Jim Murphy is a creation of mainstream media and political commentators. That was why many of us Scots on the site couldn’t fathom why Murphy’s anointing as the SLAB leader was such great news. In Scotland Jim Murphy due to blanket media coverage of the last few months, has got good name recognition but very few Scots actually know the record of the man. Once the media start covering his back story he will quickly become an electoral liability for SLAB.
More worryingly two days in to the GE2015 campaign, he is shaping up to being an electoral liability at a national level.
I think Labour need to focus on simple, clean messaging of national policies. Any attempt to offer Scots anything more is going to backfire for Labour and SLAB. Instead of starting to fight the Holyrood 2016 campaign, Murphy first has to negotiate GE2015 without shooting himself and possibly his party in the head.
Not least because he has a particularly right-wing Labour constituency. Unless there is something we don't know.
So the Tories said that the NHS wouldn't be an election issue. Lansley's changes were so utterly mad and have so stripped front line services of much-needed resources because of the expense of the unnecessary reorganization that it could not fail to be so.
Without searching or cheating - accurately describe ONE of Lansley's changes to us.
Any one. Pick a specific one at random. That you know off the top of your head.
Replacing PCTs with CCGs often with the same staff but very expensively laid off and rehired. Not making CCGs responsible for all commissioning so requiring the setting up of NHS England for specialized commissioning resulting in a whole new level of bureaucracy. Want any more?
Predictor of the month has to be BigJohnOwls who not only predicted the NHS chaos but also that it would be a major election issue (and ultimately that it would lose the election for the Tories though this isn't yet proven)
Ever since Lansley's madness I've been saying the NHS would be an election issue for the Tories. Even they now realize this.
So the Tories said that the NHS wouldn't be an election issue. Lansley's changes were so utterly mad and have so stripped front line services of much-needed resources because of the expense of the unnecessary reorganization that it could not fail to be so.
"stripped of resources" - numbers and evidence please.
Health minister Dan Poulter said an estimated 3,950 NHS staff were made redundant between May 2010 and November 2013 and subsequently rehired, 2,570 of them having been employed on a permanent basis and 1,380 on fixed-term contracts. The figures came in a written parliamentary answer to Julie Hilling, Labour MP for Bolton West, who has described them as "quite shocking".
Predictor of the month has to be BigJohnOwls who not only predicted the NHS chaos but also that it would be a major election issue (and ultimately that it would lose the election for the Tories though this isn't yet proven)
Oh the derision and cries of Crisis what Crisis and Wales Wales Wales
Apparently it hasn't dawned yet on some posters.
English voters will vote on the state of the English NHS methinks.
2 further predictions, the NHS crisis will deepen with A&E figures making todays look good. Oh and EICIPM in May 2015
Re current account, not to get all Economics 101 on you, but it is worth remembering that moves in the current account happen for a variety of different reasons. I would also point out that - because the current account *must* balance - if a country is a hub for inward investment (as the UK is for various Russian, Chinese and Arab oligarchs) then it is almost inevitable it will run a current account deficit.
I would also point out that moving from a current account deficit to a surplus very rarely happens painlessly. Spain, Portugal, Italy, and Greece all have current account surpluses but it's come at the (near term) price of extremely high unemployment.
"Jim Murphy is a creation of mainstream media and political commentators. That was why many of us Scots on the site couldn’t fathom why Murphy’s anointing as the SLAB leader was such great news."
Not great news for the Nats. But it looks like it's going to be very good news for Scottish labour.
I'm sorry but I predicted that Murphy was going to be a disaster and am very much anti-SNP. The problem is that whatever you do the SNP will get 40-50% of the vote until their average voter learns that scotland will never be independent so it's better to vote for a national party rather than a regional one.
So the Tories said that the NHS wouldn't be an election issue. Lansley's changes were so utterly mad and have so stripped front line services of much-needed resources because of the expense of the unnecessary reorganization that it could not fail to be so.
"stripped of resources" - numbers and evidence please.
Health minister Dan Poulter said an estimated 3,950 NHS staff were made redundant between May 2010 and November 2013 and subsequently rehired, 2,570 of them having been employed on a permanent basis and 1,380 on fixed-term contracts. The figures came in a written parliamentary answer to Julie Hilling, Labour MP for Bolton West, who has described them as "quite shocking".
How many were voluntary redundancies? And how many former employees were actually hired by different NHS Trusts?
Without that information, we don't know if there was genuine incompetence or not.
So the Tories said that the NHS wouldn't be an election issue. Lansley's changes were so utterly mad and have so stripped front line services of much-needed resources because of the expense of the unnecessary reorganization that it could not fail to be so.
Without searching or cheating - accurately describe ONE of Lansley's changes to us.
Any one. Pick a specific one at random. That you know off the top of your head.
Replacing PCTs with CCGs often with the same staff but very expensively laid off and rehired. Not making CCGs responsible for all commissioning so requiring the setting up of NHS England for specialized commissioning resulting in a whole new level of bureaucracy. Want any more?
The Better Care Fund transferring much needed NHS monies (£1.9bn) to a "pothole fund" in local councils.
You are a bit late tonight. We discussed Labours Welsh NHS earlier please do keep up.
Worst A&E performance in England for 10 years.
98% in 2010
I was in A&E - in 2012 - when my son had a suspected seizure and we were referred there by our GP. We had to wait quite a long time (certainly more than 4 hours) after the initial triage but as there were sicker children than him - and he had stabilised so was less sick than he had been - I wasn't that bothered. And when he was admitted, the care - and after-care and follow up were excellent.
I realise that the target waiting time is what is being measured and, obviously, if the pressures now are such that people who ought to be seen aren't being - or not fast enough - that is a great concern, if it means that they are suffering unnecessarily or dying. But if that isn't happening what is the problem with waiting?
But my quesion is this: is a 4-hour target time a sensible measure of the success or otherwise of an A&E department?
Interested in the professional opinion rather than in the political opinion, TBH.
You are a bit late tonight. We discussed Labours Welsh NHS earlier please do keep up.
Worst A&E performance in England for 10 years.
98% in 2010
I was in A&E - in 2012 - when my son had a suspected seizure and we were referred there by our GP. We had to wait quite a long time (certainly more than 4 hours) after the initial triage but as there were sicker children than him - and he had stabilised so was less sick than he had been - I wasn't that bothered. And when he was admitted, the care - and after-care and follow up were excellent.
I realise that the target waiting time is what is being measured and, obviously, if the pressures now are such that people who ought to be seen aren't being - or not fast enough - that is a great concern, if it means that they are suffering unnecessarily or dying. But if that isn't happening what is the problem with waiting?
But my quesion is this: is a 4-hour target time a sensible measure of the success or otherwise of an A&E department?
Interested in the professional opinion rather than in the political opinion, TBH.
It's not. But at least these days it's a target rather than something which must be attained to the detriment of everything else. A more cogent figure for the mess the NHS is in is the number of blocked beds.
You are a bit late tonight. We discussed Labours Welsh NHS earlier please do keep up.
Worst A&E performance in England for 10 years.
98% in 2010
I was in A&E - in 2012 - when my son had a suspected seizure and we were referred there by our GP. We had to wait quite a long time (certainly more than 4 hours) after the initial triage but as there were sicker children than him - and he had stabilised so was less sick than he had been - I wasn't that bothered. And when he was admitted, the care - and after-care and follow up were excellent.
I realise that the target waiting time is what is being measured and, obviously, if the pressures now are such that people who ought to be seen aren't being - or not fast enough - that is a great concern, if it means that they are suffering unnecessarily or dying. But if that isn't happening what is the problem with waiting?
But my quesion is this: is a 4-hour target time a sensible measure of the success or otherwise of an A&E department?
Interested in the professional opinion rather than in the political opinion, TBH.
In 4 hours someone, who had an accident and was an emergency, would probably be dead. Jokingly the Treasury will be very happy is said man was a pensioner, perhaps Osborne relies on that to balance the books. Problem with that is that old people usually vote Tory, fewer old people equals fewer Tory votes.
EDIT: Don;t know where the idea that SLab peple aren't mentioning Ed Milliband comes from, he's been mentioned several times by Murphy in that clip.
.
Shapps appears to be accusing Murphy of insubordination for err...agreeing with UK Labour Party policy and translating it to a devolved Scotland.
The real story being the insubordination of London Labour MPs jockeying to be mayor. Although it's breathtaking hypocrisy (or idiocy) from Abbott who ran for the leadership on a platform of...fewer public service cuts due to more taxes on the wealthiest. Now as the wealthiest part of the country is London and the South East that inevitably means that money will be shifted to other regions.
Diane's personal interests are getting in the way and she can't see it,blinded by hubris.Her Labour party membership is at risk of suspension.Whatever,it's so sad because she has lost any chance she had and may as well pull out of the race now.Will she join Ukip?
I think Lammy, Jowell and much more predictably Abbott have made a fundamental error in this in their mayoral campaigns. The Mansion Tax is popular within the Labour Party - even in London and more mildly with the electorate as a whole (again, even in London). It's perfectly respectable to oppose TMT, as many on here do, but not as a redistributive Labour politician. If you're going to tax wealth to alleviate some of the pain of cuts and spending restraint then it's going to hit London and the SE disproportionately. Even then in the case of TMT it's a tiny amount of the electorate who don't tend to even consider voting Labour. Upsetting the applecart on the second day of the long campaign for the sake of the few Londoners fortunate enough to own £2m homes is utter madness when seeking to become a Labour mayoral candidate. Sell shares in Jowell, buy in Khan who's been conspicuous by his loyalty.
I'm on Khan at 8-1.There is no sympathy whatsoever for current and ex-Premiership footballers whining about the Mansion Tax of £250 per month when they earn £1 mill a month and pay little or no tax.Sol Campbell has completely lost my respect.He has turned out to be a typical Tory,greedy,selfish and nasty. There is absolutely no need for anyone to worry about the Mansion Tax s it can be taken out of your estate if you can't shell out the £250 a month.I'd say Labour were being excessively flexible.
How many were voluntary redundancies? And how many former employees were actually hired by different NHS Trusts?
Without that information, we don't know if there was genuine incompetence or not.
You seem to not understand. No NHS primary care which existed before April 2013 is in existence now. That's what Cameron meant went he said "No-top down reorganization"!
To answer your first question: men have been convicted of raping women who were not drunk. The Evans case has not established some new point of law. On the question of consent, the prosecution has to show that the man could not reasonably have thought that the woman consented.
I know the Evans case is not establishing anything new, but it is the case in which I learnt that men can be convicted apparently on very thin evidence indeed. They certainly didn't seem to prove beyond reasonably doubt that he "could not reasonably have thought the woman consented". According to Evans, she did so verbally, and the alleged victim couldn't remember. What was he convicted on?
Perhaps the jury did not believe him when he said that. You underestimate, IMO, the value that the jury (rightly) place on what the defendant says in court and how he says it.
So "beyond reasonable doubt" - and thus a man's career and liberty - now comes down to jury members' ability to read tone and body language? It shouldn't matter what they believed from the defendant. They should need near indisputable evidence that she didn't give consent or was incapable of giving consent. What was that in this case?
Sorry but knowing the details of this case you are wrong. The victim was taken to a motel by another man and was apparently so incapable that she had lost her handbag and had to be carried into the room. The front desk questioned her state and was concerned enough to ask the man who took her in a taxi to the motel (not Evans) if she was in need of medical help. The man replied she just needed to sleep it off. This is backed up by CCTV footage which shows her unable to stand without assistance.
Evans was then called to the motel and had sex with the victim. This was not a case of two people getting drunk together. The victim had not even met Evans before he came to the hotel.
I really do not see how it could be claimed she was in any fit state to consent to sex.
How many were voluntary redundancies? And how many former employees were actually hired by different NHS Trusts?
Without that information, we don't know if there was genuine incompetence or not.
You seem to not understand. No NHS primary care which existed before April 2013 is in existence now. That's what Cameron meant went he said "No-top down reorganization"!
Pardon. In my area the Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust was formed in 2001 and is still in existence now.
To answer your first question: men have been convicted of raping women who were not drunk. The Evans case has not established some new point of law. On the question of consent, the prosecution has to show that the man could not reasonably have thought that the woman consented.
I know the Evans case is not establishing anything new, but it is the case in which I learnt that men can be convicted apparently on very thin evidence indeed. They certainly didn't seem to prove beyond reasonably doubt that he "could not reasonably have thought the woman consented". According to Evans, she did so verbally, and the alleged victim couldn't remember. What was he convicted on?
Perhaps the jury did not believe him when he said that. You underestimate, IMO, the value that the jury (rightly) place on what the defendant says in court and how he says it.
So "beyond reasonable doubt" - and thus a man's career and liberty - now comes down to jury members' ability to read tone and body language? It shouldn't matter what they believed from the defendant. They should need near indisputable evidence that she didn't give consent or was incapable of giving consent. What was that in this case?
Sorry but knowing the details of this case you are wrong. The victim was taken to a motel by another man and was apparently so incapable that she had lost her handbag and had to be carried into the room. The front desk questioned her state and was concerned enough to ask the man who took her in a taxi to the motel (not Evans) if she was in need of medical help. The man replied she just needed to sleep it off. This is backed up by CCTV footage which shows her unable to stand without assistance.
Evans was then called to the motel and had sex with the victim. This was not a case of two people getting drunk together. The victim had not even met Evans before he came to the hotel.
I really do not see how it could be claimed she was in any fit state to consent to sex.
The footage is on the Ched Evans website.. didn't look like she was so drunk she was carried to me, or that she was unable to stand without assistance
What's the score on these hospital A&E's in heightened mode vs those which aren't?
Just for some context please?
Hoorar for L&D!
Two-thirds of the 144 trusts with major units are missing the target now compares to 2010 where 3 missed the higher 98% target.
The target was reduced to 95% in June 2010.
Health regulator Monitor believes continual missing of this target (more than 2 quarters in a 12 month period) is a potential breach of Governance that could breach an FTs provider licence.
Unfortunately Acute Trusts are so starved of funds with a 30% of true cost tariff being paid on all admissions in excess of 2010 levels. that most are now in breach.
The Coalition has truly screwed the NHS Acute Sector whilst introducing an extra layer of beaurocracy
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 1m1 minute ago Story alert RT @JewishNewsUK: EXCLUSIVE: Labour councillor suspended for Auschwitz #RoadToRecovery tweet http://wp.me/p3xO31-btp 0 replies 7 retweets 0 favorites Reply Retweet7 Favorite More
You are a bit late tonight. We discussed Labours Welsh NHS earlier please do keep up.
Worst A&E performance in England for 10 years.
98% in 2010
I was in A&E - in 2012 - when my son had a suspected seizure and we were referred there by our GP. We had to wait quite a long time (certainly more than 4 hours) after the initial triage but as there were sicker children than him - and he had stabilised so was less sick than he had been - I wasn't that bothered. And when he was admitted, the care - and after-care and follow up were excellent.
I realise that the target waiting time is what is being measured and, obviously, if the pressures now are such that people who ought to be seen aren't being - or not fast enough - that is a great concern, if it means that they are suffering unnecessarily or dying. But if that isn't happening what is the problem with waiting?
But my quesion is this: is a 4-hour target time a sensible measure of the success or otherwise of an A&E department?
Interested in the professional opinion rather than in the political opinion, TBH.
In 4 hours someone, who had an accident and was an emergency, would probably be dead. Jokingly the Treasury will be very happy is said man was a pensioner, perhaps Osborne relies on that to balance the books. Problem with that is that old people usually vote Tory, fewer old people equals fewer Tory votes.
You do know how Triage works don't you?
Serious casualties are prioritised for urgent treatment, whilst those with coughs and saucepans stuck on their heads are made to hang around a bit longer.
@bigjohnowls You missed out the NHS Direct fiasco, where medically trained staff who gave out information were replaced by call centers working on an algorithm. (if you don't match the algorithm, they tell you to go to your local hospital)
What's the score on these hospital A&E's in heightened mode vs those which aren't?
Just for some context please?
Hoorar for L&D!
Two-thirds of the 144 trusts with major units are missing the target now compares to 2010 where 3 missed the higher 98% target.
The target was reduced to 95% in June 2010.
Health regulator Monitor believes continual missing of this target (more than 2 quarters in a 12 month period) is a potential breach of Governance that could breach an FTs provider licence.
Unfortunately Acute Trusts are so starved of funds with a 30% of true cost tariff being paid on all admissions in excess of 2010 levels. that most are now in breach.
The Coalition has truly screwed the NHS Acute Sector whilst introducing an extra layer of beaurocracy
None of that answers my question I think.
How many A&E's aren't in 'incident' mode? Just after some context
Informative R5 tonight live from A + E in Blackburn. Mostly Doctors incredulous at the nonsense that people come into A+E with or phoning for an ambulance. - broken nails, coughs, sore throats etc.
There needs to be a massive public education programme to let the public know that they can't continue to abuse the system - or some sort of charging will be inevitable.
How many were voluntary redundancies? And how many former employees were actually hired by different NHS Trusts?
Without that information, we don't know if there was genuine incompetence or not.
You seem to not understand. No NHS primary care which existed before April 2013 is in existence now. That's what Cameron meant went he said "No-top down reorganization"!
Pardon. In my area the Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust was formed in 2001 and is still in existence now.
Not true Richard only became an FT on 1 Feb 2007 and is now on a final warning under section 105 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 (“the Act”).
Informative R5 tonight live from A + E in Blackburn. Mostly Doctors incredulous at the nonsense that people come into A+E with or phoning for an ambulance. - broken nails, coughs, sore throats etc.
There needs to be a massive public education programme to let the public know that they can't continue to abuse the system - or some sort of charging will be inevitable.
"I went to hospital with a runny nose and was disgusted that I had to wait 3 hours whilst they stabilised the victims of a multiple motorway car smash. All those foreign nurses. I blame Lansley"
What's the score on these hospital A&E's in heightened mode vs those which aren't?
Just for some context please?
Hoorar for L&D!
Two-thirds of the 144 trusts with major units are missing the target now compares to 2010 where 3 missed the higher 98% target.
The target was reduced to 95% in June 2010.
Health regulator Monitor believes continual missing of this target (more than 2 quarters in a 12 month period) is a potential breach of Governance that could breach an FTs provider licence.
Unfortunately Acute Trusts are so starved of funds with a 30% of true cost tariff being paid on all admissions in excess of 2010 levels. that most are now in breach.
The Coalition has truly screwed the NHS Acute Sector whilst introducing an extra layer of beaurocracy
None of that answers my question I think.
How many A&E's aren't in 'incident' mode? Just after some context
How many were voluntary redundancies? And how many former employees were actually hired by different NHS Trusts?
Without that information, we don't know if there was genuine incompetence or not.
You seem to not understand. No NHS primary care which existed before April 2013 is in existence now. That's what Cameron meant went he said "No-top down reorganization"!
Pardon. In my area the Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust was formed in 2001 and is still in existence now.
Re current account, not to get all Economics 101 on you, but it is worth remembering that moves in the current account happen for a variety of different reasons. I would also point out that - because the current account *must* balance - if a country is a hub for inward investment (as the UK is for various Russian, Chinese and Arab oligarchs) then it is almost inevitable it will run a current account deficit.
I would also point out that moving from a current account deficit to a surplus very rarely happens painlessly. Spain, Portugal, Italy, and Greece all have current account surpluses but it's come at the (near term) price of extremely high unemployment.
That's an argument I've read before.
Yet if the oligarchs reversed their money flows I don't see the UK starting to run trade and tourism surpluses. Rather the government will continue to steal wealth from the future to consume now in order to buy votes.
The pain the 'Club Med' countries are experiencing is the inevitable consequence of them having to live within their means.
That's a pain the UK will experience when the oligarchs get a new area of interest or we run out of Mayfair mansions and Premiership football clubs to sell them.
Comments
98% in 2010
The Thing in my pants
The Elephant Man in my pants
Some Like It Hot in my pants
and finally before giving up with these
Snatch in my girlfriend's pants
Not making CCGs responsible for all commissioning so requiring the setting up of NHS England for specialized commissioning resulting in a whole new level of bureaucracy.
Want any more?
Apparently it hasn't dawned yet on some posters.
English voters will vote on the state of the English NHS methinks.
2 further predictions, the NHS crisis will deepen with A&E figures making todays look good. Oh and EICIPM in May 2015
Re current account, not to get all Economics 101 on you, but it is worth remembering that moves in the current account happen for a variety of different reasons. I would also point out that - because the current account *must* balance - if a country is a hub for inward investment (as the UK is for various Russian, Chinese and Arab oligarchs) then it is almost inevitable it will run a current account deficit.
I would also point out that moving from a current account deficit to a surplus very rarely happens painlessly. Spain, Portugal, Italy, and Greece all have current account surpluses but it's come at the (near term) price of extremely high unemployment.
Seven Pounds in my pants.
8 Miles in my pants.
8mm in my pants.
The problem is that whatever you do the SNP will get 40-50% of the vote until their average voter learns that scotland will never be independent so it's better to vote for a national party rather than a regional one.
Without that information, we don't know if there was genuine incompetence or not.
The next recession will be a whopper.
Not even ring fenced for healthcare/
As I say NHS in crisis surprise!!!
In an online conversation with Sunil on the subject, I posted a video link.
Time for a reprise?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSCNCUc9pw8
My phone music shuffler thing is spoiling me:
1. True Faith
2. Step On
3. All Together Now.
I'm back in the spilt beer and fag smoke filled disco at Uni......
Almost as good as Steve Claridge on 'that' Radio 5 commentary that's still available on iplayer....
Ed Miliband = lights on at the end of the disco. Time to find the kebab van at 2am.
I realise that the target waiting time is what is being measured and, obviously, if the pressures now are such that people who ought to be seen aren't being - or not fast enough - that is a great concern, if it means that they are suffering unnecessarily or dying. But if that isn't happening what is the problem with waiting?
But my quesion is this: is a 4-hour target time a sensible measure of the success or otherwise of an A&E department?
Interested in the professional opinion rather than in the political opinion, TBH.
Just for some context please?
Hoorar for L&D!
He may have been a delusional incompetent but he was our delusional incompetent. Or something.
It's not. But at least these days it's a target rather than something which must be attained to the detriment of everything else. A more cogent figure for the mess the NHS is in is the number of blocked beds.
They may ask whether labour can run it better first.
The evidence suggests they run it worse.
Jokingly the Treasury will be very happy is said man was a pensioner, perhaps Osborne relies on that to balance the books.
Problem with that is that old people usually vote Tory, fewer old people equals fewer Tory votes.
There is absolutely no need for anyone to worry about the Mansion Tax s it can be taken out of your estate if you can't shell out the £250 a month.I'd say Labour were being excessively flexible.
It was so much better in 2009 after 12 years of labour.
Coffee House @Spectator_CH · 38m38 minutes ago
.@grantshapps faces planted questions on @LBC – before coming up against a real voter http://specc.ie/1FhU78v by @robertdgsmith
Evans was then called to the motel and had sex with the victim. This was not a case of two people getting drunk together. The victim had not even met Evans before he came to the hotel.
I really do not see how it could be claimed she was in any fit state to consent to sex.
'Real men' would have greater concerns! As an example I offer:
Sophie's Choice in your pants.
:bolleaux:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/06/mansion-tax-london-jim-murphy-scotland-labour
http://www.chedevans.com/judge-for-yourself
In fact on watching it again, that is just plainly untrue Richard. She was walking unaided and wasn't carried to the room
The target was reduced to 95% in June 2010.
Health regulator Monitor believes continual missing of this target (more than 2 quarters in a 12 month period) is a potential breach of Governance that could breach an FTs provider licence.
Unfortunately Acute Trusts are so starved of funds with a 30% of true cost tariff being paid on all admissions in excess of 2010 levels. that most are now in breach.
The Coalition has truly screwed the NHS Acute Sector whilst introducing an extra layer of beaurocracy
Sequel The Godfather Now Helping Police With Their Enquires....
Serious casualties are prioritised for urgent treatment, whilst those with coughs and saucepans stuck on their heads are made to hang around a bit longer.
You missed out the NHS Direct fiasco, where medically trained staff who gave out information were replaced by call centers working on an algorithm.
(if you don't match the algorithm, they tell you to go to your local hospital)
How many A&E's aren't in 'incident' mode? Just after some context
Thanks.
There needs to be a massive public education programme to let the public know that they can't continue to abuse the system - or some sort of charging will be inevitable.
Yet if the oligarchs reversed their money flows I don't see the UK starting to run trade and tourism surpluses. Rather the government will continue to steal wealth from the future to consume now in order to buy votes.
The pain the 'Club Med' countries are experiencing is the inevitable consequence of them having to live within their means.
That's a pain the UK will experience when the oligarchs get a new area of interest or we run out of Mayfair mansions and Premiership football clubs to sell them.