So, to summarise, the feeling is that Labour are planning to do into the next election on a twin platform of denying voters a referendum on EU membership, and on persisting with the anomaly of Scots getting to decide their own affairs whilst also being able to elect MPs who can interfere in England-only affairs?
Planning to go into the election promising reversal of NHS privitisation and ending the decline of real wages i think.
Please explain how that will work BJ.
Privatizing of the NHS began under Labour, will the policy be to say ' Andy Burnham was wrong and we should follow the example of the NHS in Wales'?
And real wages are finally going up.
On the second point they are not You are wrong had this debate a few weeks ago the ONS figures show still lagging.
On the first clearing massive waiting lists using a few treatment centres is entirely different to the massive privitisation of NHS provision and commissioning. Worse is to come if Cameron doesnt exempt the NHS from proposed competition law.
Will be impossible to restructure patient services for the benefit of patients without getting competition law challenges
Too late to look for the numbers but this will be a major issue at GE2015
Bed for me if you want to pick up tomorrow will look for figures on both issues then.
A few weeks ago is irrelevant, last figures showed wage settlements had overtaken inflation, though i grant you it was the first time for a long time.
As for the NHS, are you saying competition is a bad thing?
I read somewhere that within the NHS there is one nurse for every manager, but within the private sector there is one manager for every five nurses. Obviously the NHS has services that private healthcare does not provide, A&E being the obvious one, but surely a 1:3 ratio would be much more like it? Would genuinely like your views on this with no political point scoring rubbish.
It is simply not true. There are a lot of admin and clerical staff in the NHS doing essential jobs like booking clinics, retrieving notes, typing lettrers etc.
So, to summarise, the feeling is that Labour are planning to do into the next election on a twin platform of denying voters a referendum on EU membership, and on persisting with the anomaly of Scots getting to decide their own affairs whilst also being able to elect MPs who can interfere in England-only affairs?
Planning to go into the election promising reversal of NHS privitisation and ending the decline of real wages i think.
Please explain how that will work BJ.
Privatizing of the NHS began under Labour, will the policy be to say ' Andy Burnham was wrong and we should follow the example of the NHS in Wales'?
And real wages are finally going up.
On the second point they are not You are wrong had this debate a few weeks ago the ONS figures show still lagging.
On the first clearing massive waiting lists using a few treatment centres is entirely different to the massive privitisation of NHS provision and commissioning. Worse is to come if Cameron doesnt exempt the NHS from proposed competition law.
Will be impossible to restructure patient services for the benefit of patients without getting competition law challenges
Too late to look for the numbers but this will be a major issue at GE2015
Bed for me if you want to pick up tomorrow will look for figures on both issues then.
A few weeks ago is irrelevant, last figures showed wage settlements had overtaken inflation, though i grant you it was the first time for a long time.
As for the NHS, are you saying competition is a bad thing?
I read somewhere that within the NHS there is one nurse for every manager, but within the private sector there is one manager for every five nurses. Obviously the NHS has services that private healthcare does not provide, A&E being the obvious one, but surely a 1:3 ratio would be much more like it? Would genuinely like your views on this with no political point scoring rubbish.
It is simply not true. There are a lot of admin and clerical staff in the NHS doing essential jobs like booking clinics, retrieving notes, typing lettrers etc.
As there are in private hospitals, though I accept your point totally. So if my 1:3 assumption is wrong, and perhaps it should be 1:2, that still makes the private sector twice as effecient?
So, to summarise, the feeling is that Labour are planning to do into the next election on a twin platform of denying voters a referendum on EU membership, and on persisting with the anomaly of Scots getting to decide their own affairs whilst also being able to elect MPs who can interfere in England-only affairs?
Planning to go into the election promising reversal of NHS privitisation and ending the decline of real wages i think.
Please explain how that will work BJ.
Privatizing of the NHS began under Labour, will the policy be to say ' Andy Burnham was wrong and we should follow the example of the NHS in Wales'?
And real wages are finally going up.
On the second point they are not You are wrong had this debate a few weeks ago the ONS figures show still lagging.
On the first clearing massive waiting lists using a few treatment centres is entirely different to the massive privitisation of NHS provision and commissioning. Worse is to come if Cameron doesnt exempt the NHS from proposed competition law.
Will be impossible to restructure patient services for the benefit of patients without getting competition law challenges
Too late to look for the numbers but this will be a major issue at GE2015
Bed for me if you want to pick up tomorrow will look for figures on both issues then.
A few weeks ago is irrelevant, last figures showed wage settlements had overtaken inflation, though i grant you it was the first time for a long time.
As for the NHS, are you saying competition is a bad thing?
I read somewhere that within the NHS there is one nurse for every manager, but within the private sector there is one manager for every five nurses. Obviously the NHS has services that private healthcare does not provide, A&E being the obvious one, but surely a 1:3 ratio would be much more like it? Would genuinely like your views on this with no political point scoring rubbish.
It is simply not true. There are a lot of admin and clerical staff in the NHS doing essential jobs like booking clinics, retrieving notes, typing lettrers etc.
As there are in private hospitals, though I accept your point totally. So if my 1:3 assumption is wrong, and perhaps it should be 1:2, that still makes the private sector twice as effecient?
Where do your stats come from? I work in both sectors and numbers of managers, admin and clerical staff about the same, though in private sector my secretary and practice manager are paid for by myself rather than the hospital.
On the first clearing massive waiting lists using a few treatment centres is entirely different to the massive privitisation of NHS provision and commissioning. Worse is to come if Cameron doesnt exempt the NHS from proposed competition law.
Will be impossible to restructure patient services for the benefit of patients without getting competition law challenges
Too late to look for the numbers but this will be a major issue at GE2015
Bed for me if you want to pick up tomorrow will look for figures on both issues then.
A few weeks ago is irrelevant, last figures showed wage settlements had overtaken inflation, though i grant you it was the first time for a long time.
As for the NHS, are you saying competition is a bad thing?
I read somewhere that within the NHS there is one nurse for every manager, but within the private sector there is one manager for every five nurses. Obviously the NHS has services that private healthcare does not provide, A&E being the obvious one, but surely a 1:3 ratio would be much more like it? Would genuinely like your views on this with no political point scoring rubbish.
It is simply not true. There are a lot of admin and clerical staff in the NHS doing essential jobs like booking clinics, retrieving notes, typing lettrers etc.
As there are in private hospitals, though I accept your point totally. So if my 1:3 assumption is wrong, and perhaps it should be 1:2, that still makes the private sector twice as effecient?
Where do your stats come from? I work in both sectors and numbers of managers, admin and clerical staff about the same, though in private sector my secretary and practice manager are paid for by myself rather than the hospital.
My stats come from a Bupa seminar i attended in Solihull.
I have brought my mother home, and I wasn't surprised to see the paper from the home care company and from social services, but now I am getting plans from the GP (after four years). No practical use of course.
Cameron doesn't have to boil the entire EV4EL ocean at once.
Stage 1 is no Scot or Welsh MP's banned from voting and committees on solely English issues.
As the SNP already works this way informally can be made formal in moments.
Sort out long term solution slowly.
Unless labour get a majority in England, why should any labour policies apply in England
Come on leftie types and Nick Palmer, where's your argument that it's democratic or fair?
Maybe leftie types have no answer. But I think there is an argument that NOT implementing EV4EL is democratic and fair albeit a difficult one to express. Essentially EV4EL with devo-MAX would result in a de facto English Parliament requiring an English 1st minister. Scottish MPs would become irrelevant and be replaced the MSP's making the occassional trip to Westminister to decide UK matters. The UK prime minister would presumably have to be the same person as the English 1st minister due to the huge size difference between the countries. The Scots would presumably would not tolerate such a state of affairs for long and independence would result. But this end point is against the wish of Scots according to last week's referendum. Hence the status quo is the only thing that has a democratic mandate.
A lot of the left-wingers here supporting the status quo are saying WLQ is a problem. but the solutions are worse, but I think there's a decent argument that WLQ isn't a problem, namely that any region that wants devolution can have it. If voters have the choice between exercising powers themselves and delegating them to the whole UK, and they choose to delegate them to the whole UK, the fact that the whole UK is then voting on their stuff while not on the stuff of areas that chose regional government isn't unfair. If I have three friends over for dinner amd offer everyone a glass of wine, and one person declines, that doesn't mean I'm then being unfair by only giving two people glasses of wine.
Cameron doesn't have to boil the entire EV4EL ocean at once.
Stage 1 is no Scot or Welsh MP's banned from voting and committees on solely English issues.
As the SNP already works this way informally can be made formal in moments.
Sort out long term solution slowly.
Unless labour get a majority in England, why should any labour policies apply in England
Come on leftie types and Nick Palmer, where's your argument that it's democratic or fair?
Maybe leftie types have no answer. But I think there is an argument that NOT implementing EV4EL is democratic and fair albeit a difficult one to express. Essentially EV4EL with devo-MAX would result in a de facto English Parliament requiring an English 1st minister. Scottish MPs would become irrelevant and be replaced the MSP's making the occassional trip to Westminister to decide UK matters. The UK prime minister would presumably have to be the same person as the English 1st minister due to the huge size difference between the countries. The Scots would presumably would not tolerate such a state of affairs for long and independence would result. But this end point is against the wish of Scots according to last week's referendum. Hence the status quo is the only thing that has a democratic mandate.
A lot of the left-wingers here supporting the status quo are saying WLQ is a problem. but the solutions are worse, but I think there's a decent argument that WLQ isn't a problem, namely that any region that wants devolution can have it. If voters have the choice between exercising powers themselves and delegating them to the whole UK, and they choose to delegate them to the whole UK, the fact that the whole UK is then voting on their stuff while not on the stuff of areas that chose regional government isn't unfair. If I have three friends over for dinner amd offer everyone a glass of wine, and one person declines, that doesn't mean I'm then being unfair by only giving two people glasses of wine.
Would the 3rd person have a vote on what sort of wine was served?
A lot of the left-wingers here supporting the status quo are saying WLQ is a problem. but the solutions are worse, but I think there's a decent argument that WLQ isn't a problem, namely that any region that wants devolution can have it. If voters have the choice between exercising powers themselves and delegating them to the whole UK, and they choose to delegate them to the whole UK, the fact that the whole UK is then voting on their stuff while not on the stuff of areas that chose regional government isn't unfair. If I have three friends over for dinner amd offer everyone a glass of wine, and one person declines, that doesn't mean I'm then being unfair by only giving two people glasses of wine.
But the region in question is England as a whole. I'm not sure England has chosen to delegate. For me Devo-MAX even without EV4EL is enough to move the position of Scottish MPs from constitutional quirk to very difficult to justify. New talented Scottish politicians are more likely to become MSPs. Devo-MAX (which is undemocratic in my view) is a road to separation. The debate is how quickly.
A lot of the left-wingers here supporting the status quo are saying WLQ is a problem. but the solutions are worse, but I think there's a decent argument that WLQ isn't a problem, namely that any region that wants devolution can have it. If voters have the choice between exercising powers themselves and delegating them to the whole UK, and they choose to delegate them to the whole UK, the fact that the whole UK is then voting on their stuff while not on the stuff of areas that chose regional government isn't unfair. If I have three friends over for dinner amd offer everyone a glass of wine, and one person declines, that doesn't mean I'm then being unfair by only giving two people glasses of wine.
But the region in question is England as a whole. I'm not sure England has chosen to delegate. For me Devo-MAX even without EV4EL is enough to move the position of Scottish MPs from constitutional quirk to very difficult to justify. New talented Scottish politicians are more likely to become MSPs. Devo-MAX (which is undemocratic in my view) is a road to separation. The debate is how quickly.
I wouldn't personally oppose England having a parliament if they want one. But a region consisting of 90% of the total isn't conventionally a region. It's not particularly eccentric to say you can have a regional government if you want, but you can't make a special crazy massive region.
Cameron doesn't have to boil the entire EV4EL ocean at once.
Stage 1 is no Scot or Welsh MP's banned from voting and committees on solely English issues.
As the SNP already works this way informally can be made formal in moments.
Sort out long term solution slowly.
Unless labour get a majority in England, why should any labour policies apply in England
Come on leftie types and Nick Palmer, where's your argument that it's democratic or fair?
Maybe leftie types have no answer. But I think there is an argument that NOT implementing EV4EL is democratic and fair albeit a difficult one to express. Essentially EV4EL with devo-MAX would result in a de facto English Parliament requiring an English 1st minister. Scottish MPs would become irrelevant and be replaced the MSP's making the occassional trip to Westminister to decide UK matters. The UK prime minister would presumably have to be the same person as the English 1st minister due to the huge size difference between the countries. The Scots would presumably would not tolerate such a state of affairs for long and independence would result. But this end point is against the wish of Scots according to last week's referendum. Hence the status quo is the only thing that has a democratic mandate.
A lot of the left-wingers here supporting the status quo are saying WLQ is a problem. but the solutions are worse, but I think there's a decent argument that WLQ isn't a problem, namely that any region that wants devolution can have it. If voters have the choice between exercising powers themselves and delegating them to the whole UK, and they choose to delegate them to the whole UK, the fact that the whole UK is then voting on their stuff while not on the stuff of areas that chose regional government isn't unfair. If I have three friends over for dinner amd offer everyone a glass of wine, and one person declines, that doesn't mean I'm then being unfair by only giving two people glasses of wine.
Would the 3rd person have a vote on what sort of wine was served?
Nobody would vote, it would be decided unilaterally by my wife. But if the guests overthrew her tyranny and formed a parliament then yes, the whole parliament would vote, as that's how parliaments work. Even in EVfEL land that's how they work, eg if they're discussing a national park in Cornwall, the whole parliament votes, even though most of it doesn't represent Cornwall.
Cameron doesn't have to boil the entire EV4EL ocean at once.
Stage 1 is no Scot or Welsh MP's banned from voting and committees on solely English issues.
As the SNP already works this way informally can be made formal in moments.
Sort out long term solution slowly.
Unless labour get a majority in England, why should any labour policies apply in England
Come on leftie types and Nick Palmer, where's your argument that it's democratic or fair?
Maybe leftie types have no answer. But I think there is an argument that NOT implementing EV4EL is democratic and fair albeit a difficult one to express. Essentially EV4EL with devo-MAX would result in a de facto English Parliament requiring an English 1st minister. Scottish MPs would become irrelevant and be replaced the MSP's making the occassional trip to Westminister to decide UK matters. The UK prime minister would presumably have to be the same person as the English 1st minister due to the huge size difference between the countries. The Scots would presumably would not tolerate such a state of affairs for long and independence would result. But this end point is against the wish of Scots according to last week's referendum. Hence the status quo is the only thing that has a democratic mandate.
A lot of the left-wingers here supporting the status quo are saying WLQ is a problem. but the solutions are worse, but I think there's a decent argument that WLQ isn't a problem, namely that any region that wants devolution can have it. If voters have the choice between exercising powers themselves and delegating them to the whole UK, and they choose to delegate them to the whole UK, the fact that the whole UK is then voting on their stuff while not on the stuff of areas that chose regional government isn't unfair. If I have three friends over for dinner amd offer everyone a glass of wine, and one person declines, that doesn't mean I'm then being unfair by only giving two people glasses of wine.
And when were we offered a glass of wine? There are four home nations and three have been offered in a referendum a parliament for their nation when we're we? I don't recall voting.
Cameron doesn't have to boil the entire EV4EL ocean at once.
Stage 1 is no Scot or Welsh MP's banned from voting and committees on solely English issues.
As the SNP already works this way informally can be made formal in moments.
Sort out long term solution slowly.
Unless labour get a majority in England, why should any labour policies apply in England
Come on leftie types and Nick Palmer, where's your argument that it's democratic or fair?
Maybe leftie types have no answer. But I think there is an argument that NOT implementing EV4EL is democratic and fair albeit a difficult one to express. Essentially EV4EL with devo-MAX would result in a de facto English Parliament requiring an English 1st minister. Scottish MPs would become irrelevant and be replaced the MSP's making the occassional trip to Westminister to decide UK matters. The UK prime minister would presumably have to be the same person as the English 1st minister due to the huge size difference between the countries. The Scots would presumably would not tolerate such a state of affairs for long and independence would result. But this end point is against the wish of Scots according to last week's referendum. Hence the status quo is the only thing that has a democratic mandate.
A lot of the left-wingers here supporting the status quo are saying WLQ is a problem. but the solutions are worse, but I think there's a decent argument that WLQ isn't a problem, namely that any region that wants devolution can have it. If voters have the choice between exercising powers themselves and delegating them to the whole UK, and they choose to delegate them to the whole UK, the fact that the whole UK is then voting on their stuff while not on the stuff of areas that chose regional government isn't unfair. If I have three friends over for dinner amd offer everyone a glass of wine, and one person declines, that doesn't mean I'm then being unfair by only giving two people glasses of wine.
And when were we offered a glass of wine? There are four home nations and three have been offered in a referendum a parliament for their nation when we're we? I don't recall voting.
Right, at that point they gave up referendums because everybody was saying no, so all we've got is polling. But your region can have an assembly if it wants one - start with a petition.
Edit: Rereading you're saying nations not regions. These are different things - see previous post.
Cameron doesn't have to boil the entire EV4EL ocean at once.
Stage 1 is no Scot or Welsh MP's banned from voting and committees on solely English issues.
As the SNP already works this way informally can be made formal in moments.
Sort out long term solution slowly.
Unless labour get a majority in England, why should any labour policies apply in England
Come on leftie types and Nick Palmer, where's your argument that it's democratic or fair?
Maybe leftie types have no answer. But I think there is an argument that NOT implementing EV4EL is democratic and fair albeit a difficult one to express. Essentially EV4EL with devo-MAX would result in a de facto English Parliament requiring an English 1st minister. Scottish MPs would become irrelevant and be replaced the MSP's making the occassional trip to Westminister to decide UK matters. The UK prime minister would presumably have to be the same person as the English 1st minister due to the huge size difference between the countries. The Scots would presumably would not tolerate such a state of affairs for long and independence would result. But this end point is against the wish of Scots according to last week's referendum. Hence the status quo is the only thing that has a democratic mandate.
A lot of the left-wingers here supporting the status quo are saying WLQ is a problem. but the solutions are worse, but I think there's a decent argument that WLQ isn't a problem, namely that any region that wants devolution can have it. If voters have the choice between exercising powers themselves and delegating them to the whole UK, and they choose to delegate them to the whole UK, the fact that the whole UK is then voting on their stuff while not on the stuff of areas that chose regional government isn't unfair. If I have three friends over for dinner amd offer everyone a glass of wine, and one person declines, that doesn't mean I'm then being unfair by only giving two people glasses of wine.
And when were we offered a glass of wine? There are four home nations and three have been offered in a referendum a parliament for their nation when we're we? I don't recall voting.
Right, at that point they gave up referendums because everybody was saying no, so all we've got is polling. But your region can have an assembly if it wants one - start with a petition.
Edit: Rereading you're saying nations not regions. These are different things - see previous post.
Yes I am saying nations. There are four nations three chose devolution by referendum one has never been asked. It is a dishonest situation that has no justification.
A lot of the left-wingers here supporting the status quo are saying WLQ is a problem. but the solutions are worse, but I think there's a decent argument that WLQ isn't a problem, namely that any region that wants devolution can have it. If voters have the choice between exercising powers themselves and delegating them to the whole UK, and they choose to delegate them to the whole UK, the fact that the whole UK is then voting on their stuff while not on the stuff of areas that chose regional government isn't unfair. If I have three friends over for dinner amd offer everyone a glass of wine, and one person declines, that doesn't mean I'm then being unfair by only giving two people glasses of wine.
And when were we offered a glass of wine? There are four home nations and three have been offered in a referendum a parliament for their nation when we're we? I don't recall voting.
Right, at that point they gave up referendums because everybody was saying no, so all we've got is polling. But your region can have an assembly if it wants one - start with a petition.
Edit: Rereading you're saying nations not regions. These are different things - see previous post.
Yes I am saying nations. There are four nations three chose devolution by referendum one has never been asked. It is a dishonest situation that has no justification.
Like I say I wouldn't oppose a referendum on an English parliament but the justification for treating them differently is that the first three are also regions.
You know your big policy annoucement hasn't gone down to well when even Kevin Muck Spreader basically say £8/hr in 6 years, zzzzzzzzzzzzzz, pull the other one.
A lot of the left-wingers here supporting the status quo are saying WLQ is a problem. but the solutions are worse, but I think there's a decent argument that WLQ isn't a problem, namely that any region that wants devolution can have it. If voters have the choice between exercising powers themselves and delegating them to the whole UK, and they choose to delegate them to the whole UK, the fact that the whole UK is then voting on their stuff while not on the stuff of areas that chose regional government isn't unfair. If I have three friends over for dinner amd offer everyone a glass of wine, and one person declines, that doesn't mean I'm then being unfair by only giving two people glasses of wine.
And when were we offered a glass of wine? There are four home nations and three have been offered in a referendum a parliament for their nation when we're we? I don't recall voting.
Right, at that point they gave up referendums because everybody was saying no, so all we've got is polling. But your region can have an assembly if it wants one - start with a petition.
Edit: Rereading you're saying nations not regions. These are different things - see previous post.
Yes I am saying nations. There are four nations three chose devolution by referendum one has never been asked. It is a dishonest situation that has no justification.
Like I say I wouldn't oppose a referendum on an English parliament but the justification for treating them differently is that the first three are also regions.
PS Is Wales a nation?
England is a large region but it is a region.
And yes Wales is a nation just as much as England or Scotland. Its a myth that its "just a principality".
You know your big policy annoucement hasn't gone down to well when even Kevin Muck Spreader basically say £8/hr in 6 years, zzzzzzzzzzzzzz, pull the other one.
Its a very bizarre promise. The minimum wage as of next Wednesday is £6.50 so we're talking a £1.50 increase in 5 years. That's nothing incredible, even without political intervention it would probably reach that anyway. Its a compound increase of just over 4% a year which unless we're expecting another downturn is to be expected.
Then again this is Labour so perhaps we should expect another downturn.
So Balls is all for welfare cuts, then what was all the griping of the last 4 years for ?
Balls is actually quite a tough fiscal type. The party in general believes some of the debt will gradually go. In the old days, that was indeed the case. Inflation took care of it.
But, of course, the Tories borrowed more in 4 years than Labour did in 13.
A lot of the left-wingers here supporting the status quo are saying WLQ is a problem. but the solutions are worse, but I think there's a decent argument that WLQ isn't a problem, namely that any region that wants devolution can have it. If voters have the choice between exercising powers themselves and delegating them to the whole UK, and they choose to delegate them to the whole UK, the fact that the whole UK is then voting on their stuff while not on the stuff of areas that chose regional government isn't unfair. If I have three friends over for dinner amd offer everyone a glass of wine, and one person declines, that doesn't mean I'm then being unfair by only giving two people glasses of wine.
But the region in question is England as a whole. I'm not sure England has chosen to delegate. For me Devo-MAX even without EV4EL is enough to move the position of Scottish MPs from constitutional quirk to very difficult to justify. New talented Scottish politicians are more likely to become MSPs. Devo-MAX (which is undemocratic in my view) is a road to separation. The debate is how quickly.
What stops England having a Parliament in Lincoln or Nottingham or Birmingham ? Better 4 or 6 Regional Assemblies plus 4 large cities.
So Balls is all for welfare cuts, then what was all the griping of the last 4 years for ?
Balls is actually quite a tough fiscal type. The party in general believes some of the debt will gradually go. In the old days, that was indeed the case. Inflation took care of it.
But, of course, the Tories borrowed more in 4 years than Labour did in 13.
Of course Labour left a humdinger of a structural deficit and then screamed bloddy murder every time the Tories tried anything, no matter how mild, to address it.
And no, you can't try the "but they killed growth" argument. Because I'm talking about the structural deficit.
Yes Mr. Path, but I wasn't talking about HS2, I replied to a post From Mr. Jessop about the idea of a high speed line between Edinburgh and Glasgow. Mr. Richard responded to me I responded to him.
The fifteen minutes was what Mr. Jessop said would be saved if an Edinburgh to Glasgow line was built.
Heh. It appears I pulled the pin out of a grenade before I went to bed.
The 15 minutes actually refers to the current scheme to improve capacity and speeds on the line, which will see the current 50-minute journey reduced to 35 minutes. It is called the Edinburgh to Glasgow Improvement Programme (EGIP). This is going ahead, and is not a new high-speed line.
My question was how much shorter than EGIP's 35 minutes the journey realistically needed to be. Building a new high-speed line, costing many billions, to shave another ten minutes off may not be worthwhile unless it was part of a bigger network.
I have the same doubts about the chancellor's HS3 proposals for northern England. If that gets built, I doubt it will all be a brand-new high-speed line, but rather incremental improvements to the existing lines and potentially a new tunnel under the hilly bits.
I had some difficulty in seperating left and right commentators here, but there is a simple test: good news for jobs, new construction starting - righties are pleased and energised - lefties couldn't care less.
That's only when the Tories are in power. When the other lot are in charge it's the other way 'round.
I had some difficulty in seperating left and right commentators here, but there is a simple test: good news for jobs, new construction starting - righties are pleased and energised - lefties couldn't care less.
That's only when the Tories are in power. When the other lot are in charge it's the other way 'round.
Comments
Mirror Politics @MirrorPolitics 7m
Ed Miliband needs to learn from Gordon Brown, says Kevin Maguire http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ed-miliband-could-learn-gordon-4301727 …
On the first clearing massive waiting lists using a few treatment centres is entirely different to the massive privitisation of NHS provision and commissioning. Worse is to come if Cameron doesnt exempt the NHS from proposed competition law.
Will be impossible to restructure patient services for the benefit of patients without getting competition law challenges
Too late to look for the numbers but this will be a major issue at GE2015
Bed for me if you want to pick up tomorrow will look for figures on both issues then.
A few weeks ago is irrelevant, last figures showed wage settlements had overtaken inflation, though i grant you it was the first time for a long time.
As for the NHS, are you saying competition is a bad thing?
I read somewhere that within the NHS there is one nurse for every manager, but within the private sector there is one manager for every five nurses. Obviously the NHS has services that private healthcare does not provide, A&E being the obvious one, but surely a 1:3 ratio would be much more like it? Would genuinely like your views on this with no political point scoring rubbish.
It is simply not true. There are a lot of admin and clerical staff in the NHS doing essential jobs like booking clinics, retrieving notes, typing lettrers etc.
As there are in private hospitals, though I accept your point totally. So if my 1:3 assumption is wrong, and perhaps it should be 1:2, that still makes the private sector twice as effecient?
Where do your stats come from? I work in both sectors and numbers of managers, admin and clerical staff about the same, though in private sector my secretary and practice manager are paid for by myself rather than the hospital.
My stats come from a Bupa seminar i attended in Solihull.
Edit: Rereading you're saying nations not regions. These are different things - see previous post.
PS Is Wales a nation?
And yes Wales is a nation just as much as England or Scotland. Its a myth that its "just a principality".
Then again this is Labour so perhaps we should expect another downturn.
But, of course, the Tories borrowed more in 4 years than Labour did in 13.
The Constitutional Convention can deal with this.
And no, you can't try the "but they killed growth" argument. Because I'm talking about the structural deficit.
The 15 minutes actually refers to the current scheme to improve capacity and speeds on the line, which will see the current 50-minute journey reduced to 35 minutes. It is called the Edinburgh to Glasgow Improvement Programme (EGIP). This is going ahead, and is not a new high-speed line.
http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/edinburgh-glasgow-improvement-programme/
My question was how much shorter than EGIP's 35 minutes the journey realistically needed to be. Building a new high-speed line, costing many billions, to shave another ten minutes off may not be worthwhile unless it was part of a bigger network.
I have the same doubts about the chancellor's HS3 proposals for northern England. If that gets built, I doubt it will all be a brand-new high-speed line, but rather incremental improvements to the existing lines and potentially a new tunnel under the hilly bits.