 2008 and 2022. This was the second worst performance in the G7, above Italy’s. To put this dire outcome in context, UK real GDP per head rose by an impressive 33 per cent in the 14 years to 2008. Such weak growth ensured austerity. But the decision to make almost all the post-financial crisis fiscal adjustment by cutting spending made this even worse.
Something for everyone there.
What do you expect when we encourages low skilled immigration from the EU. All those people coming to be bar staff and barista's may put 1% on GDP.....rising GDP however does not mean GDP per capita isnt falling
GDP 2.5 trillion for 40 million people
Add 5 million and GDP goes up 1% to 2.75 trillion gdp per capita goes down by almost 2%
The figures are per capita. As far as I can tell, you are saying it’s immigration that is to blame.
If we had twice as many doctors and nurses so that we could have a much better health service, would doctors and nurses pay go up or down?
Depends, how did you encourage people to become doctors and nurses to reach the twice as many figure? Or did we bring in cheaper labour from outside?
You might have to give them a 90% real terms increase over a decade, then no increase over the next ten years
That obviously works well
Simple way, get rid of gp's and make them hospital doctors. Let's face it not like gp's are of use to most people as we can't even get to see them when we are ill.
90% of health service Consultations are with GPs, who are less than half the medical workforce. 68% are face to face and 41% the same day.
41% are same day.....you really are taking the piss there I don't give a shit what you claim the stat's to be because I have yet to meet a single person who hasnt got a gripe about having to wait more than a week for an appointment. The last surgery I was with the average was 3 weeks. I haven't even bothered registering where I live now if I am ill I will just goto A and E
There are massive differences between areas and even individual surgeries. My London one (Fitzroy Square) is generally excellent.
Serious question....do you personally believe the 41% same day stats here? It seems to go against the experience of just about everyone I know who are surprised if they get the same week
I suspect it is true, but misleading. As a general rule, people don't lie. (There are exceptions, obviously.)
My guess - fwiw - is that they include people who go to A&E (all of whom are seen) in the same day consultation statistics.
That would certainly explain the figures. Pretty much when I left slough most I knew were shifting to the just goto a&e mode. However that just puts more pressure on A&E. My view abolish gp's. Move them into walk in centres at A&E on contracted hours
When a hospital, not far from me, trialled GPs-In-The-Hospital, most of the A&E queue shifted over to the GPs. The people in the A&E queue weren't taking the piss - they simply wanted to see a doctor.
If we had twice as many doctors and nurses so that we could have a much better health service, would doctors and nurses pay go up or down?
Depends, how did you encourage people to become doctors and nurses to reach the twice as many figure? Or did we bring in cheaper labour from outside?
You might have to give them a 90% real terms increase over a decade, then no increase over the next ten years
That obviously works well
Simple way, get rid of gp's and make them hospital doctors. Let's face it not like gp's are of use to most people as we can't even get to see them when we are ill.
90% of health service Consultations are with GPs, who are less than half the medical workforce. 68% are face to face and 41% the same day.
41% are same day.....you really are taking the piss there I don't give a shit what you claim the stat's to be because I have yet to meet a single person who hasnt got a gripe about having to wait more than a week for an appointment. The last surgery I was with the average was 3 weeks. I haven't even bothered registering where I live now if I am ill I will just goto A and E
There are massive differences between areas and even individual surgeries. My London one (Fitzroy Square) is generally excellent.
Serious question....do you personally believe the 41% same day stats here? It seems to go against the experience of just about everyone I know who are surprised if they get the same week
I suspect it is true, but misleading. As a general rule, people don't lie. (There are exceptions, obviously.)
My guess - fwiw - is that they include people who go to A&E (all of whom are seen) in the same day consultation statistics.
Plus perhaps folks who are already in the hospital?
If we had twice as many doctors and nurses so that we could have a much better health service, would doctors and nurses pay go up or down?
Depends, how did you encourage people to become doctors and nurses to reach the twice as many figure? Or did we bring in cheaper labour from outside?
You might have to give them a 90% real terms increase over a decade, then no increase over the next ten years
That obviously works well
Simple way, get rid of gp's and make them hospital doctors. Let's face it not like gp's are of use to most people as we can't even get to see them when we are ill.
90% of health service Consultations are with GPs, who are less than half the medical workforce. 68% are face to face and 41% the same day.
41% are same day.....you really are taking the piss there I don't give a shit what you claim the stat's to be because I have yet to meet a single person who hasnt got a gripe about having to wait more than a week for an appointment. The last surgery I was with the average was 3 weeks. I haven't even bothered registering where I live now if I am ill I will just goto A and E
There are massive differences between areas and even individual surgeries. My London one (Fitzroy Square) is generally excellent.
Serious question....do you personally believe the 41% same day stats here? It seems to go against the experience of just about everyone I know who are surprised if they get the same week
I suspect it is true, but misleading. As a general rule, people don't lie. (There are exceptions, obviously.)
My guess - fwiw - is that they include people who go to A&E (all of whom are seen) in the same day consultation statistics.
Tories 5 seats or less in London - anyone think they will do better than this?
Here are the safest dozen Conservative seats in London with their percentage majorities (don't know how much they will be affected by boundary changes);
Gareth Bacon Orpington 45.9 Julia Lopez Hornchurch and Upminster 43.2 Andrew Rosindell Romford 37.9 David Simmonds Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner31.0 David Evennett Bexleyheath and Crayford 30.3 Bob Stewart Beckenham 28.2 Greg Hands Chelsea and Fulham 24.0 Bob Neill Bromley and Chislehurst 23.9 Chris Philp Croydon South 20.8 Bob Blackman Harrow East 16.5 Paul Scully Sutton & Cheam16.5 Boris Johnson Uxbridge and South Ruislip 15.0 Mike Freer Finchley and Golders Green 11.9
Harrow East might be saved, thanks to local demographics, and everything from Croydon South upwards looks like awfully big swings to win. That would be 10 seats. But look at how few of them are unambiguously London. Northwood + Pinner, Chelsea + Fulham and a load of places that think of themselves as Essex, Kent or Surrey and would happily tell the Mayor where to stick his ULEZ.
Ahh. Orpington. Where I grew up. In the London Borough of Bromley. It's a place that no-one from anywhere else in South East England will believe that it is in London.
Bromley is in Kent innit?
No. Hasn’t been since the 1960s. The ignorance about London boundaries is widespread, and is particularly acute on PB.
Bromley is in Greater London, *and* in Kent.
It's in Kent as far as Royal Mail is concerned and afaik.
You know perfectly well that it’s in Greater London for municipal purposes.
That needs people to be comfortable with multiple identities; Kent (or Essex) and London, rather than Kent or London. A lot of the political conversation in these parts struggles with this. I'm not sure why.
According to the IMF’s latest data, real gross domestic product per head in the UK rose by a mere 6 per cent between 2008 and 2022. This was the second worst performance in the G7, above Italy’s. To put this dire outcome in context, UK real GDP per head rose by an impressive 33 per cent in the 14 years to 2008. Such weak growth ensured austerity. But the decision to make almost all the post-financial crisis fiscal adjustment by cutting spending made this even worse.
Something for everyone there.
I do wish they'd stop pretending the growth from 1996 to 2008 was real, and thus a trendline to be compared against. Was there any scenario, post GFC, where that 33 per cent could have been had for another 14 years? Of course not.
The reality is that Britain has done worse than anywhere else bar Italy, whatever the previous trendline.
You may have a very tiny point about 96-08, but to say the entire period was somehow a delusion is just absurd.
Tories 5 seats or less in London - anyone think they will do better than this?
Here are the safest dozen Conservative seats in London with their percentage majorities (don't know how much they will be affected by boundary changes);
Gareth Bacon Orpington 45.9 Julia Lopez Hornchurch and Upminster 43.2 Andrew Rosindell Romford 37.9 David Simmonds Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner31.0 David Evennett Bexleyheath and Crayford 30.3 Bob Stewart Beckenham 28.2 Greg Hands Chelsea and Fulham 24.0 Bob Neill Bromley and Chislehurst 23.9 Chris Philp Croydon South 20.8 Bob Blackman Harrow East 16.5 Paul Scully Sutton & Cheam16.5 Boris Johnson Uxbridge and South Ruislip 15.0 Mike Freer Finchley and Golders Green 11.9
Harrow East might be saved, thanks to local demographics, and everything from Croydon South upwards looks like awfully big swings to win. That would be 10 seats. But look at how few of them are unambiguously London. Northwood + Pinner, Chelsea + Fulham and a load of places that think of themselves as Essex, Kent or Surrey and would happily tell the Mayor where to stick his ULEZ.
Ahh. Orpington. Where I grew up. In the London Borough of Bromley. It's a place that no-one from anywhere else in South East England will believe that it is in London.
Bromley is in Kent innit?
No. Hasn’t been since the 1960s. The ignorance about London boundaries is widespread, and is particularly acute on PB.
Bromley is in Greater London, *and* in Kent.
It's in Kent as far as Royal Mail is concerned and afaik.
Royal Mail don't include counties in official addresses, and haven't for many years.
If we had twice as many doctors and nurses so that we could have a much better health service, would doctors and nurses pay go up or down?
Depends, how did you encourage people to become doctors and nurses to reach the twice as many figure? Or did we bring in cheaper labour from outside?
You might have to give them a 90% real terms increase over a decade, then no increase over the next ten years
That obviously works well
Simple way, get rid of gp's and make them hospital doctors. Let's face it not like gp's are of use to most people as we can't even get to see them when we are ill.
90% of health service Consultations are with GPs, who are less than half the medical workforce. 68% are face to face and 41% the same day.
41% are same day.....you really are taking the piss there I don't give a shit what you claim the stat's to be because I have yet to meet a single person who hasnt got a gripe about having to wait more than a week for an appointment. The last surgery I was with the average was 3 weeks. I haven't even bothered registering where I live now if I am ill I will just goto A and E
There are massive differences between areas and even individual surgeries. My London one (Fitzroy Square) is generally excellent.
Serious question....do you personally believe the 41% same day stats here? It seems to go against the experience of just about everyone I know who are surprised if they get the same week
"90% of health service Consultations are with GPs, who are less than half the medical workforce. 68% are face to face and 41% the same day."
32% are NOT face to face (telephone).
So you ring the doctors and they say you must have a telephone consultation first, that happens same day and all those telephone consultations count towards the 41% same day figure.
If we had twice as many doctors and nurses so that we could have a much better health service, would doctors and nurses pay go up or down?
Depends, how did you encourage people to become doctors and nurses to reach the twice as many figure? Or did we bring in cheaper labour from outside?
We don't need to encourage more people to become doctors. They are queueing round the block to get into Med School.
The wages certainly aren't putting them off.
Not true, increasingly we are fishing in a depleted pool for applicants.
In any case, if we are going to double undergraduate numbers as per Labour policy, we need more doctors like me to double their teaching commitment, rather than treat patients.
Tories 5 seats or less in London - anyone think they will do better than this?
Here are the safest dozen Conservative seats in London with their percentage majorities (don't know how much they will be affected by boundary changes);
Gareth Bacon Orpington 45.9 Julia Lopez Hornchurch and Upminster 43.2 Andrew Rosindell Romford 37.9 David Simmonds Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner31.0 David Evennett Bexleyheath and Crayford 30.3 Bob Stewart Beckenham 28.2 Greg Hands Chelsea and Fulham 24.0 Bob Neill Bromley and Chislehurst 23.9 Chris Philp Croydon South 20.8 Bob Blackman Harrow East 16.5 Paul Scully Sutton & Cheam16.5 Boris Johnson Uxbridge and South Ruislip 15.0 Mike Freer Finchley and Golders Green 11.9
Harrow East might be saved, thanks to local demographics, and everything from Croydon South upwards looks like awfully big swings to win. That would be 10 seats. But look at how few of them are unambiguously London. Northwood + Pinner, Chelsea + Fulham and a load of places that think of themselves as Essex, Kent or Surrey and would happily tell the Mayor where to stick his ULEZ.
Ahh. Orpington. Where I grew up. In the London Borough of Bromley. It's a place that no-one from anywhere else in South East England will believe that it is in London.
Bromley is in Kent innit?
No. Hasn’t been since the 1960s. The ignorance about London boundaries is widespread, and is particularly acute on PB.
Bromley is in Greater London, *and* in Kent.
It's in Kent as far as Royal Mail is concerned and afaik.
Royal Mail don't include counties in official addresses, and haven't for many years.
According to the IMF’s latest data, real gross domestic product per head in the UK rose by a mere 6 per cent between 2008 and 2022. This was the second worst performance in the G7, above Italy’s. To put this dire outcome in context, UK real GDP per head rose by an impressive 33 per cent in the 14 years to 2008. Such weak growth ensured austerity. But the decision to make almost all the post-financial crisis fiscal adjustment by cutting spending made this even worse.
Something for everyone there.
What do you expect when we encourages low skilled immigration from the EU. All those people coming to be bar staff and barista's may put 1% on GDP.....rising GDP however does not mean GDP per capita isnt falling
GDP 2.5 trillion for 40 million people
Add 5 million and GDP goes up 1% to 2.75 trillion gdp per capita goes down by almost 2%
The figures are per capita. As far as I can tell, you are saying it’s immigration that is to blame.
I am not saying immigration is to blame, I am saying that we have had increasing gdp since 2000 but falling gdp per capita. That was the point I was making. On one measure the country has strong growth, on a personal level though that growth can be negative. That was the point I was making. We should be measuring growth purely on gdp per capita and gdp on its own is nothing to crow about when the individuals that make up the country are on average getting poorer.
Here are the IMF predictions in full. Middle of the pack, mediocre.
Is it just me, or is Canada the surprising one in that?
No, for two reasons - Canada's population is growing fast as it absorbs immigrants, and it is so tied to big brother to the south that it often tracks it pretty closely.
I note too that the protesters in France are similarly motivated, with few fifty-somethings and many twenty-somethings far from retirement.
They see the rug being pulled out from under them by the ageing Boomers and don't like it much.
You want to be looked after in your comfortable retirement? Then don't piss off the people that you will need.
Is the rug being pulled out from under them or is it simply that the demographic changes have rendered the welfare state as it was unaffordable? I recall one stat, possibly not true, that the ratio of workers to pensioners started at 6:1 and is heading towards 2:1. If true the whole damn thing was a Ponzi scheme from the get go.
Both. But regarding the Ponzi scheme, you are essentially saying that humanity itself a Ponzi, which is a bit depressing.
To some extent any part of civilisation that requires growth in perpetuity is a Ponzi scheme. People don't want to think about the really long term, let someone else deal with the future when it arrives, so we stay on paths that will ultimately lead to trouble.
So life itself is a Ponzi. I bet you’re a hit at parties.
The pay as you go welfare states (around the world) were setup in a period of relatively high birth rates (compared to today) and much lower life expectancy.
They were, indeed, predicated on high numbers of workers vs pensioners.
There is nothing to say that you can't design a welfare system around 2:1 worker to pensioner numbers, though
But it will either entail people saving a fuckton of money, or not having much of retirement - either a longer working career or less provision for the the longer period.
According to the IMF’s latest data, real gross domestic product per head in the UK rose by a mere 6 per cent between 2008 and 2022. This was the second worst performance in the G7, above Italy’s. To put this dire outcome in context, UK real GDP per head rose by an impressive 33 per cent in the 14 years to 2008. Such weak growth ensured austerity. But the decision to make almost all the post-financial crisis fiscal adjustment by cutting spending made this even worse.
Something for everyone there.
I do wish they'd stop pretending the growth from 1996 to 2008 was real, and thus a trendline to be compared against. Was there any scenario, post GFC, where that 33 per cent could have been had for another 14 years? Of course not.
The reality is that Britain has done worse than anywhere else bar Italy, whatever the previous trendline.
You may have a very tiny point about 96-08, but to say the entire period was somehow a delusion is just absurd.
To paraphrase a former governor of the Bank of England, asset prices are a matter of opinion but debt is real. UK growth figures in the decade before the crash were flattered by financial delusions.
Tories 5 seats or less in London - anyone think they will do better than this?
Here are the safest dozen Conservative seats in London with their percentage majorities (don't know how much they will be affected by boundary changes);
Gareth Bacon Orpington 45.9 Julia Lopez Hornchurch and Upminster 43.2 Andrew Rosindell Romford 37.9 David Simmonds Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner31.0 David Evennett Bexleyheath and Crayford 30.3 Bob Stewart Beckenham 28.2 Greg Hands Chelsea and Fulham 24.0 Bob Neill Bromley and Chislehurst 23.9 Chris Philp Croydon South 20.8 Bob Blackman Harrow East 16.5 Paul Scully Sutton & Cheam16.5 Boris Johnson Uxbridge and South Ruislip 15.0 Mike Freer Finchley and Golders Green 11.9
Harrow East might be saved, thanks to local demographics, and everything from Croydon South upwards looks like awfully big swings to win. That would be 10 seats. But look at how few of them are unambiguously London. Northwood + Pinner, Chelsea + Fulham and a load of places that think of themselves as Essex, Kent or Surrey and would happily tell the Mayor where to stick his ULEZ.
Ahh. Orpington. Where I grew up. In the London Borough of Bromley. It's a place that no-one from anywhere else in South East England will believe that it is in London.
Bromley is in Kent innit?
No. Hasn’t been since the 1960s. The ignorance about London boundaries is widespread, and is particularly acute on PB.
Bromley is in Greater London, *and* in Kent.
It's in Kent as far as Royal Mail is concerned and afaik.
You know perfectly well that it’s in Greater London for municipal purposes.
Tories 5 seats or less in London - anyone think they will do better than this?
Here are the safest dozen Conservative seats in London with their percentage majorities (don't know how much they will be affected by boundary changes);
Gareth Bacon Orpington 45.9 Julia Lopez Hornchurch and Upminster 43.2 Andrew Rosindell Romford 37.9 David Simmonds Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner31.0 David Evennett Bexleyheath and Crayford 30.3 Bob Stewart Beckenham 28.2 Greg Hands Chelsea and Fulham 24.0 Bob Neill Bromley and Chislehurst 23.9 Chris Philp Croydon South 20.8 Bob Blackman Harrow East 16.5 Paul Scully Sutton & Cheam16.5 Boris Johnson Uxbridge and South Ruislip 15.0 Mike Freer Finchley and Golders Green 11.9
Harrow East might be saved, thanks to local demographics, and everything from Croydon South upwards looks like awfully big swings to win. That would be 10 seats. But look at how few of them are unambiguously London. Northwood + Pinner, Chelsea + Fulham and a load of places that think of themselves as Essex, Kent or Surrey and would happily tell the Mayor where to stick his ULEZ.
Ahh. Orpington. Where I grew up. In the London Borough of Bromley. It's a place that no-one from anywhere else in South East England will believe that it is in London.
Bromley is in Kent innit?
No. Hasn’t been since the 1960s. The ignorance about London boundaries is widespread, and is particularly acute on PB.
Bromley is in Greater London, *and* in Kent.
It's in Kent as far as Royal Mail is concerned and afaik.
FAKE NEWS. Royal Mail haven't used so-called "Postal Counties" since 1996.
According to the IMF’s latest data, real gross domestic product per head in the UK rose by a mere 6 per cent between 2008 and 2022. This was the second worst performance in the G7, above Italy’s. To put this dire outcome in context, UK real GDP per head rose by an impressive 33 per cent in the 14 years to 2008. Such weak growth ensured austerity. But the decision to make almost all the post-financial crisis fiscal adjustment by cutting spending made this even worse.
Something for everyone there.
I do wish they'd stop pretending the growth from 1996 to 2008 was real, and thus a trendline to be compared against. Was there any scenario, post GFC, where that 33 per cent could have been had for another 14 years? Of course not.
The reality is that Britain has done worse than anywhere else bar Italy, whatever the previous trendline.
You may have a very tiny point about 96-08, but to say the entire period was somehow a delusion is just absurd.
To paraphrase a former governor of the Bank of England, asset prices are a matter of opinion but debt is real. UK growth figures in the decade before the crash were flattered by financial delusions.
Just got back from London, where I've been to lunch at Ronnie Scott's with my folks. We invited my best friend Julia from Siberia who I used to work with when I lived in London
She gave me a late birthday present; the book 'Post Office' by Charles Bukowski
I thought I should mention it to @kinabalu , who recommended it to me back in November
I had a great afternoon with my family too.
The pub had a live musician who played a pitch perfect cover of David Gray - Babylon on his guitar and mic whilst we were having lunch, which I finished off with a delicious muscat and caramalised bread and butter pudding with cream custard.
Ditto the lovely Sunday
Took my eldest daughter (who is 16 and into history) plus dog Bramble, to the excitements of... Berkhamstead Motte and Bailey Castle. I kid you not. That good!
The dog scampered. We talked a lot. Then we drove to the car park of Hemel Hempstead Tesco and had some very satisfying sandwiches in the car park (Tesco can do some brilliant sandwiches - mine was barbecued chicken with Nduja). Then we went to a Saxon church which was shut but I was still able to see evidence of Saxon brickwork in the walls. Again, a highpoint. A quick Coke at a nice rural pub, then home
But we drove home in fits of laughter as we devised ever more and more absurd ideas for podcasts (my knapping agent wants me to do a podcast)
That was it. That was my family Sunday. And yet it was brilliant: because spending literally an hour of your life in shared and helpless laughter with your offspring is beyond priceless
A lot of older people vote Tory because they have looked at socialism and decided it doesn't work. many of them are in the process of deciding Toryism doesn't work either.
The motive is primarily economic self-interest. The richer two-thirds of the over-50 vote consists mainly of owners of massively valuable houses that have appreciated in value out of all proportion to earned incomes, who have simultaneously benefited from generous, older-style occupational pension schemes as well as triple-locked state pensions (either already in payment, or to become available within the next few years.) Those at the older end of the age distribution can use equity release to fund a very comfortable lifestyle if they choose, whilst looking forward to passing on the remainder of their estates to their kids tax-free; the younger ones are anticipating massive, life-transforming windfalls from their elderly parents when they pop-off.
This is the Tory base, and the adherence of 90%+ of them to that party will be rooted in the fact that right-leaning Government pays dividends. They've done fantastically out of the last 13 years, and will keep voting accordingly.
The Government doesn't particularly care about the poorer third of pensioners who aren't well off and will therefore tend towards Labour, although doubtless a combination of the triple lock and socially conservative rhetoric about issues like immigration, prisons and defence will lure some of them onside anyway, votes that ministers will happily accept.
They are only “massively valuable” if they can be converted into cash at that price.
If you are correct there is only a limited pool of buyers for these properties then the value is not what they think it is.
Build more homes. Consider putting restrictions on ability of international buyers to own multiple properties.
If we had twice as many doctors and nurses so that we could have a much better health service, would doctors and nurses pay go up or down?
Depends, how did you encourage people to become doctors and nurses to reach the twice as many figure? Or did we bring in cheaper labour from outside?
You might have to give them a 90% real terms increase over a decade, then no increase over the next ten years
That obviously works well
Simple way, get rid of gp's and make them hospital doctors. Let's face it not like gp's are of use to most people as we can't even get to see them when we are ill.
90% of health service Consultations are with GPs, who are less than half the medical workforce. 68% are face to face and 41% the same day.
41% are same day.....you really are taking the piss there I don't give a shit what you claim the stat's to be because I have yet to meet a single person who hasnt got a gripe about having to wait more than a week for an appointment. The last surgery I was with the average was 3 weeks. I haven't even bothered registering where I live now if I am ill I will just goto A and E
There are massive differences between areas and even individual surgeries. My London one (Fitzroy Square) is generally excellent.
Serious question....do you personally believe the 41% same day stats here? It seems to go against the experience of just about everyone I know who are surprised if they get the same week
I suspect it is true, but misleading. As a general rule, people don't lie. (There are exceptions, obviously.)
My guess - fwiw - is that they include people who go to A&E (all of whom are seen) in the same day consultation statistics.
One reason GPs get so pissed off is the myth that they don't see people face to face or urgently. It simply isn't true.
I've never had any problem getting a same day appointment at my GP on the thankfully rare times I have needed one.
On the other hand if you make people pay up front for years through taxation and claim to be the 'envy of the world' then people are going to be disgruntled, deservedly in some cases, if they cannot get an appointment when they need one.
There might also be an issue of 'regulars' clogging up the system by going every other week when they can perhaps be dealt with differently thus allowing more time for those who need an appointment for more occasional but more serious issues.
I note too that the protesters in France are similarly motivated, with few fifty-somethings and many twenty-somethings far from retirement.
They see the rug being pulled out from under them by the ageing Boomers and don't like it much.
You want to be looked after in your comfortable retirement? Then don't piss off the people that you will need.
Is the rug being pulled out from under them or is it simply that the demographic changes have rendered the welfare state as it was unaffordable? I recall one stat, possibly not true, that the ratio of workers to pensioners started at 6:1 and is heading towards 2:1. If true the whole damn thing was a Ponzi scheme from the get go.
Both. But regarding the Ponzi scheme, you are essentially saying that humanity itself a Ponzi, which is a bit depressing.
Humanity, and immigration in particular, is a Ponzi scheme which is about to be brutally demolished by AI
If we had twice as many doctors and nurses so that we could have a much better health service, would doctors and nurses pay go up or down?
Depends, how did you encourage people to become doctors and nurses to reach the twice as many figure? Or did we bring in cheaper labour from outside?
You might have to give them a 90% real terms increase over a decade, then no increase over the next ten years
That obviously works well
Simple way, get rid of gp's and make them hospital doctors. Let's face it not like gp's are of use to most people as we can't even get to see them when we are ill.
90% of health service Consultations are with GPs, who are less than half the medical workforce. 68% are face to face and 41% the same day.
41% are same day.....you really are taking the piss there I don't give a shit what you claim the stat's to be because I have yet to meet a single person who hasnt got a gripe about having to wait more than a week for an appointment. The last surgery I was with the average was 3 weeks. I haven't even bothered registering where I live now if I am ill I will just goto A and E
There are massive differences between areas and even individual surgeries. My London one (Fitzroy Square) is generally excellent.
Serious question....do you personally believe the 41% same day stats here? It seems to go against the experience of just about everyone I know who are surprised if they get the same week
I suspect it is true, but misleading. As a general rule, people don't lie. (There are exceptions, obviously.)
My guess - fwiw - is that they include people who go to A&E (all of whom are seen) in the same day consultation statistics.
One reason GPs get so pissed off is the myth that they don't see people face to face or urgently. It simply isn't true.
If the receptionist thinks that your case is urgent then yes, if you managed to get through on the phone in the first place, you'll be seen that day. If non-urgent, that's when you have to wait almost four weeks for a telephone appointment. That's what pisses people off.
If we had twice as many doctors and nurses so that we could have a much better health service, would doctors and nurses pay go up or down?
Depends, how did you encourage people to become doctors and nurses to reach the twice as many figure? Or did we bring in cheaper labour from outside?
We don't need to encourage more people to become doctors. They are queueing round the block to get into Med School.
The wages certainly aren't putting them off.
Not true, increasingly we are fishing in a depleted pool for applicants.
In any case, if we are going to double undergraduate numbers as per Labour policy, we need more doctors like me to double their teaching commitment, rather than treat patients.
The UK attitude to WWII combat aircrew, do your quota of missions then go to training your replacements. The Luftwaffe produced a solid core of experten but an increasing number of easily shot down rookies.
It's so dispiriting to see the Tories still preferred on the economy after all the compelling evidence to the contrary of recent (and indeed not so recent) years.
I hope the people with this view are never called up for jury service.
The Tories have been wrong about many things. However, to me, it's hard to point to anything the Tories were wrong about and say that Labour's proposals were better - and quute easy to find examples where Labour's proposals look worse. I still trust the Tories more than Labour on most things. The are where, for me, the Tories are weakest is housing (which of course has a big impact on the economy). But where is the Labiur campaign saying we will build more houses? Where is Labour saying we will drive down house prices?
Yes, probably spent too long in lockdown, Labour wanted longer.
Probably a mistake to undermine investment in the north sea with a windfall tax: Labour want a bigger one.
Arguably taxing too much for economic growth: guess who wants more taxes?
Probably, the government overdid the generosity of support on energy prices which should have been more targeted. But Labour wanted more.
And frankly the lord knows what Labour's answers to the public sector strikes is. But it won't have improved the public finances, that's for sure.
Positive reasons for voting Labour are very thin on the ground but there are quite a lot of reasons for not voting Tory.
This is a good summary.
One might be tempted to vote Tory for the same reasons as in 2015 - to restore full balance and rectitude to the public finances by 2027-2028, this time with no landmines like the EU referendum along the way.
A new "long-term economic plan" campaign can't be ruled out.
One might be tempted to vote Tory 'to restore full balance and rectitude to the public finances'?
That'd be a bit like appointing Ratner to restore confidence in the jewellery trade.
Not in the slightest.
Aside from the Truss aberration that's exactly what the Conservative Party stand for, and the mess they had to clean up after Brown.
Labour definitely want to spend more. That can only come from higher taxes or more borrowing.
Borrowing was out of control before Truss.
UK Debt was 69% GDP when the Tories took over in 2010; it's 99% now. 13 years of restoring 'full balance and rectitude to the public finances' LOL.
And I suspect you were one of those who was complaining that the Tories were trying to reduce the inherited deficit too fast… not to mention arguing their support plans for coronavirus were too mean…
I was certainly complaining that squeezing growth through austerity was the wrong approach, and we can all see now how right I was.
Of course you were. Impossible to prove, but if it makes you feel better to repeat it SP be my guest.
So if you didn't want austerity (which wasn't austerity as nothing was actually cut just the rate of increase in spending was slowed) how can you complain about the current debt to gdp. Simple fact is when labour left power we were borrowing 100 odd bn a year. The only way to stop debt growing was to cut spending immediately by 100 bn a year. Austerity as its termed was just slowing the rate of borrowing as tax receipts increased. Hell I have no truck with the tories but....
You cannot both complain about austerity and the level of debt to GDP without being totally two faced
You are blunter than I would be, but I don’t disagree…
Here are the IMF predictions in full. Middle of the pack, mediocre.
Is it just me, or is Canada the surprising one in that?
If you use per capita, which is the more meaningful measure, Britain comes out last or perhaps second last before Italy.
No that's a useless stat as well. GDP per capita is horribly distorted in other ways. Ireland being a perfect example where the business activity of companies operating across Europe accrues in Ireland even though they only do a tiny bit of their business there. So Ireland has one of the highest GDP per capita scores in the world, but incomes are another matter. Ireland is a bit better than some of Western Europe, like the UK, Italy, and France; but below Germany and Northern Europe, and way behind the US.
As Max has pointed out Biden is going to take an axe to the Celtic Tiger's economic "miracle".
It's so dispiriting to see the Tories still preferred on the economy after all the compelling evidence to the contrary of recent (and indeed not so recent) years.
I hope the people with this view are never called up for jury service.
The Tories have been wrong about many things. However, to me, it's hard to point to anything the Tories were wrong about and say that Labour's proposals were better - and quute easy to find examples where Labour's proposals look worse. I still trust the Tories more than Labour on most things. The are where, for me, the Tories are weakest is housing (which of course has a big impact on the economy). But where is the Labiur campaign saying we will build more houses? Where is Labour saying we will drive down house prices?
Yes, probably spent too long in lockdown, Labour wanted longer.
Probably a mistake to undermine investment in the north sea with a windfall tax: Labour want a bigger one.
Arguably taxing too much for economic growth: guess who wants more taxes?
Probably, the government overdid the generosity of support on energy prices which should have been more targeted. But Labour wanted more.
And frankly the lord knows what Labour's answers to the public sector strikes is. But it won't have improved the public finances, that's for sure.
Positive reasons for voting Labour are very thin on the ground but there are quite a lot of reasons for not voting Tory.
This is a good summary.
One might be tempted to vote Tory for the same reasons as in 2015 - to restore full balance and rectitude to the public finances by 2027-2028, this time with no landmines like the EU referendum along the way.
A new "long-term economic plan" campaign can't be ruled out.
One might be tempted to vote Tory 'to restore full balance and rectitude to the public finances'?
That'd be a bit like appointing Ratner to restore confidence in the jewellery trade.
Not in the slightest.
Aside from the Truss aberration that's exactly what the Conservative Party stand for, and the mess they had to clean up after Brown.
Labour definitely want to spend more. That can only come from higher taxes or more borrowing.
Borrowing was out of control before Truss.
UK Debt was 69% GDP when the Tories took over in 2010; it's 99% now. 13 years of restoring 'full balance and rectitude to the public finances' LOL.
Sure, but as when Miliband tried it* I don't see how that line works for Labour, since they support further spending and I don't think getting the debt ration down would be a priority either.
*As I recall the line was that the Tories had cut too far too fast, but also to criticise them for not cutting as much as they said they would.
It's so dispiriting to see the Tories still preferred on the economy after all the compelling evidence to the contrary of recent (and indeed not so recent) years.
I hope the people with this view are never called up for jury service.
The Tories have been wrong about many things. However, to me, it's hard to point to anything the Tories were wrong about and say that Labour's proposals were better - and quute easy to find examples where Labour's proposals look worse. I still trust the Tories more than Labour on most things. The are where, for me, the Tories are weakest is housing (which of course has a big impact on the economy). But where is the Labiur campaign saying we will build more houses? Where is Labour saying we will drive down house prices?
Yes, probably spent too long in lockdown, Labour wanted longer.
Probably a mistake to undermine investment in the north sea with a windfall tax: Labour want a bigger one.
Arguably taxing too much for economic growth: guess who wants more taxes?
Probably, the government overdid the generosity of support on energy prices which should have been more targeted. But Labour wanted more.
And frankly the lord knows what Labour's answers to the public sector strikes is. But it won't have improved the public finances, that's for sure.
Positive reasons for voting Labour are very thin on the ground but there are quite a lot of reasons for not voting Tory.
This is a good summary.
One might be tempted to vote Tory for the same reasons as in 2015 - to restore full balance and rectitude to the public finances by 2027-2028, this time with no landmines like the EU referendum along the way.
A new "long-term economic plan" campaign can't be ruled out.
One might be tempted to vote Tory 'to restore full balance and rectitude to the public finances'?
That'd be a bit like appointing Ratner to restore confidence in the jewellery trade.
Not in the slightest.
Aside from the Truss aberration that's exactly what the Conservative Party stand for, and the mess they had to clean up after Brown.
Labour definitely want to spend more. That can only come from higher taxes or more borrowing.
Borrowing was out of control before Truss.
UK Debt was 69% GDP when the Tories took over in 2010; it's 99% now. 13 years of restoring 'full balance and rectitude to the public finances' LOL.
And I suspect you were one of those who was complaining that the Tories were trying to reduce the inherited deficit too fast… not to mention arguing their support plans for coronavirus were too mean…
I was certainly complaining that squeezing growth through austerity was the wrong approach, and we can all see now how right I was.
Of course you were. Impossible to prove, but if it makes you feel better to repeat it SP be my guest.
So if you didn't want austerity (which wasn't austerity as nothing was actually cut just the rate of increase in spending was slowed) how can you complain about the current debt to gdp. Simple fact is when labour left power we were borrowing 100 odd bn a year. The only way to stop debt growing was to cut spending immediately by 100 bn a year. Austerity as its termed was just slowing the rate of borrowing as tax receipts increased. Hell I have no truck with the tories but....
You cannot both complain about austerity and the level of debt to GDP without being totally two faced
You are blunter than I would be, but I don’t disagree…
It has been remarked that I am blunter than most but then I don't believe in calling a spade a manually operated agricultural excavation tool
Here are the IMF predictions in full. Middle of the pack, mediocre.
Is it just me, or is Canada the surprising one in that?
If you use per capita, which is the more meaningful measure, Britain comes out last or perhaps second last before Italy.
No that's a useless stat as well. GDP per capita is horribly distorted in other ways. Ireland being a perfect example where the business activity of companies operating across Europe accrues in Ireland even though they only do a tiny bit of their business there. So Ireland has one of the highest GDP per capita scores in the world, but incomes are another matter. Ireland is a bit better than some of Western Europe, like the UK, Italy, and France; but below Germany and Northern Europe, and way behind the US.
As Max has pointed out Biden is going to take an axe to the Celtic Tiger's economic "miracle".
Perhaps the ratio of median wage to GDP per capita would work so for example if GDP per capita was 75000 but median wage was 25000 you would get a value of 0.33
Just got back from London, where I've been to lunch at Ronnie Scott's with my folks. We invited my best friend Julia from Siberia who I used to work with when I lived in London
She gave me a late birthday present; the book 'Post Office' by Charles Bukowski
I thought I should mention it to @kinabalu , who recommended it to me back in November
I had a great afternoon with my family too.
The pub had a live musician who played a pitch perfect cover of David Gray - Babylon on his guitar and mic whilst we were having lunch, which I finished off with a delicious muscat and caramalised bread and butter pudding with cream custard.
Ditto the lovely Sunday
Took my eldest daughter (who is 16 and into history) plus dog Bramble, to the excitements of... Berkhamstead Motte and Bailey Castle. I kid you not. That good!
The dog scampered. We talked a lot. Then we drove to the car park of Hemel Hempstead Tesco and had some very satisfying sandwiches in the car park (Tesco can do some brilliant sandwiches - mine was barbecued chicken with Nduja). Then we went to a Saxon church which was shut but I was still able to see evidence of Saxon brickwork in the walls. Again, a highpoint. A quick Coke at a nice rural pub, then home
But we drove home in fits of laughter as we devised ever more and more absurd ideas for podcasts (my knapping agent wants me to do a podcast)
That was it. That was my family Sunday. And yet it was brilliant: because spending literally an hour of your life in shared and helpless laughter with your offspring is beyond priceless
Knapping podcast a knifty idea.
Perhaps use the old "Click & Clack" Tom & Ray Magliozzi auto mechanics show as model?
Quasi-serious, depending on your degree of actual interest/expertise in gneissic (or better yet, oolitic) sex toys.
Also widely discursive beyond even the bounds of love both carnal and karstic.
Tories 5 seats or less in London - anyone think they will do better than this?
Here are the safest dozen Conservative seats in London with their percentage majorities (don't know how much they will be affected by boundary changes);
Gareth Bacon Orpington 45.9 Julia Lopez Hornchurch and Upminster 43.2 Andrew Rosindell Romford 37.9 David Simmonds Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner31.0 David Evennett Bexleyheath and Crayford 30.3 Bob Stewart Beckenham 28.2 Greg Hands Chelsea and Fulham 24.0 Bob Neill Bromley and Chislehurst 23.9 Chris Philp Croydon South 20.8 Bob Blackman Harrow East 16.5 Paul Scully Sutton & Cheam16.5 Boris Johnson Uxbridge and South Ruislip 15.0 Mike Freer Finchley and Golders Green 11.9
Harrow East might be saved, thanks to local demographics, and everything from Croydon South upwards looks like awfully big swings to win. That would be 10 seats. But look at how few of them are unambiguously London. Northwood + Pinner, Chelsea + Fulham and a load of places that think of themselves as Essex, Kent or Surrey and would happily tell the Mayor where to stick his ULEZ.
Ahh. Orpington. Where I grew up. In the London Borough of Bromley. It's a place that no-one from anywhere else in South East England will believe that it is in London.
Bromley is in Kent innit?
No. Hasn’t been since the 1960s. The ignorance about London boundaries is widespread, and is particularly acute on PB.
Bromley is in Greater London, *and* in Kent.
It's in Kent as far as Royal Mail is concerned and afaik.
FAKE NEWS. Royal Mail haven't used so-called "Postal Counties" since 1996.
It's still put on addresses, even if Royal Mail don't need to use them (hence current examples with a town in one administrative county being listed elsewhere) so it looks like they are in use.
I do laugh at ignorance of boundaries, especially London, supposedly being a PB thing. It's pretty common as a public thing, I've encountered people who lived in a county for decades and didn't realise what one they were in.
Tories 5 seats or less in London - anyone think they will do better than this?
Here are the safest dozen Conservative seats in London with their percentage majorities (don't know how much they will be affected by boundary changes);
Gareth Bacon Orpington 45.9 Julia Lopez Hornchurch and Upminster 43.2 Andrew Rosindell Romford 37.9 David Simmonds Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner31.0 David Evennett Bexleyheath and Crayford 30.3 Bob Stewart Beckenham 28.2 Greg Hands Chelsea and Fulham 24.0 Bob Neill Bromley and Chislehurst 23.9 Chris Philp Croydon South 20.8 Bob Blackman Harrow East 16.5 Paul Scully Sutton & Cheam16.5 Boris Johnson Uxbridge and South Ruislip 15.0 Mike Freer Finchley and Golders Green 11.9
Harrow East might be saved, thanks to local demographics, and everything from Croydon South upwards looks like awfully big swings to win. That would be 10 seats. But look at how few of them are unambiguously London. Northwood + Pinner, Chelsea + Fulham and a load of places that think of themselves as Essex, Kent or Surrey and would happily tell the Mayor where to stick his ULEZ.
Ahh. Orpington. Where I grew up. In the London Borough of Bromley. It's a place that no-one from anywhere else in South East England will believe that it is in London.
Bromley is in Kent innit?
No. Hasn’t been since the 1960s. The ignorance about London boundaries is widespread, and is particularly acute on PB.
Bromley is in Greater London, *and* in Kent.
It's in Kent as far as Royal Mail is concerned and afaik.
FAKE NEWS. Royal Mail haven't used so-called "Postal Counties" since 1996.
Tories 5 seats or less in London - anyone think they will do better than this?
Here are the safest dozen Conservative seats in London with their percentage majorities (don't know how much they will be affected by boundary changes);
Gareth Bacon Orpington 45.9 Julia Lopez Hornchurch and Upminster 43.2 Andrew Rosindell Romford 37.9 David Simmonds Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner31.0 David Evennett Bexleyheath and Crayford 30.3 Bob Stewart Beckenham 28.2 Greg Hands Chelsea and Fulham 24.0 Bob Neill Bromley and Chislehurst 23.9 Chris Philp Croydon South 20.8 Bob Blackman Harrow East 16.5 Paul Scully Sutton & Cheam16.5 Boris Johnson Uxbridge and South Ruislip 15.0 Mike Freer Finchley and Golders Green 11.9
Harrow East might be saved, thanks to local demographics, and everything from Croydon South upwards looks like awfully big swings to win. That would be 10 seats. But look at how few of them are unambiguously London. Northwood + Pinner, Chelsea + Fulham and a load of places that think of themselves as Essex, Kent or Surrey and would happily tell the Mayor where to stick his ULEZ.
Ahh. Orpington. Where I grew up. In the London Borough of Bromley. It's a place that no-one from anywhere else in South East England will believe that it is in London.
Bromley is in Kent innit?
No. Hasn’t been since the 1960s. The ignorance about London boundaries is widespread, and is particularly acute on PB.
Bromley is in Greater London, *and* in Kent.
It's in Kent as far as Royal Mail is concerned and afaik.
FAKE NEWS. Royal Mail haven't used so-called "Postal Counties" since 1996.
Tories 5 seats or less in London - anyone think they will do better than this?
Here are the safest dozen Conservative seats in London with their percentage majorities (don't know how much they will be affected by boundary changes);
Gareth Bacon Orpington 45.9 Julia Lopez Hornchurch and Upminster 43.2 Andrew Rosindell Romford 37.9 David Simmonds Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner31.0 David Evennett Bexleyheath and Crayford 30.3 Bob Stewart Beckenham 28.2 Greg Hands Chelsea and Fulham 24.0 Bob Neill Bromley and Chislehurst 23.9 Chris Philp Croydon South 20.8 Bob Blackman Harrow East 16.5 Paul Scully Sutton & Cheam16.5 Boris Johnson Uxbridge and South Ruislip 15.0 Mike Freer Finchley and Golders Green 11.9
Harrow East might be saved, thanks to local demographics, and everything from Croydon South upwards looks like awfully big swings to win. That would be 10 seats. But look at how few of them are unambiguously London. Northwood + Pinner, Chelsea + Fulham and a load of places that think of themselves as Essex, Kent or Surrey and would happily tell the Mayor where to stick his ULEZ.
Ahh. Orpington. Where I grew up. In the London Borough of Bromley. It's a place that no-one from anywhere else in South East England will believe that it is in London.
Bromley is in Kent innit?
No. Hasn’t been since the 1960s. The ignorance about London boundaries is widespread, and is particularly acute on PB.
Bromley is in Greater London, *and* in Kent.
It's in Kent as far as Royal Mail is concerned and afaik.
FAKE NEWS. Royal Mail haven't used so-called "Postal Counties" since 1996.
It's still put on addresses, even if Royal Mail don't need to use them (hence current examples with a town in one administrative county being listed elsewhere) so it looks like they are in use.
I do laugh at ignorance of boundaries, especially London, supposedly being a PB thing. It's pretty common as a public thing, I've encountered people who lived in a county for decades and didn't realise what one they were in.
I suspect it depends on the county....I have a feeling most would know they are in Cornwall or devon or yorkshire.....few would care if they are in buckinghamshire or berkshire
I note too that the protesters in France are similarly motivated, with few fifty-somethings and many twenty-somethings far from retirement.
They see the rug being pulled out from under them by the ageing Boomers and don't like it much.
You want to be looked after in your comfortable retirement? Then don't piss off the people that you will need.
Is the rug being pulled out from under them or is it simply that the demographic changes have rendered the welfare state as it was unaffordable? I recall one stat, possibly not true, that the ratio of workers to pensioners started at 6:1 and is heading towards 2:1. If true the whole damn thing was a Ponzi scheme from the get go.
Both. But regarding the Ponzi scheme, you are essentially saying that humanity itself a Ponzi, which is a bit depressing.
To some extent any part of civilisation that requires growth in perpetuity is a Ponzi scheme. People don't want to think about the really long term, let someone else deal with the future when it arrives, so we stay on paths that will ultimately lead to trouble.
So life itself is a Ponzi. I bet you’re a hit at parties.
The pay as you go welfare states (around the world) were setup in a period of relatively high birth rates (compared to today) and much lower life expectancy.
They were, indeed, predicated on high numbers of workers vs pensioners.
There is nothing to say that you can't design a welfare system around 2:1 worker to pensioner numbers, though
But it will either entail people saving a fuckton of money, or not having much of retirement - either a longer working career or less provision for the the longer period.
Well, you neatly bring us to the reason why taxes are at “all time high”.
Here are the IMF predictions in full. Middle of the pack, mediocre.
Is it just me, or is Canada the surprising one in that?
If you use per capita, which is the more meaningful measure, Britain comes out last or perhaps second last before Italy.
No that's a useless stat as well. GDP per capita is horribly distorted in other ways. Ireland being a perfect example where the business activity of companies operating across Europe accrues in Ireland even though they only do a tiny bit of their business there. So Ireland has one of the highest GDP per capita scores in the world, but incomes are another matter. Ireland is a bit better than some of Western Europe, like the UK, Italy, and France; but below Germany and Northern Europe, and way behind the US.
As Max has pointed out Biden is going to take an axe to the Celtic Tiger's economic "miracle".
Ireland is a straw man here. I wasn’t talking about Ireland and nobody was talking about it.
GDP per capita, whatever it’s faults, is the best indicator we have, and it’s clear that the UK is on course for around 20 years of stagnation.
Perhaps the ratio of median wage to GDP per capita would work so for example if GDP per capita was 75000 but median wage was 25000 you would get a value of 0.33
I don't know but the whole debate about GDP is a big part of the problem we face. Nobody should really give a damn about GDP, that's a stat that makes no difference to people. People care about their own income and outgoings, not about the fact a bunch of giant tech or petrochemical companies operating all over the world are inflating a local statistic. Economic growth diverging from income growth is why people are unhappy, making GDP go soaring up only helps to a small degree unless incomes narrow the gap.
Perhaps the ratio of median wage to GDP per capita would work so for example if GDP per capita was 75000 but median wage was 25000 you would get a value of 0.33
I don't know but the whole debate about GDP is a big part of the problem we face. Nobody should really give a damn about GDP, that's a stat that makes no difference to people. People care about their own income and outgoings, not about the fact a bunch of giant tech or petrochemical companies operating all over the world are inflating a local statistic. Economic growth diverging from income growth is why people are unhappy, making GDP go soaring up only helps to a small degree unless incomes narrow the gap.
This is populist tripe.
People care about their standard of living and - at least as single metric - real GDP per capita is the best proxy we have.
It's so dispiriting to see the Tories still preferred on the economy after all the compelling evidence to the contrary of recent (and indeed not so recent) years.
I hope the people with this view are never called up for jury service.
The Tories have been wrong about many things. However, to me, it's hard to point to anything the Tories were wrong about and say that Labour's proposals were better - and quute easy to find examples where Labour's proposals look worse. I still trust the Tories more than Labour on most things. The are where, for me, the Tories are weakest is housing (which of course has a big impact on the economy). But where is the Labiur campaign saying we will build more houses? Where is Labour saying we will drive down house prices?
Yes, probably spent too long in lockdown, Labour wanted longer.
Probably a mistake to undermine investment in the north sea with a windfall tax: Labour want a bigger one.
Arguably taxing too much for economic growth: guess who wants more taxes?
Probably, the government overdid the generosity of support on energy prices which should have been more targeted. But Labour wanted more.
And frankly the lord knows what Labour's answers to the public sector strikes is. But it won't have improved the public finances, that's for sure.
Positive reasons for voting Labour are very thin on the ground but there are quite a lot of reasons for not voting Tory.
This is a good summary.
One might be tempted to vote Tory for the same reasons as in 2015 - to restore full balance and rectitude to the public finances by 2027-2028, this time with no landmines like the EU referendum along the way.
A new "long-term economic plan" campaign can't be ruled out.
One might be tempted to vote Tory 'to restore full balance and rectitude to the public finances'?
That'd be a bit like appointing Ratner to restore confidence in the jewellery trade.
Not in the slightest.
Aside from the Truss aberration that's exactly what the Conservative Party stand for, and the mess they had to clean up after Brown.
Labour definitely want to spend more. That can only come from higher taxes or more borrowing.
Borrowing was out of control before Truss.
UK Debt was 69% GDP when the Tories took over in 2010; it's 99% now. 13 years of restoring 'full balance and rectitude to the public finances' LOL.
And I suspect you were one of those who was complaining that the Tories were trying to reduce the inherited deficit too fast… not to mention arguing their support plans for coronavirus were too mean…
I was certainly complaining that squeezing growth through austerity was the wrong approach, and we can all see now how right I was.
Of course you were. Impossible to prove, but if it makes you feel better to repeat it SP be my guest.
So if you didn't want austerity (which wasn't austerity as nothing was actually cut just the rate of increase in spending was slowed) how can you complain about the current debt to gdp. Simple fact is when labour left power we were borrowing 100 odd bn a year. The only way to stop debt growing was to cut spending immediately by 100 bn a year. Austerity as its termed was just slowing the rate of borrowing as tax receipts increased. Hell I have no truck with the tories but....
You cannot both complain about austerity and the level of debt to GDP without being totally two facbed
You are blunter than I would be, but I don’t disagree…
It has been remarked that I am blunter than most but then I don't believe in calling a spade a manually operated agricultural excavation tool
Yeah, but there are limits
I was at a funeral where the unworldly, dreamy vicar was asked to give a reading and decided he should thank all pallbearers and gravediggers etc etc for helping out. They all happened to be black and African. Some mischievous person told him that the latest nickname for funeral assistants of this practical nature was spades
So he gave a speech where he gestured to the generally African section of the congregation and said "First, I'd like to thank all the spades who helped us throughout"
Tories 5 seats or less in London - anyone think they will do better than this?
Here are the safest dozen Conservative seats in London with their percentage majorities (don't know how much they will be affected by boundary changes);
Gareth Bacon Orpington 45.9 Julia Lopez Hornchurch and Upminster 43.2 Andrew Rosindell Romford 37.9 David Simmonds Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner31.0 David Evennett Bexleyheath and Crayford 30.3 Bob Stewart Beckenham 28.2 Greg Hands Chelsea and Fulham 24.0 Bob Neill Bromley and Chislehurst 23.9 Chris Philp Croydon South 20.8 Bob Blackman Harrow East 16.5 Paul Scully Sutton & Cheam16.5 Boris Johnson Uxbridge and South Ruislip 15.0 Mike Freer Finchley and Golders Green 11.9
Harrow East might be saved, thanks to local demographics, and everything from Croydon South upwards looks like awfully big swings to win. That would be 10 seats. But look at how few of them are unambiguously London. Northwood + Pinner, Chelsea + Fulham and a load of places that think of themselves as Essex, Kent or Surrey and would happily tell the Mayor where to stick his ULEZ.
Ahh. Orpington. Where I grew up. In the London Borough of Bromley. It's a place that no-one from anywhere else in South East England will believe that it is in London.
Bromley is in Kent innit?
No. Hasn’t been since the 1960s. The ignorance about London boundaries is widespread, and is particularly acute on PB.
Bromley is in Greater London, *and* in Kent.
It's in Kent as far as Royal Mail is concerned and afaik.
FAKE NEWS. Royal Mail haven't used so-called "Postal Counties" since 1996.
It's still put on addresses, even if Royal Mail don't need to use them (hence current examples with a town in one administrative county being listed elsewhere) so it looks like they are in use.
I do laugh at ignorance of boundaries, especially London, supposedly being a PB thing. It's pretty common as a public thing, I've encountered people who lived in a county for decades and didn't realise what one they were in.
I suspect it depends on the county....I have a feeling most would know they are in Cornwall or devon or yorkshire.....few would care if they are in buckinghamshire or berkshire
You’ll upset the Berkshire irredentists who are currently planning terror bombings until Oxfordshire surrenders the Vale of White Horse.
Perhaps the ratio of median wage to GDP per capita would work so for example if GDP per capita was 75000 but median wage was 25000 you would get a value of 0.33
I don't know but the whole debate about GDP is a big part of the problem we face. Nobody should really give a damn about GDP, that's a stat that makes no difference to people. People care about their own income and outgoings, not about the fact a bunch of giant tech or petrochemical companies operating all over the world are inflating a local statistic. Economic growth diverging from income growth is why people are unhappy, making GDP go soaring up only helps to a small degree unless incomes narrow the gap.
This is populist tripe.
People care about their standard of living and - at least as single metric - real GDP per capita is the best proxy we have.
Perhaps the ratio of median wage to GDP per capita would work so for example if GDP per capita was 75000 but median wage was 25000 you would get a value of 0.33
I don't know but the whole debate about GDP is a big part of the problem we face. Nobody should really give a damn about GDP, that's a stat that makes no difference to people. People care about their own income and outgoings, not about the fact a bunch of giant tech or petrochemical companies operating all over the world are inflating a local statistic. Economic growth diverging from income growth is why people are unhappy, making GDP go soaring up only helps to a small degree unless incomes narrow the gap.
This is populist tripe.
People care about their standard of living and - at least as single metric - real GDP per capita is the best proxy we have.
Best we have? If you wanted to measure standard of living, why wouldn’t you use something like average earnings?
Perhaps the ratio of median wage to GDP per capita would work so for example if GDP per capita was 75000 but median wage was 25000 you would get a value of 0.33
I don't know but the whole debate about GDP is a big part of the problem we face. Nobody should really give a damn about GDP, that's a stat that makes no difference to people. People care about their own income and outgoings, not about the fact a bunch of giant tech or petrochemical companies operating all over the world are inflating a local statistic. Economic growth diverging from income growth is why people are unhappy, making GDP go soaring up only helps to a small degree unless incomes narrow the gap.
Which was part of my point when people say immigration is good for a country it adds 1% to gdp....yes it maybe good for the country but doesn't mean its good for the people in the country and also doesn't tell the tale of stressed services whether water, public services or housing.
I am all for immigration where it is properly resourced and managed. Sadly ours has not been. Not by Tories and not by labour and lets hope we never give the lib dems the chance
Perhaps the ratio of median wage to GDP per capita would work so for example if GDP per capita was 75000 but median wage was 25000 you would get a value of 0.33
I don't know but the whole debate about GDP is a big part of the problem we face. Nobody should really give a damn about GDP, that's a stat that makes no difference to people. People care about their own income and outgoings, not about the fact a bunch of giant tech or petrochemical companies operating all over the world are inflating a local statistic. Economic growth diverging from income growth is why people are unhappy, making GDP go soaring up only helps to a small degree unless incomes narrow the gap.
This is populist tripe.
People care about their standard of living and - at least as single metric - real GDP per capita is the best proxy we have.
It is not, but I can't be bothered arguing about this. So keep thinking whatever you like.
Perhaps the ratio of median wage to GDP per capita would work so for example if GDP per capita was 75000 but median wage was 25000 you would get a value of 0.33
I don't know but the whole debate about GDP is a big part of the problem we face. Nobody should really give a damn about GDP, that's a stat that makes no difference to people. People care about their own income and outgoings, not about the fact a bunch of giant tech or petrochemical companies operating all over the world are inflating a local statistic. Economic growth diverging from income growth is why people are unhappy, making GDP go soaring up only helps to a small degree unless incomes narrow the gap.
And if that extra income doesn't get you meaningfully closer to being able to buy a house and settle down, what's the blooming point anyway?
Perhaps the ratio of median wage to GDP per capita would work so for example if GDP per capita was 75000 but median wage was 25000 you would get a value of 0.33
I don't know but the whole debate about GDP is a big part of the problem we face. Nobody should really give a damn about GDP, that's a stat that makes no difference to people. People care about their own income and outgoings, not about the fact a bunch of giant tech or petrochemical companies operating all over the world are inflating a local statistic. Economic growth diverging from income growth is why people are unhappy, making GDP go soaring up only helps to a small degree unless incomes narrow the gap.
This is populist tripe.
People care about their standard of living and - at least as single metric - real GDP per capita is the best proxy we have.
Up to a point. Distribution also matters.
Of course it does. Britain also performs poorly on those measures, although not as badly as the U.S.
Comments
They see the rug being pulled out from under them by the ageing Boomers and don't like it much.
You want to be looked after in your comfortable retirement? Then don't piss off the people that you will need.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_Scottish_Parliament_election
https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/appointments-in-general-practice/september-2022
The facts do not support your contention.
For many of them, there is simply no point in working long hours because it will never get them notably ahead.
The modern economy, not just in the UK, is severing the connection between effort and wealth.
We've borrowed too much
We should have borrowed more
Then we'd have borrowed less
But regarding the Ponzi scheme, you are essentially saying that humanity itself a Ponzi, which is a bit depressing.
1000 people asked to see there gp, 41 were seen on the same day, 900 cancelled appointments as they were better before their appointment date was due so those cancelled werent counted. Both labour and tories have form for cooking the books on stats
A House of Bruar cup of coffee voucher possibly available as a prize.
https://twitter.com/aljwhite/status/1647664772714754048?s=46&t=L9g_woCIqbo1MTuBFCK0xg
I wondered about Loch Goil but I'm not convinced by that either.
I bet you’re a hit at parties.
The wages certainly aren't putting them off.
My guess - fwiw - is that they include people who go to A&E (all of whom are seen) in the same day consultation statistics.
A Spanish red called Ramos Reserva; £10 a bottle, but from Majestic so £8 each for six
https://www.majestic.co.uk/wines/ramos-reserva-15120
Seriously, though, Portuguese wine (port and Douro apart) is unappreciated here.
According to the IMF’s latest data, real gross domestic product per head in the UK rose by a mere 6 per cent between 2008 and 2022. This was the second worst performance in the G7, above Italy’s. To put this dire outcome in context, UK real GDP per head rose by an impressive 33 per cent in the 14 years to 2008. Such weak growth ensured austerity. But the decision to make almost all the post-financial crisis fiscal adjustment by cutting spending made this even worse.
Something for everyone there.
Some are essentially uncontactable. Others do the nonsense of speed dialling at 8am to get an appointment - so you can't get one this week at 8:02. Others again are excellent. All next door to each other.
EDIT: I always get same day appointments because, when I worked from home, I have some code written which starts dialling at 7:59. It auto-redials until I get put through. So I fire it up and sit there with the headset on.....
And if we paid the buggers less then they would not be able to afford to go part time or retire in their 50s.
https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/appointments-in-general-practice/september-2022
One reason GPs get so pissed off is the myth that they don't see people face to face or urgently. It simply isn't true.
GDP 2.5 trillion for 40 million people
Add 5 million and GDP goes up 1% to 2.75 trillion gdp per capita goes down by almost 2%
As far as I can tell, you are saying it’s immigration that is to blame.
See also: 2016.
You may have a very tiny point about 96-08, but to say the entire period was somehow a delusion is just absurd.
32% are NOT face to face (telephone).
So you ring the doctors and they say you must have a telephone consultation first, that happens same day and all those telephone consultations count towards the 41% same day figure.
In any case, if we are going to double undergraduate numbers as per Labour policy, we need more doctors like me to double their teaching commitment, rather than treat patients.
But there's bad, then collapsed, and then there's "don't even bother rootling through the collapsed remains, there's nothing there."
They were, indeed, predicated on high numbers of workers vs pensioners.
There is nothing to say that you can't design a welfare system around 2:1 worker to pensioner numbers, though
But it will either entail people saving a fuckton of money, or not having much of retirement - either a longer working career or less provision for the the longer period.
Took my eldest daughter (who is 16 and into history) plus dog Bramble, to the excitements of... Berkhamstead Motte and Bailey Castle. I kid you not. That good!
The dog scampered. We talked a lot. Then we drove to the car park of Hemel Hempstead Tesco and had some very satisfying sandwiches in the car park (Tesco can do some brilliant sandwiches - mine was barbecued chicken with Nduja). Then we went to a Saxon church which was shut but I was still able to see evidence of Saxon brickwork in the walls. Again, a highpoint. A quick Coke at a nice rural pub, then home
But we drove home in fits of laughter as we devised ever more and more absurd ideas for podcasts (my knapping agent wants me to do a podcast)
That was it. That was my family Sunday. And yet it was brilliant: because spending literally an hour of your life in shared and helpless laughter with your offspring is beyond priceless
If you are correct there is only a limited pool of buyers for these properties then the value is not what they think it is.
Build more homes. Consider putting restrictions on ability of international buyers to own multiple properties.
Due to the trade pact formerly known as NAFTA and other business, cultural, geographic ties.
On the other hand if you make people pay up front for years through taxation and claim to be the 'envy of the world' then people are going to be disgruntled, deservedly in some cases, if they cannot get an appointment when they need one.
There might also be an issue of 'regulars' clogging up the system by going every other week when they can perhaps be dealt with differently thus allowing more time for those who need an appointment for more occasional but more serious issues.
As Max has pointed out Biden is going to take an axe to the Celtic Tiger's economic "miracle".
*As I recall the line was that the Tories had cut too far too fast, but also to criticise them for not cutting as much as they said they would.
Perhaps use the old "Click & Clack" Tom & Ray Magliozzi auto mechanics show as model?
Quasi-serious, depending on your degree of actual interest/expertise in gneissic (or better yet, oolitic) sex toys.
Also widely discursive beyond even the bounds of love both carnal and karstic.
I do laugh at ignorance of boundaries, especially London, supposedly being a PB thing. It's pretty common as a public thing, I've encountered people who lived in a county for decades and didn't realise what one they were in.
GDP per capita, whatever it’s faults, is the best indicator we have, and it’s clear that the UK is on course for around 20 years of stagnation.
People care about their standard of living and - at least as single metric - real GDP per capita is the best proxy we have.
I was at a funeral where the unworldly, dreamy vicar was asked to give a reading and decided he should thank all pallbearers and gravediggers etc etc for helping out. They all happened to be black and African. Some mischievous person told him that the latest nickname for funeral assistants of this practical nature was spades
So he gave a speech where he gestured to the generally African section of the congregation and said "First, I'd like to thank all the spades who helped us throughout"
I am all for immigration where it is properly resourced and managed. Sadly ours has not been. Not by Tories and not by labour and lets hope we never give the lib dems the chance
Don't have nightmares, everyone.