EXC: @wesstreeting throws down the gauntlet saying time for private sector help to reduce waiting lists - and no more cash for heath service without “major surgery” of reform.
In punchy @thesun piece tomorrow he warns: “Middle-class lefties cry ‘betrayal’. The real betrayal is the two-tier system that sees people like them treated faster.”
Private companies do a lot of waiting list work already, and have done for decades. They cherry pick the straightforward cases and leave the complex and expensive work to the rNHS, I really don't see what is new or "Reforming" about this.
There isn't much evidence that it has resolved the fundamental problem of capacity, not least because the personnel in the private sector were nearly all trained in the NHS
Wes Streeting combines bombastic language with a failure to understand the issues to the point that I won't support Labour.
It's not that I an against the private sector, indeed I advocated how to make it work in my first PB header.
Yes, Streeting is worrying me. He doesn't realise that the NHS or social care is going to have to expand for the next 15 years. Talking hard to the NHS may play well in Tufton Street now, or ten years ago, but now is really not the time.
Starmer was extolling the use of the private sector in helping to reduce the waiting lists and in using technology better
The amazing change in politics is that a Labour PM and Health Secretary could actually get away with this when conservative ones would be shouted down as 'privatisation'
Notwithstanding, it is sensible and should do Labour no harm with the centre ground
We need a Labour government to do serious reform of the NHS just as we probably need the Tories to take us back into the EU. But they need to do things sensibly. Streeting has obviously been thinking about the issues but that’s no guarantee of good policy. Gove spent rather a lot of time thinking about the issues in education before 2010, and I’m not sure the country is the better for it.
The first thing Streeting should do is focus on the NHS’s absolutely pisspoor, medieval admin and antiquated systems. The Call Your GP At Exactly 8am bollocks, the provincial Car Parks That Accept Only Pound Coins, the Only The Exact Prescription of Generic Pills insanity.
The whole front of house needs immediate reform. It’s a pile of utter garbage.
My local hairdresser has a better appointment booking system than the GP. Get them on treatwell. And hospital appointments confirmed by text not letter.
Also, annual “compulsory” (strongly advised) health checkup for all over 50s. Could save a fortune in later costs.
That’s a great example. Treatwell. It takes seconds to book an appointment and is done at the fraction of the cost than the NHS, which involves calling a very stressed out lady at the crack of dawn. Which idiot thought this was a good idea? The embrace of even basic technology should be at the forefront of sweeping changes to the admin of the service.
I remember getting an Important Appointment Letter from the NHS a few
years ago. Boldly emblazoned with the name of the unit I had to attend. No address. No contact number. No postcode. No email address (obviously). Just had to google it and hope I picked the right option from the dozens of units with the same name.
Things like this baffle me.
My son broke a bone recently. I was given a mobile number to call after ten days to get the x-Ray analysis. No matter when I tried the number, it was unobtainable. There was simply no way of reaching the x-Ray team.
Days later, exasperated, I texted the number, just to see what would happen. A nurse rang me straight back seconds later, on that same number, to give me the results.
The NHS app is brilliant for this, I received same day results from a chest X-ray, and my recent blood tests came through after a weekend at Easter. No need to call anyone - I thoroughly recommend it.
Results only show on this when filed by the Practice, so if you see it then they have.
You may know the answer to this question, but as most are aware I have had some serious health issues since October with many hospital visits and each time the doctor or consultant asks if it is OK to check my surgery's medication for me
I would have thought they could do this without needing my approval, indeed I would have thought this information was essential for their treatments
It's good practice to check with the patient, as what they are taking doesn't always match GP records.
Not all practices allow hospital access to their prescription records too.
So why isn’t there one (sensible) policy that is applied consistently? This stuff baffles me. If GP practices don’t share their patients records with hospitals, they should, unless the patient has asked them not to.
NHS admin is seven shades of shit.
It's because GP practices are run independently, and some feel strongly about data protection.
The flipside of individuality is lack of integration.
In most countries doctors communicate even less as they work even more autonomously.
Does anyone demand or even vaguely want “individuality” in a surgery? I’d venture not, they just want sensible, consistent processes and a well-run local GP’s surgery.
The defence of such nonsense is irritating. The ludicrous conventions and muddled processes are just a frustrating waste of time for millions of people trying to use a service that is self-defeated by crackpot, antiquated, inconsistent administration.
What a piece of scum Netanyahu is . Sets a date for the next Gazan slaughter in Rafah because the pro Genocide group in his coalition of evil threatened to pull the plug .
No further proof is needed that Netanyahu will order the slaughter of thousands to save his own skin .
Good of Hamas to agree NOT to go for a ceasefire. As much as Netanyahu is scum, Hamas are just as bad.
No ones disputing that.
I kind of agree with the deputy PM that Israel is being held to different standards.
Donald Trump has said decisions about abortion rights should be left to the states, releasing a statement on the contentious election issue on Monday.
Many in his Republican Party had wanted him to back a nationwide ban on abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy.
But Mr Trump said policies should be set by individual states - as they have been since the Supreme Court overturned the Roe v Wade decision in 2022.
Evangelicals won't be too happy, they want a nationwide abortion ban if the GOP win in November the Presidency and Congress.
'Conservative reaction to Mr Trump's message has been largely negative, with his former Vice-President Mike Pence calling it "a slap in the face to the millions of pro-life Americans who voted for him..Kristan Hawkins, the head of the Students for Life of America, reaffirmed her support for the former president but added there was "some work to do to educate President Trump" on the issue.'
Trump is clearly a moderating influence on the right of American politics. It takes a lot of political skill to neutralise an issue as contentious as this.
Donald Trump has said decisions about abortion rights should be left to the states, releasing a statement on the contentious election issue on Monday.
Many in his Republican Party had wanted him to back a nationwide ban on abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy.
But Mr Trump said policies should be set by individual states - as they have been since the Supreme Court overturned the Roe v Wade decision in 2022.
Evangelicals won't be too happy, they want a nationwide abortion ban if the GOP win in November the Presidency and Congress.
'Conservative reaction to Mr Trump's message has been largely negative, with his former Vice-President Mike Pence calling it "a slap in the face to the millions of pro-life Americans who voted for him..Kristan Hawkins, the head of the Students for Life of America, reaffirmed her support for the former president but added there was "some work to do to educate President Trump" on the issue.'
Trump is clearly a moderating influence on the right of American politics. It takes a lot of political skill to neutralise an issue as contentious as this.
Except he can't neutralise it, he needs to energise his pro life evangelical base to turn out for him.
Pro choice voters for whom abortion is a big issue will almost all be voting for Biden and the Democrats anyway
The minimum wage discussion may be easier to understand for anyone who has done piece work, or worked on commission. As a kid, I did the first, picking cherries in the sumer and apples in the fall on our farm. When I started I am absolutely sure that I did not pick enough of either to be worth a minimum wage.
But, as the years went on, I got bigger and better, and made more money. I think I learned much from that experience.
This "child labor" -- though most of us were teen agers -- was important enough so that our little schools in the valley had harvest vacations in the fall, so we could help pick the apples.
Incidentally, we did employ a few migrant workers from the South during the summer. I got the impression that they came partly as a vacation, and used the picking to pay for the trip. (Air conditioning was not as common in the South, as it is now.)
The policy Trump was being asked to endorse, banning abortion after 15 weeks, is hardly outrageous. We ban it after 20 weeks. All depends on the exceptions allowed.
But his pushing it onto the states is smart politics. Not great if you’re a 15 year old girl in nowhereville who can’t afford the bus to a neighbouring state though.
We used to do this at Conservative HQ. We would ask the Daily Express to print something unsubtantiated* then get an MP to tell Parliament “I read in the Express that X”, and then pitch to the other papers that “Parliament was told X”
Donald Trump has said decisions about abortion rights should be left to the states, releasing a statement on the contentious election issue on Monday.
Many in his Republican Party had wanted him to back a nationwide ban on abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy.
But Mr Trump said policies should be set by individual states - as they have been since the Supreme Court overturned the Roe v Wade decision in 2022.
Evangelicals won't be too happy, they want a nationwide abortion ban if the GOP win in November the Presidency and Congress.
'Conservative reaction to Mr Trump's message has been largely negative, with his former Vice-President Mike Pence calling it "a slap in the face to the millions of pro-life Americans who voted for him..Kristan Hawkins, the head of the Students for Life of America, reaffirmed her support for the former president but added there was "some work to do to educate President Trump" on the issue.'
Trump is clearly a moderating influence on the right of American politics. It takes a lot of political skill to neutralise an issue as contentious as this.
No, them not getting mad at Trump isn't due to something Trump uniquely does.
Yglesias talks about this a lot but this is somewhere where right-wing activism is much more effective than left-wing activism. The evangelicals understand that a Republican president will appoint judges who do what they want. They don't try to force him to take unpopular public positions that will stop him winning. When right-wing activists want something unpopular like tax cuts for rich people or abortion restrictions, they let their candidates downplay it in the campaign, then get elected and just do the unpopular thing.
The Republican base have different bad habits, in particular that they keep nominating bad *candidates* who lose otherwise winnable races, but when they have candidates who are playing to win they mostly let them get on with it.
Donald Trump has said decisions about abortion rights should be left to the states, releasing a statement on the contentious election issue on Monday.
Many in his Republican Party had wanted him to back a nationwide ban on abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy.
But Mr Trump said policies should be set by individual states - as they have been since the Supreme Court overturned the Roe v Wade decision in 2022.
Evangelicals won't be too happy, they want a nationwide abortion ban if the GOP win in November the Presidency and Congress. Trump needs a big evangelical turnout for him in November to win back the White House and can't afford for some of them to stay home.
'Conservative reaction to Mr Trump's message has been largely negative, with his former Vice-President Mike Pence calling it "a slap in the face to the millions of pro-life Americans who voted for him..Kristan Hawkins, the head of the Students for Life of America, reaffirmed her support for the former president but added there was "some work to do to educate President Trump" on the issue.'
Why is this being reported as snythkbg more than self serving bullshit yo help his electoral prospect ?
How much belief would you put in a Trump political pledge ?
It is of little predictive value for what he might do in office.
The minimum wage discussion may be easier to understand for anyone who has done piece work, or worked on commission. As a kid, I did the first, picking cherries in the sumer and apples in the fall on our farm. When I started I am absolutely sure that I did not pick enough of either to be worth a minimum wage.
But, as the years went on, I got bigger and better, and made more money. I think I learned much from that experience.
This "child labor" -- though most of us were teen agers -- was important enough so that our little schools in the valley had harvest vacations in the fall, so we could help pick the apples.
Incidentally, we did employ a few migrant workers from the South during the summer. I got the impression that they came partly as a vacation, and used the picking to pay for the trip. (Air conditioning was not as common in the South, as it is now.)
You're wasting your time arguing against the minimum wage in the UK. It's been an unquestioned success of a Labour government. So much so that the Tories keep raising it and praising it.
What a piece of scum Netanyahu is . Sets a date for the next Gazan slaughter in Rafah because the pro Genocide group in his coalition of evil threatened to pull the plug .
No further proof is needed that Netanyahu will order the slaughter of thousands to save his own skin .
Good of Hamas to agree NOT to go for a ceasefire. As much as Netanyahu is scum, Hamas are just as bad.
No ones disputing that.
I kind of agree with the deputy PM that Israel is being held to different standards.
They’re not supposed to be a barbaric regime . The Israeli government have badly mishandled this , by trying to starve the population and effectively destroying most of Gaza.
EXC: @wesstreeting throws down the gauntlet saying time for private sector help to reduce waiting lists - and no more cash for heath service without “major surgery” of reform.
In punchy @thesun piece tomorrow he warns: “Middle-class lefties cry ‘betrayal’. The real betrayal is the two-tier system that sees people like them treated faster.”
Private companies do a lot of waiting list work already, and have done for decades. They cherry pick the straightforward cases and leave the complex and expensive work to the rNHS, I really don't see what is new or "Reforming" about this.
There isn't much evidence that it has resolved the fundamental problem of capacity, not least because the personnel in the private sector were nearly all trained in the NHS
Wes Streeting combines bombastic language with a failure to understand the issues to the point that I won't support Labour.
It's not that I an against the private sector, indeed I advocated how to make it work in my first PB header.
Yes, Streeting is worrying me. He doesn't realise that the NHS or social care is going to have to expand for the next 15 years. Talking hard to the NHS may play well in Tufton Street now, or ten years ago, but now is really not the time.
Starmer was extolling the use of the private sector in helping to reduce the waiting lists and in using technology better
The amazing change in politics is that a Labour PM and Health Secretary could actually get away with this when conservative ones would be shouted down as 'privatisation'
Notwithstanding, it is sensible and should do Labour no harm with the centre ground
We need a Labour government to do serious reform of the NHS just as we probably need the Tories to take us back into the EU. But they need to do things sensibly. Streeting has obviously been thinking about the issues but that’s no guarantee of good policy. Gove spent rather a lot of time thinking about the issues in education before 2010, and I’m not sure the country is the better for it.
The first thing Streeting should do is focus on the NHS’s absolutely pisspoor, medieval admin and antiquated systems. The Call Your GP At Exactly 8am bollocks, the provincial Car Parks That Accept Only Pound Coins, the Only The Exact Prescription of Generic Pills insanity.
The whole front of house needs immediate reform. It’s a pile of utter garbage.
My local hairdresser has a better appointment booking system than the GP. Get them on treatwell. And hospital appointments confirmed by text not letter.
Also, annual “compulsory” (strongly advised) health checkup for all over 50s. Could save a fortune in later costs.
I would imagine (really - no clue) that a broad blood-test at 40 could also work wonders. A lot of people start thinking 'oh, I'm getting older" at that point so even a bit of 'yeah, cut down on the pizza' could be quite helpful.
I guess as with most things NHS 'prevention' related it's a capacity problem. Possibly one of the area (at fear of summoning Leon) that AI/ML stuff might help with if it passes all the regulatory/professional hurdles. Which I imagine might take a decade or two - probably only a few hundred thousand extra deaths though. So... that's ok.
It's very variable. I have a minor (I hope) skin issue on my forehead and reported it to my Godalming GP. She immediately took a photo and asked me to text another photo in 2 weeks. When I did (after a text from her that morning reminding me to do so), she said it was a bit worse, so she was referring me to dermatology at the local hospital. Within an hour, they in turn text offering an appointment in 10 days. Frankly, no complaints at all.
Yeah - 'variable' is how I'd describe it. I live in a fairly poor area and it takes me ~3weeks on average to talk to my GP after spending 5-10hrs on the phone lottery if my manager will allow it. Colleague I work with who lives in an affluent area can be seen by their GP the same day.
EXC: @wesstreeting throws down the gauntlet saying time for private sector help to reduce waiting lists - and no more cash for heath service without “major surgery” of reform.
In punchy @thesun piece tomorrow he warns: “Middle-class lefties cry ‘betrayal’. The real betrayal is the two-tier system that sees people like them treated faster.”
Private companies do a lot of waiting list work already, and have done for decades. They cherry pick the straightforward cases and leave the complex and expensive work to the rNHS, I really don't see what is new or "Reforming" about this.
There isn't much evidence that it has resolved the fundamental problem of capacity, not least because the personnel in the private sector were nearly all trained in the NHS
Wes Streeting combines bombastic language with a failure to understand the issues to the point that I won't support Labour.
It's not that I an against the private sector, indeed I advocated how to make it work in my first PB header.
Yes, Streeting is worrying me. He doesn't realise that the NHS or social care is going to have to expand for the next 15 years. Talking hard to the NHS may play well in Tufton Street now, or ten years ago, but now is really not the time.
Starmer was extolling the use of the private sector in helping to reduce the waiting lists and in using technology better
The amazing change in politics is that a Labour PM and Health Secretary could actually get away with this when conservative ones would be shouted down as 'privatisation'
Notwithstanding, it is sensible and should do Labour no harm with the centre ground
We need a Labour government to do serious reform of the NHS just as we probably need the Tories to take us back into the EU. But they need to do things sensibly. Streeting has obviously been thinking about the issues but that’s no guarantee of good policy. Gove spent rather a lot of time thinking about the issues in education before 2010, and I’m not sure the country is the better for it.
The first thing Streeting should do is focus on the NHS’s absolutely pisspoor, medieval admin and antiquated systems. The Call Your GP At Exactly 8am bollocks, the provincial Car Parks That Accept Only Pound Coins, the Only The Exact Prescription of Generic Pills insanity.
The whole front of house needs immediate reform. It’s a pile of utter garbage.
My local hairdresser has a better appointment booking system than the GP. Get them on treatwell. And hospital appointments confirmed by text not letter.
Also, annual “compulsory” (strongly advised) health checkup for all over 50s. Could save a fortune in later costs.
I would imagine (really - no clue) that a broad blood-test at 40 could also work wonders. A lot of people start thinking 'oh, I'm getting older" at that point so even a bit of 'yeah, cut down on the pizza' could be quite helpful.
I guess as with most things NHS 'prevention' related it's a capacity problem. Possibly one of the area (at fear of summoning Leon) that AI/ML stuff might help with if it passes all the regulatory/professional hurdles. Which I imagine might take a decade or two - probably only a few hundred thousand extra deaths though. So... that's ok.
It's very variable. I have a minor (I hope) skin issue on my forehead and reported it to my Godalming GP. She immediately took a photo and asked me to text another photo in 2 weeks. When I did (after a text from her that morning reminding me to do so), she said it was a bit worse, so she was referring me to dermatology at the local hospital. Within an hour, they in turn text offering an appointment in 10 days. Frankly, no complaints at all.
Yeah - 'variable' is how I'd describe it. I live in a fairly poor area and it takes me ~3weeks on average to talk to my GP after spending 5-10hrs on the phone lottery if my manager will allow it. Colleague I work with who lives in an affluent area can be seen by their GP the same day.
Have you tried walking in, if your work schedule allows it? I can get a non-urgent appointment within two weeks at the desk. Much less stressful than phoning.
The policy Trump was being asked to endorse, banning abortion after 15 weeks, is hardly outrageous. We ban it after 20 weeks. All depends on the exceptions allowed.
But his pushing it onto the states is smart politics. Not great if you’re a 15 year old girl in nowhereville who can’t afford the bus to a neighbouring state though.
Evangelicals don't want it pushed onto the states, they want a nationwide abortion ban. Evangelicals were 28% of US voters in 2020 ie up to or even over half of Trump's 47% likely came from evangelicals
Donald Trump has said decisions about abortion rights should be left to the states, releasing a statement on the contentious election issue on Monday.
Many in his Republican Party had wanted him to back a nationwide ban on abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy.
But Mr Trump said policies should be set by individual states - as they have been since the Supreme Court overturned the Roe v Wade decision in 2022.
Evangelicals won't be too happy, they want a nationwide abortion ban if the GOP win in November the Presidency and Congress.
'Conservative reaction to Mr Trump's message has been largely negative, with his former Vice-President Mike Pence calling it "a slap in the face to the millions of pro-life Americans who voted for him..Kristan Hawkins, the head of the Students for Life of America, reaffirmed her support for the former president but added there was "some work to do to educate President Trump" on the issue.'
Trump is clearly a moderating influence on the right of American politics. It takes a lot of political skill to neutralise an issue as contentious as this.
Do you think he has? I have my doubts. If he loses the Evangelicals, that's quite a loss.
EXC: @wesstreeting throws down the gauntlet saying time for private sector help to reduce waiting lists - and no more cash for heath service without “major surgery” of reform.
In punchy @thesun piece tomorrow he warns: “Middle-class lefties cry ‘betrayal’. The real betrayal is the two-tier system that sees people like them treated faster.”
Private companies do a lot of waiting list work already, and have done for decades. They cherry pick the straightforward cases and leave the complex and expensive work to the rNHS, I really don't see what is new or "Reforming" about this.
There isn't much evidence that it has resolved the fundamental problem of capacity, not least because the personnel in the private sector were nearly all trained in the NHS
Wes Streeting combines bombastic language with a failure to understand the issues to the point that I won't support Labour.
It's not that I an against the private sector, indeed I advocated how to make it work in my first PB header.
Yes, Streeting is worrying me. He doesn't realise that the NHS or social care is going to have to expand for the next 15 years. Talking hard to the NHS may play well in Tufton Street now, or ten years ago, but now is really not the time.
Starmer was extolling the use of the private sector in helping to reduce the waiting lists and in using technology better
The amazing change in politics is that a Labour PM and Health Secretary could actually get away with this when conservative ones would be shouted down as 'privatisation'
Notwithstanding, it is sensible and should do Labour no harm with the centre ground
We need a Labour government to do serious reform of the NHS just as we probably need the Tories to take us back into the EU. But they need to do things sensibly. Streeting has obviously been thinking about the issues but that’s no guarantee of good policy. Gove spent rather a lot of time thinking about the issues in education before 2010, and I’m not sure the country is the better for it.
The first thing Streeting should do is focus on the NHS’s absolutely pisspoor, medieval admin and antiquated systems. The Call Your GP At Exactly 8am bollocks, the provincial Car Parks That Accept Only Pound Coins, the Only The Exact Prescription of Generic Pills insanity.
The whole front of house needs immediate reform. It’s a pile of utter garbage.
My local hairdresser has a better appointment booking system than the GP. Get them on treatwell. And hospital appointments confirmed by text not letter.
Also, annual “compulsory” (strongly advised) health checkup for all over 50s. Could save a fortune in later costs.
I would imagine (really - no clue) that a broad blood-test at 40 could also work wonders. A lot of people start thinking 'oh, I'm getting older" at that point so even a bit of 'yeah, cut down on the pizza' could be quite helpful.
I guess as with most things NHS 'prevention' related it's a capacity problem. Possibly one of the area (at fear of summoning Leon) that AI/ML stuff might help with if it passes all the regulatory/professional hurdles. Which I imagine might take a decade or two - probably only a few hundred thousand extra deaths though. So... that's ok.
It's very variable. I have a minor (I hope) skin issue on my forehead and reported it to my Godalming GP. She immediately took a photo and asked me to text another photo in 2 weeks. When I did (after a text from her that morning reminding me to do so), she said it was a bit worse, so she was referring me to dermatology at the local hospital. Within an hour, they in turn text offering an appointment in 10 days. Frankly, no complaints at all.
Yeah - 'variable' is how I'd describe it. I live in a fairly poor area and it takes me ~3weeks on average to talk to my GP after spending 5-10hrs on the phone lottery if my manager will allow it. Colleague I work with who lives in an affluent area can be seen by their GP the same day.
Have you tried walking in, if your work schedule allows it? I can get a non-urgent appointment within two weeks at the desk. Much less stressful than phoning.
You're not allowed in the building if you don't have an appointment.
The Washington Post reports that a "host of complications has arisen" regarding the idea that the US military will build a floating pier off the Gazan coast in order to bring food and other humanitarian assistance to the Palestinians.
Apparently "evolving conditions amid the war have cast new uncertainty over how the effort will play out."
If they don't do it by soon after Netanyahu's "date", will there be many Palestinians left to deport, let alone assist?
The WHO reckon hundreds of thousands in Gaza may be starving by next month.
The Washington Post hints but does not say outright that Iran may strike militarily at a US humanitarian effort to aid the Palestinians. Why on fucking earth Iran would want to do anything like that is unclear.
The policy Trump was being asked to endorse, banning abortion after 15 weeks, is hardly outrageous. We ban it after 20 weeks. All depends on the exceptions allowed.
But his pushing it onto the states is smart politics. Not great if you’re a 15 year old girl in nowhereville who can’t afford the bus to a neighbouring state though.
Evangelicals don't want it pushed onto the states, they want a nationwide abortion ban. Evangelicals were 28% of US voters in 2020 ie over half of Trump's 47% likely came from evangelicals
Donald Trump has said decisions about abortion rights should be left to the states, releasing a statement on the contentious election issue on Monday.
Many in his Republican Party had wanted him to back a nationwide ban on abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy.
But Mr Trump said policies should be set by individual states - as they have been since the Supreme Court overturned the Roe v Wade decision in 2022.
Evangelicals won't be too happy, they want a nationwide abortion ban if the GOP win in November the Presidency and Congress. Trump needs a big evangelical turnout for him in November to win back the White House and can't afford for some of them to stay home.
'Conservative reaction to Mr Trump's message has been largely negative, with his former Vice-President Mike Pence calling it "a slap in the face to the millions of pro-life Americans who voted for him..Kristan Hawkins, the head of the Students for Life of America, reaffirmed her support for the former president but added there was "some work to do to educate President Trump" on the issue.'
Why is this being reported as snythkbg more than self serving bullshit yo help his electoral prospect ?
How much belief would you put in a Trump political pledge ?
It is of little predictive value for what he might do in office.
In what circumstances could you see him doing anything different in office? He's clearly not personally committed to anti-abortion activism and pushing it down to the states is a coherent, defensible policy.
Donald Trump has said decisions about abortion rights should be left to the states, releasing a statement on the contentious election issue on Monday.
Many in his Republican Party had wanted him to back a nationwide ban on abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy.
But Mr Trump said policies should be set by individual states - as they have been since the Supreme Court overturned the Roe v Wade decision in 2022.
Evangelicals won't be too happy, they want a nationwide abortion ban if the GOP win in November the Presidency and Congress. Trump needs a big evangelical turnout for him in November to win back the White House and can't afford for some of them to stay home.
'Conservative reaction to Mr Trump's message has been largely negative, with his former Vice-President Mike Pence calling it "a slap in the face to the millions of pro-life Americans who voted for him..Kristan Hawkins, the head of the Students for Life of America, reaffirmed her support for the former president but added there was "some work to do to educate President Trump" on the issue.'
Why is this being reported as snythkbg more than self serving bullshit yo help his electoral prospect ?
How much belief would you put in a Trump political pledge ?
It is of little predictive value for what he might do in office.
In what circumstances could you see him doing anything different in office? He's clearly not personally committed to anti-abortion activism and pushing it down to the states is a coherent, defensible policy.
The policy Trump was being asked to endorse, banning abortion after 15 weeks, is hardly outrageous. We ban it after 20 weeks. All depends on the exceptions allowed.
But his pushing it onto the states is smart politics. Not great if you’re a 15 year old girl in nowhereville who can’t afford the bus to a neighbouring state though.
Evangelicals don't want it pushed onto the states, they want a nationwide abortion ban. Evangelicals were 28% of US voters in 2020 ie over half of Trump's 47% likely came from evangelicals
Yeah, but they’ll vote for him anyway.
Not necessarily, some may stay home if they don't think Trump is pro life enough.
For instance evangelicals staying home in 2000 nearly cost Bush the election and in 2008 certainly helped cost McCain the election but high evangelical turnout in 2004 and 2016 helped win it for Bush and Trump
You’d think Labour would have learnt not to announce policies that the Tories could steal . Why are they announcing all these revenue raising measures now ?
Donald Trump has said decisions about abortion rights should be left to the states, releasing a statement on the contentious election issue on Monday.
Many in his Republican Party had wanted him to back a nationwide ban on abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy.
But Mr Trump said policies should be set by individual states - as they have been since the Supreme Court overturned the Roe v Wade decision in 2022.
Evangelicals won't be too happy, they want a nationwide abortion ban if the GOP win in November the Presidency and Congress. Trump needs a big evangelical turnout for him in November to win back the White House and can't afford for some of them to stay home.
'Conservative reaction to Mr Trump's message has been largely negative, with his former Vice-President Mike Pence calling it "a slap in the face to the millions of pro-life Americans who voted for him..Kristan Hawkins, the head of the Students for Life of America, reaffirmed her support for the former president but added there was "some work to do to educate President Trump" on the issue.'
Why is this being reported as snythkbg more than self serving bullshit yo help his electoral prospect ?
How much belief would you put in a Trump political pledge ?
It is of little predictive value for what he might do in office.
In what circumstances could you see him doing anything different in office? He's clearly not personally committed to anti-abortion activism and pushing it down to the states is a coherent, defensible policy.
You’d think Labour would have learnt not to announce policies that the Tories could steal . Why are they announcing all these revenue raising measures now ?
An army of thousands of HMRC tax inspectors to chase unpaid tax and close loopholes seems a rather ironic announcement at this moment in time
Donald Trump has said decisions about abortion rights should be left to the states, releasing a statement on the contentious election issue on Monday.
Many in his Republican Party had wanted him to back a nationwide ban on abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy.
But Mr Trump said policies should be set by individual states - as they have been since the Supreme Court overturned the Roe v Wade decision in 2022.
Evangelicals won't be too happy, they want a nationwide abortion ban if the GOP win in November the Presidency and Congress. Trump needs a big evangelical turnout for him in November to win back the White House and can't afford for some of them to stay home.
'Conservative reaction to Mr Trump's message has been largely negative, with his former Vice-President Mike Pence calling it "a slap in the face to the millions of pro-life Americans who voted for him..Kristan Hawkins, the head of the Students for Life of America, reaffirmed her support for the former president but added there was "some work to do to educate President Trump" on the issue.'
Why is this being reported as snythkbg more than self serving bullshit yo help his electoral prospect ?
How much belief would you put in a Trump political pledge ?
It is of little predictive value for what he might do in office.
In what circumstances could you see him doing anything different in office? He's clearly not personally committed to anti-abortion activism and pushing it down to the states is a coherent, defensible policy.
Plus republicans love States Rights.
Libertarians do, evangelicals want US wide Gilead
You can even turn the original States Rights argument round. People at the time did.
Anti-slavery people argued that Dredd Scott was the slave states using Federal power to impose slavery everywhere*, against the rights of states that had chosen to be Free Soil.
*Since Dredd Scott said that a slave stayed a slave in a Free Soil state and the Federal Slave Catching laws mandated actively catching runaways, many saw this as effectively imposing slavery in all the states.
Donald Trump has said decisions about abortion rights should be left to the states, releasing a statement on the contentious election issue on Monday.
Many in his Republican Party had wanted him to back a nationwide ban on abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy.
But Mr Trump said policies should be set by individual states - as they have been since the Supreme Court overturned the Roe v Wade decision in 2022.
Evangelicals won't be too happy, they want a nationwide abortion ban if the GOP win in November the Presidency and Congress.
'Conservative reaction to Mr Trump's message has been largely negative, with his former Vice-President Mike Pence calling it "a slap in the face to the millions of pro-life Americans who voted for him..Kristan Hawkins, the head of the Students for Life of America, reaffirmed her support for the former president but added there was "some work to do to educate President Trump" on the issue.'
Trump is clearly a moderating influence on the right of American politics. It takes a lot of political skill to neutralise an issue as contentious as this.
Do you think he has? I have my doubts. If he loses the Evangelicals, that's quite a loss.
He's not going to load them; he knows they have nowhere else to go.
It certainly won't do anything to 'moderate the right'. Might make a marginal difference to turnout.
You’d think Labour would have learnt not to announce policies that the Tories could steal . Why are they announcing all these revenue raising measures now ?
An army of thousands of HMRC tax inspectors to chase unpaid tax and close loopholes seems a rather ironic announcement at this moment in time
Donald Trump has said decisions about abortion rights should be left to the states, releasing a statement on the contentious election issue on Monday.
Many in his Republican Party had wanted him to back a nationwide ban on abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy.
But Mr Trump said policies should be set by individual states - as they have been since the Supreme Court overturned the Roe v Wade decision in 2022.
Evangelicals won't be too happy, they want a nationwide abortion ban if the GOP win in November the Presidency and Congress. Trump needs a big evangelical turnout for him in November to win back the White House and can't afford for some of them to stay home.
'Conservative reaction to Mr Trump's message has been largely negative, with his former Vice-President Mike Pence calling it "a slap in the face to the millions of pro-life Americans who voted for him..Kristan Hawkins, the head of the Students for Life of America, reaffirmed her support for the former president but added there was "some work to do to educate President Trump" on the issue.'
Why is this being reported as snythkbg more than self serving bullshit yo help his electoral prospect ?
How much belief would you put in a Trump political pledge ?
It is of little predictive value for what he might do in office.
In what circumstances could you see him doing anything different in office? He's clearly not personally committed to anti-abortion activism and pushing it down to the states is a coherent, defensible policy.
Donald Trump has said decisions about abortion rights should be left to the states, releasing a statement on the contentious election issue on Monday.
Many in his Republican Party had wanted him to back a nationwide ban on abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy.
But Mr Trump said policies should be set by individual states - as they have been since the Supreme Court overturned the Roe v Wade decision in 2022.
Evangelicals won't be too happy, they want a nationwide abortion ban if the GOP win in November the Presidency and Congress. Trump needs a big evangelical turnout for him in November to win back the White House and can't afford for some of them to stay home.
'Conservative reaction to Mr Trump's message has been largely negative, with his former Vice-President Mike Pence calling it "a slap in the face to the millions of pro-life Americans who voted for him..Kristan Hawkins, the head of the Students for Life of America, reaffirmed her support for the former president but added there was "some work to do to educate President Trump" on the issue.'
Why is this being reported as snythkbg more than self serving bullshit yo help his electoral prospect ?
How much belief would you put in a Trump political pledge ?
It is of little predictive value for what he might do in office.
In what circumstances could you see him doing anything different in office? He's clearly not personally committed to anti-abortion activism and pushing it down to the states is a coherent, defensible policy.
Plus republicans love States Rights.
Not if they're Democratic governed states.
In the long term, having it decided at the state level would be much healthier for US politics.
The policy Trump was being asked to endorse, banning abortion after 15 weeks, is hardly outrageous. We ban it after 20 weeks. All depends on the exceptions allowed.
But his pushing it onto the states is smart politics. Not great if you’re a 15 year old girl in nowhereville who can’t afford the bus to a neighbouring state though.
Evangelicals don't want it pushed onto the states, they want a nationwide abortion ban. Evangelicals were 28% of US voters in 2020 ie up to or even over half of Trump's 47% likely came from evangelicals
And it’s 24 weeks, not 20, in the U.K.
Oh, and they are actively pursuing and trying to prosecute the 15 year olds trying to “get a bus” to pro abortion states.
You’d think Labour would have learnt not to announce policies that the Tories could steal . Why are they announcing all these revenue raising measures now ?
An army of thousands of HMRC tax inspectors to chase unpaid tax and close loopholes seems a rather ironic announcement at this moment in time
Yes a strange time to announce this . I see the DM has given up on Raynergate for the timebeing. Whether we’ll hear anything from the police before the local elections is hard to say . I note the last time we had Currygate they waited till a day after those before saying they were going to investigate Starmer .
You’d think Labour would have learnt not to announce policies that the Tories could steal . Why are they announcing all these revenue raising measures now ?
An army of thousands of HMRC tax inspectors to chase unpaid tax and close loopholes seems a rather ironic announcement at this moment in time
Donald Trump has said decisions about abortion rights should be left to the states, releasing a statement on the contentious election issue on Monday.
Many in his Republican Party had wanted him to back a nationwide ban on abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy.
But Mr Trump said policies should be set by individual states - as they have been since the Supreme Court overturned the Roe v Wade decision in 2022.
Evangelicals won't be too happy, they want a nationwide abortion ban if the GOP win in November the Presidency and Congress. Trump needs a big evangelical turnout for him in November to win back the White House and can't afford for some of them to stay home.
'Conservative reaction to Mr Trump's message has been largely negative, with his former Vice-President Mike Pence calling it "a slap in the face to the millions of pro-life Americans who voted for him..Kristan Hawkins, the head of the Students for Life of America, reaffirmed her support for the former president but added there was "some work to do to educate President Trump" on the issue.'
Why is this being reported as snythkbg more than self serving bullshit yo help his electoral prospect ?
How much belief would you put in a Trump political pledge ?
It is of little predictive value for what he might do in office.
In what circumstances could you see him doing anything different in office? He's clearly not personally committed to anti-abortion activism and pushing it down to the states is a coherent, defensible policy.
Congress sending him a bill to sign. If he needs their vote on something else, he won't care at all if he needs to do that.
If Trump wins, a GOP majority in both Houses is not so unlikely.
You’d think Labour would have learnt not to announce policies that the Tories could steal . Why are they announcing all these revenue raising measures now ?
An army of thousands of HMRC tax inspectors to chase unpaid tax and close loopholes seems a rather ironic announcement at this moment in time
Yes a strange time to announce this . I see the DM has given up on Raynergate for the timebeing. Whether we’ll hear anything from the police before the local elections is hard to say . I note the last time we had Currygate they waited till a day after those before saying they were going to investigate Starmer .
BBC Radio 4 News has been smashing Raynergate out of the park today. I suspect it has been designed to smokescreen the Billy Wragg national security risk story today.
Well, Trump appears to be half way back to his long-time position on abortion.
Excluding politicians, the most important pro-abortion advocates back then were two magazines, Ms. and Playboy. The second was likely more important than the first, Trump was a follower of Hugh Hefner and no doubt still holds the views he did back then -- but no longer is willing to say them out loud.
(My own opinions? Politically, I think Bill Clinton's "safe, legal, and rare" is likely to be the most successful position, even now.
Personally, I don't see how it is possible to eliminate abortion entirely, without going to ChiCom levels of control of the population.
But those who favor it past viability -- for example, Barack Obama -- creep me out.
And I think those who favor it for the Hugh Hefner reason should admit that.)
Poor old Rachel Reeves - she not only has to fix the country, but the whole ill reputation of the left for economic incompetence visits her shoulders too.
Obviously there's a path that she can follow which will deliver something of this, but the world and his wife will make that path obscure for her.
The BBC (or others) would do well to see if they can embed a lip-locked journalist with her on her journey.
The rest of us should work out how to fix the bloody place without Ms Reeves!
She has a job and a half to do , no doubt about it. And Starmer’s government will fall or rise on how she does.
Ultimately, I am a patriot above all. For that reason I hope she surprises and exhilarates me. We have a lot of hard work to do as a nation and we need policies that push us the right way instead of having us to swim against the tide. Surprise me. Please.
Patriot - me too. I think most of us. The trick is to get all those people who don't work working and all those people that do work producing. No idea how she (or anyone else) does that.
20% not working is too much. Productivity is too low. We need to find ways of the majority doing better; earning more; having a better life, etc etc.
As a start, start getting rid of cliff edges in the benefits system. Which make people *afraid* of work.
To go from inactive to active, you are probably going to start out with a low paid, part time job. At the moment we have benefit withdrawals making working extra hours pointless - and the risk of being fined if something is done slightly wrong.
If someone goes from 16 to 40 hours of work, we should be giving them a boost. Not an 80% tax rate.
This.
This.
This.
100x This.
It ain't rocket science, or complicated. We wouldn't tax the rich at 80% so Jesus H Christ why do we tax the poor at 80%?
Fix that, the rest will follow.
Its the Laffer Curve, but its the Laffer Curve applied to the poorest not the richest whom we tax too much.
Remember you need 60 votes in the Senate to pass a Bill through Congress - so there's no chance of a Bill banning abortion nationwide getting through Congress and reaching Trump's desk.
OK, you might say the Senate could ditch the 60 vote requirement but Republican Senators including McConnell have said they won't do that and I think it's reasonable to assume that won't happen.
rcs1000 - What McArdle said is that "increasing the minimum wage increased homelessness". Ordinarily causes come before effects.
(Though it is, of course, possible that causality can run both ways.)
Oh, I suspect there are multiple arrows of causality here.
So - for example - it's perfectly possible that panhandling is more lucrative in places with higher minimum wages, and therefore attract more homeless people.
To really understand it, one needs to see if housing occupancy rates drop after the implementation of a minimum wage. (I generally oppose minimum wages, because they price lower skilled people out the labour market. But I'm also sceptical that that will be the only factor at work.)
I don't understand this argument. If a job requires little or no skill to do it but still needs to be done then whether it pays minimum wage or not you still need to hire someone to do it.
Minimum wages have become necessary because employers are using the fact of the existence of taxpayers support for workers as an excuse to pay below living wage. They are asking the taxpayer to subsidise their wage bill and therefore their business.
So if you don't want businesses leaching the taxpayer the answer is really one of two options. Either stop paying social support to the employed and see people suffer as a result, or have a minimum wage which forces employers to pay a reasonable amount for the work they want done.
I know which one I support.
I think you are taking a bit of an absolutist approach here.
There are plenty of people who - for one reason or another - have relatively low economic output. If Joe can only produce $10 of widgets an hour, and hiring Joe costs me $16, I'm not going to hire him. On the other hand, if I can pay Joe $8 an hour, then we both win.
Now, you can say that I'm exploiting Joe, but Joe's skills (and wage he can command) are more likely to grow if he's in work, and he's learning.
If he's not working, he's costing the state money in income support / JSA. He's also massively more likely to have mental health issues. And every day he's unemployed makes it less likely someone will employ him.
My preferred scenario is to have universal income, no minimum wage and a straight 25% for (say) the first $30,000 on top of the universal income. In that way, you avoid cliff edges, and ridiculously high marginal rates on the low paid, etc.
Agreed completely.
Not only that, but its also the fact that no taxpayer support for workers exists.
A childless person working full time even on minimum wage is not eligible for any in-work income support whatsoever. Minimum wage already exceeds UC.
Where UC kicks in, and thus benefit withdrawal kicks in, is due to the child element or for part timers. In particular, the cliff-edge is at 16 hours and not 40 hours.
Earned income at minimum wage is never going to cover all of someone's bills for them and their children at 16 hours per week. To consider benefits to either children or part-timers, or part-time parents especially, as benefits for employers is absurd.
The simple fix is to not tax those who are coming off benefits at 80%. Tax the poorest at no higher a rate than we would tax the richest, it shouldn't be a difficult argument.
rcs1000 - What McArdle said is that "increasing the minimum wage increased homelessness". Ordinarily causes come before effects.
(Though it is, of course, possible that causality can run both ways.)
Oh, I suspect there are multiple arrows of causality here.
So - for example - it's perfectly possible that panhandling is more lucrative in places with higher minimum wages, and therefore attract more homeless people.
To really understand it, one needs to see if housing occupancy rates drop after the implementation of a minimum wage. (I generally oppose minimum wages, because they price lower skilled people out the labour market. But I'm also sceptical that that will be the only factor at work.)
I don't understand this argument. If a job requires little or no skill to do it but still needs to be done then whether it pays minimum wage or not you still need to hire someone to do it.
Minimum wages have become necessary because employers are using the fact of the existence of taxpayers support for workers as an excuse to pay below living wage. They are asking the taxpayer to subsidise their wage bill and therefore their business.
So if you don't want businesses leaching the taxpayer the answer is really one of two options. Either stop paying social support to the employed and see people suffer as a result, or have a minimum wage which forces employers to pay a reasonable amount for the work they want done.
I know which one I support.
I think you are taking a bit of an absolutist approach here.
There are plenty of people who - for one reason or another - have relatively low economic output. If Joe can only produce $10 of widgets an hour, and hiring Joe costs me $16, I'm not going to hire him. On the other hand, if I can pay Joe $8 an hour, then we both win.
Now, you can say that I'm exploiting Joe, but Joe's skills (and wage he can command) are more likely to grow if he's in work, and he's learning.
If he's not working, he's costing the state money in income support / JSA. He's also massively more likely to have mental health issues. And every day he's unemployed makes it less likely someone will employ him.
My preferred scenario is to have universal income, no minimum wage and a straight 25% for (say) the first $30,000 on top of the universal income. In that way, you avoid cliff edges, and ridiculously high marginal rates on the low paid, etc.
In which case you don't produce the widgets. That is your choice. If your company cannot survive without paying below minimum wage then your company does not deserve to survive.
Of course your example is also false as that sort of job is entirely mechanised these days and does not use real people. Most of those who are on minimum wage are those in the service industries where the real question is how much of their profit the big companies are willing to spend on wages and how much they can get away with getting the taxpayer to subsidise.
rcs1000 - What McArdle said is that "increasing the minimum wage increased homelessness". Ordinarily causes come before effects.
(Though it is, of course, possible that causality can run both ways.)
Oh, I suspect there are multiple arrows of causality here.
So - for example - it's perfectly possible that panhandling is more lucrative in places with higher minimum wages, and therefore attract more homeless people.
To really understand it, one needs to see if housing occupancy rates drop after the implementation of a minimum wage. (I generally oppose minimum wages, because they price lower skilled people out the labour market. But I'm also sceptical that that will be the only factor at work.)
I don't understand this argument. If a job requires little or no skill to do it but still needs to be done then whether it pays minimum wage or not you still need to hire someone to do it.
Minimum wages have become necessary because employers are using the fact of the existence of taxpayers support for workers as an excuse to pay below living wage. They are asking the taxpayer to subsidise their wage bill and therefore their business.
So if you don't want businesses leaching the taxpayer the answer is really one of two options. Either stop paying social support to the employed and see people suffer as a result, or have a minimum wage which forces employers to pay a reasonable amount for the work they want done.
I know which one I support.
I think you are taking a bit of an absolutist approach here.
There are plenty of people who - for one reason or another - have relatively low economic output. If Joe can only produce $10 of widgets an hour, and hiring Joe costs me $16, I'm not going to hire him. On the other hand, if I can pay Joe $8 an hour, then we both win.
Now, you can say that I'm exploiting Joe, but Joe's skills (and wage he can command) are more likely to grow if he's in work, and he's learning.
If he's not working, he's costing the state money in income support / JSA. He's also massively more likely to have mental health issues. And every day he's unemployed makes it less likely someone will employ him.
My preferred scenario is to have universal income, no minimum wage and a straight 25% for (say) the first $30,000 on top of the universal income. In that way, you avoid cliff edges, and ridiculously high marginal rates on the low paid, etc.
In which case you don't produce the widgets. That is your choice. If your company cannot survive without paying below minimum wage then your company does not deserve to survive.
Of course your example is also false as that sort of job is entirely mechanised these days and does not use real people. Most of those who are on minimum wage are those in the service industries where the real question is how much of their profit the big companies are willing to spend on wages and how much they can get away with getting the taxpayer to subsidise.
But that's not the case, at all.
Many service employees are young, childless, people who are working their first jobs etc and their not remotely entitled to any benefits if working full time.
The only way someone can get benefits is if they're working 16 hours a week, with children. Or something similar.
No minimum wage employer ever can or ever could pay a living wage to cover children too, at a meagre 16 hours per week.
Transitioning from full time to off benefits isn't the problem. The problem is transitioning from on benefits to off it, with children, while working part time hours.
Minimum wage is neither here nor there for that. The real tax rate absolutely is.
rcs1000 - What McArdle said is that "increasing the minimum wage increased homelessness". Ordinarily causes come before effects.
(Though it is, of course, possible that causality can run both ways.)
Oh, I suspect there are multiple arrows of causality here.
So - for example - it's perfectly possible that panhandling is more lucrative in places with higher minimum wages, and therefore attract more homeless people.
To really understand it, one needs to see if housing occupancy rates drop after the implementation of a minimum wage. (I generally oppose minimum wages, because they price lower skilled people out the labour market. But I'm also sceptical that that will be the only factor at work.)
I don't understand this argument. If a job requires little or no skill to do it but still needs to be done then whether it pays minimum wage or not you still need to hire someone to do it.
Minimum wages have become necessary because employers are using the fact of the existence of taxpayers support for workers as an excuse to pay below living wage. They are asking the taxpayer to subsidise their wage bill and therefore their business.
So if you don't want businesses leaching the taxpayer the answer is really one of two options. Either stop paying social support to the employed and see people suffer as a result, or have a minimum wage which forces employers to pay a reasonable amount for the work they want done.
I know which one I support.
I think you are taking a bit of an absolutist approach here.
There are plenty of people who - for one reason or another - have relatively low economic output. If Joe can only produce $10 of widgets an hour, and hiring Joe costs me $16, I'm not going to hire him. On the other hand, if I can pay Joe $8 an hour, then we both win.
Now, you can say that I'm exploiting Joe, but Joe's skills (and wage he can command) are more likely to grow if he's in work, and he's learning.
If he's not working, he's costing the state money in income support / JSA. He's also massively more likely to have mental health issues. And every day he's unemployed makes it less likely someone will employ him.
My preferred scenario is to have universal income, no minimum wage and a straight 25% for (say) the first $30,000 on top of the universal income. In that way, you avoid cliff edges, and ridiculously high marginal rates on the low paid, etc.
In which case you don't produce the widgets. That is your choice. If your company cannot survive without paying below minimum wage then your company does not deserve to survive.
Of course your example is also false as that sort of job is entirely mechanised these days and does not use real people. Most of those who are on minimum wage are those in the service industries where the real question is how much of their profit the big companies are willing to spend on wages and how much they can get away with getting the taxpayer to subsidise.
Many service employees are young, childless, people who are working their first jobs etc and their not remotely entitled to any benefits if working full time.
Not true.
WTC is payable to those on low pay without children if they work at least 30 hours a week.
EXC: @wesstreeting throws down the gauntlet saying time for private sector help to reduce waiting lists - and no more cash for heath service without “major surgery” of reform.
In punchy @thesun piece tomorrow he warns: “Middle-class lefties cry ‘betrayal’. The real betrayal is the two-tier system that sees people like them treated faster.”
Private companies do a lot of waiting list work already, and have done for decades. They cherry pick the straightforward cases and leave the complex and expensive work to the rNHS, I really don't see what is new or "Reforming" about this.
There isn't much evidence that it has resolved the fundamental problem of capacity, not least because the personnel in the private sector were nearly all trained in the NHS
Wes Streeting combines bombastic language with a failure to understand the issues to the point that I won't support Labour.
It's not that I an against the private sector, indeed I advocated how to make it work in my first PB header.
Yes, Streeting is worrying me. He doesn't realise that the NHS or social care is going to have to expand for the next 15 years. Talking hard to the NHS may play well in Tufton Street now, or ten years ago, but now is really not the time.
Starmer was extolling the use of the private sector in helping to reduce the waiting lists and in using technology better
The amazing change in politics is that a Labour PM and Health Secretary could actually get away with this when conservative ones would be shouted down as 'privatisation'
Notwithstanding, it is sensible and should do Labour no harm with the centre ground
We need a Labour government to do serious reform of the NHS just as we probably need the Tories to take us back into the EU. But they need to do things sensibly. Streeting has obviously been thinking about the issues but that’s no guarantee of good policy. Gove spent rather a lot of time thinking about the issues in education before 2010, and I’m not sure the country is the better for it.
The first thing Streeting should do is focus on the NHS’s absolutely pisspoor, medieval admin and antiquated systems. The Call Your GP At Exactly 8am bollocks, the provincial Car Parks That Accept Only Pound Coins, the Only The Exact Prescription of Generic Pills insanity.
The whole front of house needs immediate reform. It’s a pile of utter garbage.
My local hairdresser has a better appointment booking system than the GP. Get them on treatwell. And hospital appointments confirmed by text not letter.
Also, annual “compulsory” (strongly advised) health checkup for all over 50s. Could save a fortune in later costs.
That’s a great example. Treatwell. It takes seconds to book an appointment and is done at the fraction of the cost than the NHS, which involves calling a very stressed out lady at the crack of dawn. Which idiot thought this was a good idea? The embrace of even basic technology should be at the forefront of sweeping changes to the admin of the service.
I remember getting an Important Appointment Letter from the NHS a few
years ago. Boldly emblazoned with the name of the unit I had to attend. No address. No contact number. No postcode. No email address (obviously). Just had to google it and hope I picked the right option from the dozens of units with the same name.
Things like this baffle me.
My son broke a bone recently. I was given a mobile number to call after ten days to get the x-Ray analysis. No matter when I tried the number, it was unobtainable. There was simply no way of reaching the x-Ray team.
Days later, exasperated, I texted the number, just to see what would happen. A nurse rang me straight back seconds later, on that same number, to give me the results.
The NHS app is brilliant for this, I received same day results from a chest X-ray, and my recent blood tests came through after a weekend at Easter. No need to call anyone - I thoroughly recommend it.
Results only show on this when filed by the Practice, so if you see it then they have.
You may know the answer to this question, but as most are aware I have had some serious health issues since October with many hospital visits and each time the doctor or consultant asks if it is OK to check my surgery's medication for me
I would have thought they could do this without needing my approval, indeed I would have thought this information was essential for their treatments
It's good practice to check with the patient, as what they are taking doesn't always match GP records.
Not all practices allow hospital access to their prescription records too.
So why isn’t there one (sensible) policy that is applied consistently? This stuff baffles me. If GP practices don’t share their patients records with hospitals, they should, unless the patient has asked them not to.
NHS admin is seven shades of shit.
It's because GP practices are run independently, and some feel strongly about data protection.
The flipside of individuality is lack of integration.
In most countries doctors communicate even less as they work even more autonomously.
Does anyone demand or even vaguely want “individuality” in a surgery? I’d venture not, they just want sensible, consistent processes and a well-run local GP’s surgery.
The defence of such nonsense is irritating. The ludicrous conventions and muddled processes are just a frustrating waste of time for millions of people trying to use a service that is self-defeated by crackpot, antiquated, inconsistent administration.
That was what I meant by the nhs buying out GPs (not you personally obviously!)
They should be employees and to the patient they are. But legally they are not.
It’s a bit like an Uber driver not working for Uber…
The easiest resolution is to buy out the GP businesses and convert everyone to employees. But I suspect many GPs won’t like that
The Washington Post reports that a "host of complications has arisen" regarding the idea that the US military will build a floating pier off the Gazan coast in order to bring food and other humanitarian assistance to the Palestinians.
Apparently "evolving conditions amid the war have cast new uncertainty over how the effort will play out."
If they don't do it by soon after Netanyahu's "date", will there be many Palestinians left to deport, let alone assist?
The WHO reckon hundreds of thousands in Gaza may be starving by next month.
The Washington Post hints but does not say outright that Iran may strike militarily at a US humanitarian effort to aid the Palestinians. Why on fucking earth Iran would want to do anything like that is unclear.
They would spin it as preventing the US military building a base in the Levant
Comments
The defence of such nonsense is irritating. The ludicrous conventions and muddled processes are just a frustrating waste of time for millions of people trying to use a service that is self-defeated by crackpot, antiquated, inconsistent administration.
Pity they've got Trump then.
Pro choice voters for whom abortion is a big issue will almost all be voting for Biden and the Democrats anyway
But, as the years went on, I got bigger and better, and made more money. I think I learned much from that experience.
This "child labor" -- though most of us were teen agers -- was important enough so that our little schools in the valley had harvest vacations in the fall, so we could help pick the apples.
Incidentally, we did employ a few migrant workers from the South during the summer. I got the impression that they came partly as a vacation, and used the picking to pay for the trip. (Air conditioning was not as common in the South, as it is now.)
But his pushing it onto the states is smart politics. Not great if you’re a 15 year old girl in nowhereville who can’t afford the bus to a neighbouring state though.
I’m sure Labour** did the same thing…
https://twitter.com/garvanwalshe/status/1777327712413073675
Yglesias talks about this a lot but this is somewhere where right-wing activism is much more effective than left-wing activism. The evangelicals understand that a Republican president will appoint judges who do what they want. They don't try to force him to take unpopular public positions that will stop him winning. When right-wing activists want something unpopular like tax cuts for rich people or abortion restrictions, they let their candidates downplay it in the campaign, then get elected and just do the unpopular thing.
The Republican base have different bad habits, in particular that they keep nominating bad *candidates* who lose otherwise winnable races, but when they have candidates who are playing to win they mostly let them get on with it.
How much belief would you put in a Trump political pledge ?
It is of little predictive value for what he might do in office.
It's been an unquestioned success of a Labour government. So much so that the Tories keep raising it and praising it.
Much of the goodwill from October 7 is gone .
Much less stressful than phoning.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/04/06/floating-pier-gaza-israel/
Apparently "evolving conditions amid the war have cast new uncertainty over how the effort will play out."
If they don't do it by soon after Netanyahu's "date", will there be many Palestinians left to deport, let alone assist?
The WHO reckon hundreds of thousands in Gaza may be starving by next month.
The Washington Post hints but does not say outright that Iran may strike militarily at a US humanitarian effort to aid the Palestinians. Why on fucking earth Iran would want to do anything like that is unclear.
For instance evangelicals staying home in 2000 nearly cost Bush the election and in 2008 certainly helped cost McCain the election but high evangelical turnout in 2004 and 2016 helped win it for Bush and Trump
Anti-slavery people argued that Dredd Scott was the slave states using Federal power to impose slavery everywhere*, against the rights of states that had chosen to be Free Soil.
*Since Dredd Scott said that a slave stayed a slave in a Free Soil state and the Federal Slave Catching laws mandated actively catching runaways, many saw this as effectively imposing slavery in all the states.
It certainly won't do anything to 'moderate the right'. Might make a marginal difference to turnout.
Oh, and they are actively pursuing and trying to prosecute the 15 year olds trying to “get a bus” to pro abortion states.
If Trump wins, a GOP majority in both Houses is not so unlikely.
https://twitter.com/cwebbonline/status/1777021184737194221
Excluding politicians, the most important pro-abortion advocates back then were two magazines, Ms. and Playboy. The second was likely more important than the first, Trump was a follower of Hugh Hefner and no doubt still holds the views he did back then -- but no longer is willing to say them out loud.
(My own opinions? Politically, I think Bill Clinton's "safe, legal, and rare" is likely to be the most successful position, even now.
Personally, I don't see how it is possible to eliminate abortion entirely, without going to ChiCom levels of control of the population.
But those who favor it past viability -- for example, Barack Obama -- creep me out.
And I think those who favor it for the Hugh Hefner reason should admit that.)
This.
This.
100x This.
It ain't rocket science, or complicated. We wouldn't tax the rich at 80% so Jesus H Christ why do we tax the poor at 80%?
Fix that, the rest will follow.
Its the Laffer Curve, but its the Laffer Curve applied to the poorest not the richest whom we tax too much.
OK, you might say the Senate could ditch the 60 vote requirement but Republican Senators including McConnell have said they won't do that and I think it's reasonable to assume that won't happen.
Not only that, but its also the fact that no taxpayer support for workers exists.
A childless person working full time even on minimum wage is not eligible for any in-work income support whatsoever. Minimum wage already exceeds UC.
Where UC kicks in, and thus benefit withdrawal kicks in, is due to the child element or for part timers. In particular, the cliff-edge is at 16 hours and not 40 hours.
Earned income at minimum wage is never going to cover all of someone's bills for them and their children at 16 hours per week. To consider benefits to either children or part-timers, or part-time parents especially, as benefits for employers is absurd.
The simple fix is to not tax those who are coming off benefits at 80%. Tax the poorest at no higher a rate than we would tax the richest, it shouldn't be a difficult argument.
Of course your example is also false as that sort of job is entirely mechanised these days and does not use real people. Most of those who are on minimum wage are those in the service industries where the real question is how much of their profit the big companies are willing to spend on wages and how much they can get away with getting the taxpayer to subsidise.
Many service employees are young, childless, people who are working their first jobs etc and their not remotely entitled to any benefits if working full time.
The only way someone can get benefits is if they're working 16 hours a week, with children. Or something similar.
No minimum wage employer ever can or ever could pay a living wage to cover children too, at a meagre 16 hours per week.
Transitioning from full time to off benefits isn't the problem. The problem is transitioning from on benefits to off it, with children, while working part time hours.
Minimum wage is neither here nor there for that. The real tax rate absolutely is.
WTC is payable to those on low pay without children if they work at least 30 hours a week.
They should be employees and to the patient they are. But legally they are not.
It’s a bit like an Uber driver not working for Uber…
The easiest resolution is to buy out the GP businesses and convert everyone to employees. But I suspect many GPs won’t like that