I agree. The training structures of the NHS have failed to keep up with the modern world with half or more of UK medical graduates being female.
Maternity leave and part time working (a 70% WTE trainee creates a 30% unfillable gap in our rota) combined with an inflexible training structure of rigid rotations has not kept up with the workforce and the DoH is introducing more inflexibility!
Something has smelled about this case for months; now it stinks to high heaven.
Blackman, is a murderer and received an appropriate sentence. I know in your opinion that killing an unarmed prisoner was ok in this case because he was an Afghan, but most people don't agree.
The issue is whether this was murder - or manslaughter, which was not considered. Manslaughter would have given a far greater range of sentencing options.
Something has smelled about this case for months; now it stinks to high heaven.
Blackman, is a murderer and received an appropriate sentence. I know in your opinion that killing an unarmed prisoner was ok in this case because he was an Afghan, but most people don't agree.
The day when Britain needs people like you for it's defence will be a sorry day indeed.
I would not ban any of those groups but many of them could be sensibly restricted. A lot of student immigration is to fourth rate universities that is clearly more about getting people into the UK than providing a decent education. The intracompany transfer route should be restricted to be the truly high skilled. Family migration should have the income requirement increased to the actual taxes needed to be paid to cover the average government spending level per capita. Recent arranged marriages shouldn't be accommodated. Et cetera.
Something has smelled about this case for months; now it stinks to high heaven.
Blackman, is a murderer and received an appropriate sentence. I know in your opinion that killing an unarmed prisoner was ok in this case because he was an Afghan, but most people don't agree.
The day when Britain needs people like you for it's defence will be a sorry day indeed.
They must have been panicking every day of the 12 years I spent in the army then.
Blackman, took the prisoner out of sight, shot him a close range then stated on tape that he had broken the Geneva convention. It's pretty cut and dried murder and a contemporaneous record of the events is on tape.
But bigots like you don't mind because it's only an Afghan.
They don't know they were born, my late wife was doing 1 in 2's and earning 9k in the early 80's. I don't know what they do now , but I know its a lot less.
If they want to work 40 hrs a week, then it will take a LOT longer to get the experience necessary to get to registrar and then consultant.
Let them strike and see how much support they get on a salary of 40k
if the government has got this wrong, they'll lose doctors to other professions and there will be a crisis in the NHS.
They may very well lose Doctors to other professions, but there won't be a crisis as they will import foreign Doctors. It's possible to undercut skilled professionals as well as unskilled. When they do, is when the squealing will really start. The guardian and luvvies, will go mental when importation of Labour starts to impact them, rather than somebody else.
You are a bit out of date. Non -EU doctors cannot get visas anymore due to the clampdown on non EU migration. We can employ EU doctors (we particularly favour Greeks, but have a couple of Romanians too) but these can rarely meet the entry criteria for junior training posts, and tend to work as expensive locums for a year or too before returning. We have unfilled and unfillable gaps in rotas already so I think striking Juniors are in a strong position.
The issue is not just one of Terms and Conditions but also a lack of transparancy and refusal to negotiate by Jeremy Hunt and the DoH. Consultants are in much the same boat, but would probably work to rule rather than strike, and may do similtaneously.
Non EU Doctors currently can't get visas. How difficult would that be to change? Not very, is the answer. Like it or not, the public don't like unskilled immigrants, but don't mind skilled immigrants.
True... how can it be so difficult to get this point across? We have millions of unskilled people but a shortage of skills in certain areas, so we should allow as many immigrants as are needed for the skilled jobs, but encourage/force our own unskilled labour to take jobs that they can do, which would also cut down the enormous welfare bill.
In any other area of life this wouldn't even be a decision.
"Darling I have got 6 eggs but no mushrooms and want to make mushroom omelettes, could you go to the shop please?"
Something has smelled about this case for months; now it stinks to high heaven.
If due process has not been followed then he should face a retrial. However, his statement, recorded and in a calm, measured voice that he had "just broken the Geneva Convention" should be all the evidence needed to convict him for murder again.
People say and do a lot of things under the stress of battle, as I know. Even his CO has resigned because of the way the courts marshal was carried out. Next time you are in battle, Dave, let me know how you feel.
I said that if process wasn't properly followed there should be a retrial.
I don't doubt that being in battle is a stressful situation but soldiers are trained for that and do know their rules of engagement. From the reports, it sounds as if his team are not contesting whether he committed a crime, just what that crime was.
We cannot simply ignore rules of war and of engagement simply because battle is hard, any more than because the soldier in question happened to be wearing a British uniform. That is the road to justifying - or at least excusing away - any behaviour.
I'm sorry dave, but it's not true in any sense. One can be trained for battle and retrained, but actual conflict, where your life is up for grabs is entirely different. One never knows how they will act and every battle situation is slightly different, be it terrain or men around you or indeed, the weapons at hand for your defence.
However the rules of engagement are a total bollocks today.
Something has smelled about this case for months; now it stinks to high heaven.
If due process has not been followed then he should face a retrial. However, his statement, recorded and in a calm, measured voice that he had "just broken the Geneva Convention" should be all the evidence needed to convict him for murder again.
People say and do a lot of things under the stress of battle, as I know. Even his CO has resigned because of the way the courts marshal was carried out. Next time you are in battle, Dave, let me know how you feel.
I said that if process wasn't properly followed there should be a retrial.
I don't doubt that being in battle is a stressful situation but soldiers are trained for that and do know their rules of engagement. From the reports, it sounds as if his team are not contesting whether he committed a crime, just what that crime was.
We cannot simply ignore rules of war and of engagement simply because battle is hard, any more than because the soldier in question happened to be wearing a British uniform. That is the road to justifying - or at least excusing away - any behaviour.
I'm sorry dave, but it's not true in any sense. One can be trained for battle and retrained, but actual conflict, where your life is up for grabs is entirely different. One never knows how they will act and every battle situation is slightly different, be it terrain or men around you or indeed, the weapons at hand for your defence.
However the rules of engagement are a total bollocks today.
@TCPB I agree. The training structures of the NHS have failed to keep up with the modern world with half or more of UK medical graduates being female. Maternity leave and part time working (a 70% WTE trainee creates a 30% unfillable gap in our rota) combined with an inflexible training structure of rigid rotations has not kept up with the workforce and the DoH is introducing more inflexibility!
Thanks for confirming it. Assuming that favouring male applicants to training is impossible and illegal, I wonder if the partial solution is if more debt is piled onto medical trainees to encourage full time working by those trained? The extra debt could then fund higher pay.
Something has smelled about this case for months; now it stinks to high heaven.
If due process has not been followed then he should face a retrial. However, his statement, recorded and in a calm, measured voice that he had "just broken the Geneva Convention" should be all the evidence needed to convict him for murder again.
People say and do a lot of things under the stress of battle, as I know. Even his CO has resigned because of the way the courts marshal was carried out. Next time you are in battle, Dave, let me know how you feel.
I said that if process wasn't properly followed there should be a retrial.
I don't doubt that being in battle is a stressful situation but soldiers are trained for that and do know their rules of engagement. From the reports, it sounds as if his team are not contesting whether he committed a crime, just what that crime was.
We cannot simply ignore rules of war and of engagement simply because battle is hard, any more than because the soldier in question happened to be wearing a British uniform. That is the road to justifying - or at least excusing away - any behaviour.
I'm sorry dave, but it's not true in any sense. One can be trained for battle and retrained, but actual conflict, where your life is up for grabs is entirely different. One never knows how they will act and every battle situation is slightly different, be it terrain or men around you or indeed, the weapons at hand for your defence.
However the rules of engagement are a total bollocks today.
So basically anything goes then?
As long as they are not on the same side as he is.
I'm waiting at a GP surgery walkin clinic. Because I can never get through during their limited periods they take appointments.
Why are GPs allowed to limit how many appointments they take? It makes it impossible for patients to work out which ones are over subscribed. And for the government to monitor the true scale of excess demand.
We should force all GPs to take appointments at all times, to publish the length of the waiting list and to scrap catchment areas. That means everyone can see where is easiest to get an appointment and help balance out demand over the network.
Just some ideas.
Ironically, GPs are the most private bit of the NHS: quasi-independent small businesses in competition with each other, whose patients can switch between them, taking their funding with them. The ironic part is that GPs are what the free market fans in both parties complain about most.
Either the market is not a panacea for delivering what is wanted, or it works perfectly for the majority. Or both. My GP's waiting room is normally full of mums with infants, and elderly patients, for both of which groups, most appointments are routine and daytime is most convenient.
It does not help that meddling politicians are also not typical patients, so they tend to get hung up on expensive solutions for unusual problems, like doctors sharing records between our Auchtermuchty constituency and central London.
But if you don't like your GP, get a different one.
Something has smelled about this case for months; now it stinks to high heaven.
Blackman, is a murderer and received an appropriate sentence. I know in your opinion that killing an unarmed prisoner was ok in this case because he was an Afghan, but most people don't agree.
The issue is whether this was murder - or manslaughter, which was not considered. Manslaughter would have given a far greater range of sentencing options.
I'm not a lawyer but would not a civilian homicide case before the High Court where murder and manslaughter were options consider the murder one first - as the more serious - and if found guilty on that not need to go further? If so, even if manslaughter were not an option available to the court martial, having found Blackman guilty of murder, the manslaughter option would have been unnecessary.
It's an epic fall from grace. I still can't get my head around the SNP having their slot at PMQs.
I can't recall the last time I saw or heard from one of them on the TV. Just gone. Not a single mention of their conference either. I've just done a YouGov that asked me to rate a few of them which reminded me that they still exist.
I would not ban any of those groups but many of them could be sensibly restricted. A lot of student immigration is to fourth rate universities that is clearly more about getting people into the UK than providing a decent education. The intracompany transfer route should be restricted to be the truly high skilled. Family migration should have the income requirement increased to the actual taxes needed to be paid to cover the average government spending level per capita. Recent arranged marriages shouldn't be accommodated. Et cetera.
I would be happy with most of that, but if it is not going to crash the NHS (no doubt similiar issues in other areas) it needs to be tied to improvements in education in the same areas. A sort of immigration import substitution if you like.
And worth bearing in mind that the high employment rate for unskilled and semi-skilled EU migrants shows that there are plenty of training needs at that end of the spectrum too.
I can see a few issues though if we employ a Philipino nurse but do not permit her to marry from back home, and end her visa if she gets pregnant (though that would match the rules in the UAE).
Unbelievable this man is leader of the Labour party.
It wasn't Corbyn, it was a member of his staff. The TImes printed an apology for their article alleging it was Corbyn
Can't get in to Lexis Nexis. Grrr.
I reckon the Sun must have known it a wrong-story, but decided it was worth running again because Corbyn won't want to draw attention to the episode even if he wasn't directly involved.
Re: Workers from outside the EC. A simple solution that other countries use. It is called charging for work permits. £10,000 a year as the starting point and higher amounts for various levels. Employers will then have an incentive to hire and train more Brits where they cannot get from the EC.
Something has smelled about this case for months; now it stinks to high heaven.
If due process has not been followed then he should face a retrial. However, his statement, recorded and in a calm, measured voice that he had "just broken the Geneva Convention" should be all the evidence needed to convict him for murder again.
People say and do a lot of things under the stress of battle, as I know. Even his CO has resigned because of the way the courts marshal was carried out. Next time you are in battle, Dave, let me know how you feel.
I said that if process wasn't properly followed there should be a retrial.
I don't doubt that being in battle is a stressful situation but soldiers are trained for that and do know their rules of engagement. From the reports, it sounds as if his team are not contesting whether he committed a crime, just what that crime was.
We cannot simply ignore rules of war and of engagement simply because battle is hard, any more than because the soldier in question happened to be wearing a British uniform. That is the road to justifying - or at least excusing away - any behaviour.
I'm sorry dave, but it's not true in any sense. One can be trained for battle and retrained, but actual conflict, where your life is up for grabs is entirely different. One never knows how they will act and every battle situation is slightly different, be it terrain or men around you or indeed, the weapons at hand for your defence.
However the rules of engagement are a total bollocks today.
So basically anything goes then?
If the Rules of Engagement of today were used in WW2, the allies would have lost the war.
One key thing that I suggest to watch out for is LD policy on Trident at this Conference.
Though one wonders what Labours policy on Trident is today? More U turns than a Sat Nav gone wrong this week!
Yes but if the members eventually force through unilateral disarmament or no Trident, are the LDs going to be an attractive home for the progressive Labour people?
I'm waiting at a GP surgery walkin clinic. Because I can never get through during their limited periods they take appointments.
Why are GPs allowed to limit how many appointments they take? It makes it impossible for patients to work out which ones are over subscribed. And for the government to monitor the true scale of excess demand.
We should force all GPs to take appointments at all times, to publish the length of the waiting list and to scrap catchment areas. That means everyone can see where is easiest to get an appointment and help balance out demand over the network.
Just some ideas.
Ironically, GPs are the most private bit of the NHS: quasi-independent small businesses in competition with each other, whose patients can switch between them, taking their funding with them. The ironic part is that GPs are what the free market fans in both parties complain about most. Either the market is not a panacea for delivering what is wanted, or it works perfectly for the majority. Or both. ..
One part of the problem is that the central NHS has allocated smaller % of the budget to the GP service. The doctors in training have taken the hint and fewer are becoming GPs (you do wonder why there are no set GP training slots). It needs a little more money allocated to the GP service and more would become GPs. Having more would make the market work much much better as we could transfer to the more responsive GP setups. Add in a reform of the customer ratings systems through apps etc and then we start to view GPs like any service - one where we choose who to use.
Something has smelled about this case for months; now it stinks to high heaven.
If due process has not been followed then he should face a retrial. However, his statement, recorded and in a calm, measured voice that he had "just broken the Geneva Convention" should be all the evidence needed to convict him for murder again.
People say and do a lot of things under the stress of battle, as I know. Even his CO has resigned because of the way the courts marshal was carried out. Next time you are in battle, Dave, let me know how you feel.
I said that if process wasn't properly followed there should be a retrial.
I don't doubt that being in battle is a stressful situation but soldiers are trained for that and do know their rules of engagement. From the reports, it sounds as if his team are not contesting whether he committed a crime, just what that crime was.
We cannot simply ignore rules of war and of engagement simply because battle is hard, any more than because the soldier in question happened to be wearing a British uniform. That is the road to justifying - or at least excusing away - any behaviour.
I'm sorry dave, but it's not true in any sense. One can be trained for battle and retrained, but actual conflict, where your life is up for grabs is entirely different. One never knows how they will act and every battle situation is slightly different, be it terrain or men around you or indeed, the weapons at hand for your defence.
However the rules of engagement are a total bollocks today.
So basically anything goes then?
If the Rules of Engagement of today were used in WW2, the allies would have lost the war.
Something has smelled about this case for months; now it stinks to high heaven.
People say and do a lot of things under the stress of battle, as I know. Even his CO has resigned because of the way the courts marshal was carried out. Next time you are in battle, Dave, let me know how you feel.
I said that if process wasn't properly followed there should be a retrial.
I don't doubt that being in battle is a stressful situation but soldiers are trained for that and do know their rules of engagement. From the reports, it sounds as if his team are not contesting whether he committed a crime, just what that crime was.
We cannot simply ignore rules of war and of engagement simply because battle is hard, any more than because the soldier in question happened to be wearing a British uniform. That is the road to justifying - or at least excusing away - any behaviour.
I'm sorry dave, but it's not true in any sense. One can be trained for battle and retrained, but actual conflict, where your life is up for grabs is entirely different. One never knows how they will act and every battle situation is slightly different, be it terrain or men around you or indeed, the weapons at hand for your defence.
However the rules of engagement are a total bollocks today.
So basically anything goes then?
If the Rules of Engagement of today were used in WW2, the allies would have lost the war.
Oddly, the rules against relatively lightly armed insurgents that mingle with the civilian population are different from total war. But hey just bomb 'em all and let God sort them out, they're only Afghanis after all.
The British army has a proud tradition, unlike some others, of taking risks to minimize civilian casualties. It's something they are proud of.
They're also not very keen on having murderers in the ranks, unlike some other armies.
Edit, formating gone rats, but it should be apparent who the reply is to.
Something has smelled about this case for months; now it stinks to high heaven.
Blackman, is a murderer and received an appropriate sentence. I know in your opinion that killing an unarmed prisoner was ok in this case because he was an Afghan, but most people don't agree.
The issue is whether this was murder - or manslaughter, which was not considered. Manslaughter would have given a far greater range of sentencing options.
[snip] if manslaughter were not an option available to the court martial, having found Blackman guilty of murder, the manslaughter option would have been unnecessary.
Er, no. If the only options are murder or innocent, then in all likelihood he is going to be found guilty of murder. If manslaughter were an option, I suggest that manslaughter would have to be considered equally with murder - and might have been the more likely outcome. That manslaughter wasn't an option means we cannot know. I would therefore say it was unsound.
In civilian life, man shoots unarmed man may be more complex in reality than that thumbnail sketch. It becomes more complicated still when the State gave that man the gun. And trained that man to kill people.
Unbelievable this man is leader of the Labour party.
It wasn't Corbyn, it was a member of his staff. The TImes printed an apology for their article alleging it was Corbyn
Can't get in to Lexis Nexis. Grrr.
I reckon the Sun must have known it a wrong-story, but decided it was worth running again because Corbyn won't want to draw attention to the episode even if he wasn't directly involved.
Yes I am sure they must know. All journalists seem to do it, wherever their allegiances lie. It's a shoddy business!
Re: Workers from outside the EC. A simple solution that other countries use. It is called charging for work permits. £10,000 a year as the starting point and higher amounts for various levels. Employers will then have an incentive to hire and train more Brits where they cannot get from the EC.
I'm in favour of any solution, as long as it's a free market one. (As this is.)
I'm waiting at a GP surgery walkin clinic. Because I can never get through during their limited periods they take appointments.
Why are GPs allowed to limit how many appointments they take? It makes it impossible for patients to work out which ones are over subscribed. And for the government to monitor the true scale of excess demand.
We should force all GPs to take appointments at all times, to publish the length of the waiting list and to scrap catchment areas. That means everyone can see where is easiest to get an appointment and help balance out demand over the network.
Just some ideas.
Ironically, GPs are the most private bit of the NHS: quasi-independent small businesses in competition with each other, whose patients can switch between them, taking their funding with them. The ironic part is that GPs are what the free market fans in both parties complain about most. Either the market is not a panacea for delivering what is wanted, or it works perfectly for the majority. Or both. ..
One part of the problem is that the central NHS has allocated smaller % of the budget to the GP service. The doctors in training have taken the hint and fewer are becoming GPs (you do wonder why there are no set GP training slots). It needs a little more money allocated to the GP service and more would become GPs. Having more would make the market work much much better as we could transfer to the more responsive GP setups. Add in a reform of the customer ratings systems through apps etc and then we start to view GPs like any service - one where we choose who to use.
There are specific GP traing posts, though many are unfilled:
Paying more is not the simple answer. The reasons that so few graduates want to go into GP (or indeed many hospital specialities like Accident and Emergency or Psychiatry) are more complex. Addressing the reasons why GP's retire early, burn out or emigrate is not an overnight job. Tackling unreasonable patient demands is as nessecary as tackling unreasonable government demands.
You can bring it up, not sure what it's got to do with the topic of the actions of the British military, but feel free.
I thought you were sarcastically banging on and on (and on) about it being "alright because it was only an Afghan".. well Powell's speech about the killing of prisoners in Hola Camp included this passage
"I would say that it is a fearful doctrine, which must recoil upon the heads of those who pronounce it, to stand in judgement on a fellow human being and to say, "Because he was such-and-such, therefore the consequences which would otherwise flow from his death shall not flow."
Nor can we ourselves pick and choose where and in what parts of the world we shall use this or that kind of standard. We cannot say, "We will have African standards in Africa, Asian standards in Asia and perhaps British standards here at home." We have not that choice to make. We must be consistent with ourselves everywhere."
Which seems relevant to me as it refers to representatives of Britain killing foreigners abroad and it being pooh poohed as "Ok because it was only xyz"
Cameron won a majority of 12, while smaller than Major's majority of 21 in 1992 and Churchill's majority of 16 in 1951, it is unlikely that Corbyn and Farron will be winning Tory seats in by-elections as Blair and Ashdown did. The DUP and UUP will also be strongly behind Cameron in any confidence vote given the alternative is Corbyn who they loathe. Cameron's majority is larger than Wilson's majority of 3 in October 1974 and 4 in 1964 as well as the 5 seat majority Attlee won in 1950.
The only way I see the majority disappearing is, as David suggests, EU ref produces a narrow IN and a further 10 or so hardline Eurosceptic Tories defect to UKIP
Sadly BBC Parliament seems not to have much coverage of the LD conference, but we can at least hope for some decent coverage on Sunday Politics of this epic event:
You can bring it up, not sure what it's got to do with the topic of the actions of the British military, but feel free.
I thought you were sarcastically banging on and on (and on) about it being "alright because it was only an Afghan".. well Powell's speech about the killing of prisoners in Hola Camp included this passage
"I would say that it is a fearful doctrine, which must recoil upon the heads of those who pronounce it, to stand in judgement on a fellow human being and to say, "Because he was such-and-such, therefore the consequences which would otherwise flow from his death shall not flow."
Nor can we ourselves pick and choose where and in what parts of the world we shall use this or that kind of standard. We cannot say, "We will have African standards in Africa, Asian standards in Asia and perhaps British standards here at home." We have not that choice to make. We must be consistent with ourselves everywhere."
Which seems relevant to me as it refers to representatives of Britain killing foreigners abroad and it being pooh poohed as "Ok because it was only xyz"
Play nicely x
I was banging on about the bigot not caring because it was only an Afghan, which is true but he doesn't have the balls to admit it.
Sadly BBC Parliament seems not to have much coverage of the LD conference, but we can at least hope for some decent coverage on Sunday Politics of this epic event:
‘Perhaps we needed to tip the whole thing over’: Jon Cruddas on Jeremy Corbyn's Labour
...Cruddas seems unfazed by the apparent crisis within the party. ‘Would it have been better to have a very quiet summer, and possibly a boring leadership election, with all these issues left to fester?’ he asks. ‘Perhaps what was needed was to actually tip the whole thing over.’
‘This process will force people into thinking: hang on a second, where is this party going, what are we going to do about it?’ The last time that happened, he says, was 20 years ago, when Tony Blair became leader. ‘In 1994–97 there was an ideological renewal of the party which was about the aims and values of the party.’ This led to the ‘political strategy and the development of New Labour’. So the scene is now set for ‘an equivalent renewal across the organisation, the ideology and the political strategy of the party’.
Five years is a long time. Cameron will almost certainly make it. But it might not be much fun in the second half.
We have no idea what will happen. At this stage in 1992 they were saying that Labour could never win again. Same again for the Tories in 2005.
Yes but Labour elected a sensible centrist candidate Blair in 1994 (after disastrous defeats in 87 and especially 92) and yet after coronating Brown who was barking and malevolent towards his own team, Labour elected a weird leader who was unelectable.
Now they have elected someone even worse..
The influence of the unions has played no small part in Labour';s downfall.
Who knows who Labour might elect in 2017. The point stands , we have no more idea about the future than they did.
Labour coronated Brown and couldn't get rid of him. Noone in the party had the balls to do it. they then elected another loser in Ed Miliband who lasted 5 yrs and had a humiliating defeat.
You think Labour has the balls to get rid of Corbyn, or that he would voluntarily resign?
Good morning all. Even the slowest of learners will, eventually, learn. If we accept an assertion that the electorate will not go for a 'left wing' party, the real challenge is how does the right of the party reassert itself?
As currently constituted Corbyn would be replaced by another Corbynite (or, given the grisly progression displayed post-Blair, someone even worse).
No, he would be replaced by Hilary Benn in all likelihood. Now while he is Shadow Foreign Secretary in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet and his father was the messiah of the hard left he himself is not really a Corbynite
I'm waiting at a GP surgery walkin clinic. Because I can never get through during their limited periods they take appointments.
Why are GPs allowed to limit how many appointments they take? It makes it impossible for patients to work out which ones are over subscribed. And for the government to monitor the true scale of excess demand.
We should force all GPs to take appointments at all times, to publish the length of the waiting list and to scrap catchment areas. That means everyone can see where is easiest to get an appointment and help balance out demand over the network.
Just some ideas.
Ironically, GPs are the most private bit of the NHS: quasi-independent small businesses in competition with each other, whose patients can switch between them, taking their funding with them. The ironic part is that GPs are what the free market fans in both parties complain about most. Either the market is not a panacea for delivering what is wanted, or it works perfectly for the majority. Or both. ..
One part of the problem is that the central NHS has allocated smaller % of the budget to the GP service. The doctors in training have taken the hint and fewer are becoming GPs (you do wonder why there are no set GP training slots). It needs a little more money allocated to the GP service and more would become GPs. Having more would make the market work much much better as we could transfer to the more responsive GP setups. Add in a reform of the customer ratings systems through apps etc and then we start to view GPs like any service - one where we choose who to use.
There are specific GP traing posts, though many are unfilled:
Paying more is not the simple answer. The reasons that so few graduates want to go into GP (or indeed many hospital specialities like Accident and Emergency or Psychiatry) are more complex. Addressing the reasons why GP's retire early, burn out or emigrate is not an overnight job. Tackling unreasonable patient demands is as nessecary as tackling unreasonable government demands.
I'm waiting at a GP surgery walkin clinic. Because I can never get through during their limited periods they take appointments.
Why are GPs allowed to limit how many appointments they take? It makes it impossible for patients to work out which ones are over subscribed. And for the government to monitor the true scale of excess demand.
We should force all GPs to take appointments at all times, to publish the length of the waiting list and to scrap catchment areas. That means everyone can see where is easiest to get an appointment and help balance out demand over the network.
Just some ideas.
Ironically, GPs are the most private bit of the NHS: quasi-independent small businesses in competition with each other, whose patients can switch between them, taking their funding with them. The ironic part is that GPs are what the free market fans in both parties complain about most. Either the market is not a panacea for delivering what is wanted, or it works perfectly for the majority. Or both. ..
One part of the problem is that the central NHS has allocated smaller % of the budget to the GP service. The doctors in training have taken the hint and fewer are becoming GPs (you do wonder why there are no set GP training slots). It needs a little more money allocated to the GP service and more would become GPs. Having more would make the market work much much better as we could transfer to the more responsive GP setups. Add in a reform of the customer ratings systems through apps etc and then we start to view GPs like any service - one where we choose who to use.
There are specific GP traing posts, though many are unfilled:
Paying more is not the simple answer. The reasons that so few graduates want to go into GP (or indeed many hospital specialities like Accident and Emergency or Psychiatry) are more complex. Addressing the reasons why GP's retire early, burn out or emigrate is not an overnight job. Tackling unreasonable patient demands is as nessecary as tackling unreasonable government demands.
Thanks for the link. It indirectly answered my earlier question...9 to 11 years to train a GP. The examples of timewasting and stupidity are horrifying. I can't think of a simple, effective solution, other than introducing a numpty tax. Oh, if I could only change the world.
I'm waiting at a GP surgery walkin clinic. Because I can never get through during their limited periods they take appointments.
Why are GPs allowed to limit how many appointments they take? It makes it impossible for patients to work out which ones are over subscribed. And for the government to monitor the true scale of excess demand.
We should force all GPs to take appointments at all times, to publish the length of the waiting list and to scrap catchment areas. That means everyone can see where is easiest to get an appointment and help balance out demand over the network.
Just some ideas.
Ironically, GPs are the most private bit of the NHS: quasi-independent small businesses in competition with each other, whose patients can switch between them, taking their funding with them. The ironic part is that GPs are what the free market fans in both parties complain about most. Either the market is not a panacea for delivering what is wanted, or it works perfectly for the majority. Or both. ..
One part of the problem is that the central NHS has allocated smaller % of the budget to the GP service. The doctors in training have taken the hint and fewer are becoming GPs (you do wonder why there are no set GP training slots). It needs a little more money allocated to the GP service and more would become GPs. Having more would make the market work much much better as we could transfer to the more responsive GP setups. Add in a reform of the customer ratings systems through apps etc and then we start to view GPs like any service - one where we choose who to use.
There are specific GP traing posts, though many are unfilled:
Paying more is not the simple answer. The reasons that so few graduates want to go into GP (or indeed many hospital specialities like Accident and Emergency or Psychiatry) are more complex. Addressing the reasons why GP's retire early, burn out or emigrate is not an overnight job. Tackling unreasonable patient demands is as nessecary as tackling unreasonable government demands.
F1: important news: Grosjean has a Swiss passport and is 3/4 Swiss (Swiss father, 1/2 Swiss mother) but a French licence. Apparently the Swiss are peeved he doesn't race under the Swiss flag.
I'm waiting at a GP surgery walkin clinic. Because I can never get through during their limited periods they take appointments.
Why are GPs allowed to limit how many appointments they take? It makes it impossible for patients to work out which ones are over subscribed. And for the government to monitor the true scale of excess demand.
We should force all GPs to take appointments at all times, to publish the length of the waiting list and to scrap catchment areas. That means everyone can see where is easiest to get an appointment and help balance out demand over the network.
Just some ideas.
Ironically, GPs are the most private bit of the NHS: quasi-independent small businesses in competition with each other, whose patients can switch between them, taking their funding with them. The ironic part is that GPs are what the free market fans in both parties complain about most. Either the market is not a panacea for delivering what is wanted, or it works perfectly for the majority. Or both. ..
There are specific GP traing posts, though many are unfilled:
Paying more is not the simple answer. The reasons that so few graduates want to go into GP (or indeed many hospital specialities like Accident and Emergency or Psychiatry) are more complex. Addressing the reasons why GP's retire early, burn out or emigrate is not an overnight job. Tackling unreasonable patient demands is as nessecary as tackling unreasonable government demands.
Mental health, circulatory diseases and cancer are the top three _medical_ costs. I've only had a cursory look; there's probably much more granular data available.
Sadly BBC Parliament seems not to have much coverage of the LD conference, but we can at least hope for some decent coverage on Sunday Politics of this epic event:
F1: important news: Grosjean has a Swiss passport and is 3/4 Swiss (Swiss father, 1/2 Swiss mother) but a French licence. Apparently the Swiss are peeved he doesn't race under the Swiss flag.
Hopefully there won't be as many problems as when they played the Irish anthem for Eddie Irvine ..
Sadly BBC Parliament seems not to have much coverage of the LD conference, but we can at least hope for some decent coverage on Sunday Politics of this epic event:
I'm waiting at a GP surgery walkin clinic. Because I can never get through during their limited periods they take appointments.
Why are GPs allowed to limit how many appointments they take? It makes it impossible for patients to work out which ones are over subscribed. And for the government to monitor the true scale of excess demand.
We should force all GPs to take appointments at all times, to publish the length of the waiting list and to scrap catchment areas. That means everyone can see where is easiest to get an appointment and help balance out demand over the network.
Just some ideas.
Ironically, GPs are the most private bit of the NHS: quasi-independent small businesses in competition with each other, whose patients can switch between them, taking their funding with them. The ironic part is that GPs are what the free market fans in both parties complain about most. Either the market is not a panacea for delivering what is wanted, or it works perfectly for the majority. Or both. ..
One part of the problem is that the central NHS has allocated smaller % of the budget to the GP service. The doctors in training have taken the hint and fewer are becoming GPs (you do wonder why there are no set GP training slots). It needs a little more money allocated to the GP service and more would become GPs. Having more would make the market work much much better as we could transfer to the more responsive GP setups. Add in a reform of the customer ratings systems through apps etc and then we start to view GPs like any service - one where we choose who to use.
There are specific GP traing posts, though many are unfilled:
Paying more is not the simple answer. The reasons that so few graduates want to go into GP (or indeed many hospital specialities like Accident and Emergency or Psychiatry) are more complex. Addressing the reasons why GP's retire early, burn out or emigrate is not an overnight job. Tackling unreasonable patient demands is as nessecary as tackling unreasonable government demands.
Thanks for the link. It indirectly answered my earlier question...9 to 11 years to train a GP. The examples of timewasting and stupidity are horrifying. I can't think of a simple, effective solution, other than introducing a numpty tax. Oh, if I could only change the world.
You could employ someone on a much lower salary than the GP to ask the patient what the appointment is about, and then tell them to f*** off if necessary.
While the excessive hours are gone (72 hours max in any particular week and 48 hour average under EWTD) this change is being driven by a desire to cut the paybill and will fragment training further.
Many of these posts are difficult to fill, this isn't going to help.
@tg86 planning to visit fortress King Power next week?
Silly question, but do doctors get paid per hour they work - so do you get paid for a 60 hour week if that's what you end up working? During the Census I got paid for doing ridiculous hours which was great - but now I'm in a job where I'm expected to complete all of my work in my 36 hour week. Inevitably I end up working more because I care about doing a good job, but I then get moaned at for having worked too many hours - I find that quite stressful.
Yes, I will be going to Leicester next week. I went to Zagreb on Wednesday (via Vienna) and hopefully that's the last time Wenger thinks that it's a good idea to leave Coquelin on the bench. I travelled by train between Vienna and Zagreb and I didn't see any Syrians, but a dozen young men boarded the train at Graz and they turned out to be from Iraq.
Junior Doctors currently get paid a basic salary for a 40 hour week, plus a banding. This usually falls into an additional 40% of salary. The variety of shift patterns is quite complex:
The new proposals do not change the overall hours but do reduce the hours considered "antisocial" and hence the applicable pay band.
See you next week. It should be an interesting test next week at the KP. Mahrez is an obvious star but watch out for Kante. He is our best summer signing, a real midfield ratter. Will Arsene rest players with the CL match on 29th? Or will he want a full strength team at the KP.
So seem to be more than well paid , if they don't like it they should go get another job.
I'm waiting at a GP surgery walkin clinic. Because I can never get through during their limited periods they take appointments. ... Just some ideas.
Ironically, GPs are the most private bit of the NHS: quasi-independent small businesses in competition with each other, whose patients can switch between them, taking their funding with them. The ironic part is that GPs are what the free market fans in both parties complain about most. Either the market is not a panacea for delivering what is wanted, or it works perfectly for the majority. Or both. ..
One part of the problem is that the central NHS has allocated smaller % of the budget to the GP service. The doctors in training have taken the hint and fewer are becoming GPs (you do wonder why there are no set GP training slots). It needs a little more money allocated to the GP service and more would become GPs. Having more would make the market work much much better as we could transfer to the more responsive GP setups. Add in a reform of the customer ratings systems through apps etc and then we start to view GPs like any service - one where we choose who to use.
There are specific GP traing posts, though many are unfilled:
Paying more is not the simple answer. The reasons that so few graduates want to go into GP (or indeed many hospital specialities like Accident and Emergency or Psychiatry) are more complex. Addressing the reasons why GP's retire early, burn out or emigrate is not an overnight job. Tackling unreasonable patient demands is as nessecary as tackling unreasonable government demands.
Acute hospitals also getting a smaller % slice of the cake Mental Health on its knees so if GPs are also getting a smaller slice where is it going?
Plus there had been a £20bn efficiency drive. In the labour 2010 manifesto Brown said that the NHS now had enough money and could afford the efficiencies. These days we have expensive treatments which can annoyingly cure people whereas before they conveniently died.
NHS pensions are a defined benefit public service pension scheme, which operates on a pay as you go basis. Funds in pay for payments out. The average payment out is £7,234 pa. There are 1.3million active payers and 670,000 pensioners in payment. The govt have a general consolidated fund to balance out its pension payments. So any claims trying again to blame pensioners would seem a bit pathetic.
While the excessive hours are gone (72 hours max in any particular week and 48 hour average under EWTD) this change is being driven by a desire to cut the paybill and will fragment training further.
Many of these posts are difficult to fill, this isn't going to help.
@tg86 planning to visit fortress King Power next week?
Silly question, but do doctors get paid per hour they work - so do you get paid for a 60 hour week if that's what you end up working? During the Census I got paid for doing ridiculous hours which was great - but now I'm in a job where I'm expected to complete all of my work in my 36 hour week. Inevitably I end up working more because I care about doing a good job, but I then get moaned at for having worked too many hours - I find that quite stressful.
Yes, I will be going to Leicester next week. I went to Zagreb on Wednesday (via Vienna) and hopefully that's the last time Wenger thinks that it's a good idea to leave Coquelin on the bench. I travelled by train between Vienna and Zagreb and I didn't see any Syrians, but a dozen young men boarded the train at Graz and they turned out to be from Iraq.
Junior Doctors currently get paid a basic salary for a 40 hour week, plus a banding. This usually falls into an additional 40% of salary. The variety of shift patterns is quite complex:
The new proposals do not change the overall hours but do reduce the hours considered "antisocial" and hence the applicable pay band.
See you next week. It should be an interesting test next week at the KP. Mahrez is an obvious star but watch out for Kante. He is our best summer signing, a real midfield ratter. Will Arsene rest players with the CL match on 29th? Or will he want a full strength team at the KP.
So seem to be more than well paid , if they don't like it they should go get another job.
Scotland and Wales are not following NHS England's lead, so you should still be able to be treated for your surfeit of turnips malady.
Cameron won a majority of 12, while smaller than Major's majority of 21 in 1992 and Churchill's majority of 16 in 1951, it is unlikely that Corbyn and Farron will be winning Tory seats in by-elections as Blair and Ashdown did. The DUP and UUP will also be strongly behind Cameron in any confidence vote given the alternative is Corbyn who they loathe. Cameron's majority is larger than Wilson's majority of 3 in October 1974 and 4 in 1964 as well as the 5 seat majority Attlee won in 1950.
The only way I see the majority disappearing is, as David suggests, EU ref produces a narrow IN and a further 10 or so hardline Eurosceptic Tories defect to UKIP
Valuable points.
I think t would take defections away from the Tories to rid Cameron on a majority. Unlikely to be to Labour or the Lib Dems, it's UKIP that's the unknown.
This "new politics" is great fun. Corbyn is his own man, will follow his own agenda, won't get pushed around by the Party machine or the press...
Jeremy Corbyn, the new Labour leader, has pulled out of a planned appearance at the annual Stop the War coalition conference, his final as chairman of the group.
Corbyn has been a leading member of the group for more than a decade and had been expected to deliver a speech at the meeting on Saturday.
A spokesman for Corbyn, who a week ago won a landslide victory in the Labour leadership contest, said he was unable to attend because of his busy schedule.
“His diary is now obviously very busy and today he is preparing for Labour party conference,” the spokesman said.
If I recall correctly, Irvine was from Northern Ireland, yet raced under an Eire racing licence. After one of his wins, the circuit played the Irish national anthem and flew the Irish flag.
It led to his family getting death threats from loyalist thugs.
Cameron has had an unbelievably lucky time as PM, able to deflect blame to the libs, after winning a surprise majority against dreadful opposition he has been presented with the gift that is Corbyn. The EU will pose far greater problems and I think (and sincerely hope) he won't cope well. The mood of the general public is completely different to that of parliament where I'd guess 90% of MPs would vote IN. The 10% will cause real problems for Cameron, more importantly the electorate look at the news and without staging demonstrations are quietly very worried.
Cameron's best hope is to hold the referendum ASAP, OUT becomes more likely all the time. He'll know if that occurs his career and legacy are in tatters and people make mistakes under pressure.
Thanks. Cameron has been lucky although to no small effect do you make your own luck, or at least make the most of what you're handed. Many people thought that failing to obtain a majority in 2010 would bring him down within months.
But the EU is an issue that can't just be waved away. How to make the most of that when the rest of the continent isn't interested? One possibility is to come up with a solution in which they would be interested; which does address the issues of the Eurozone and migration. But the inevitable logic of that is more centralisation, not less.
All the same, with Corbyn having been dragged firmly into the In camp, that leaves a lot of ambivalent Labour and ex-Labour voters for UKIP to go at initially during the referendum campaign.
From a Conservative Party point of view, there is a good case for Cameron to resign shortly after the referendum whichever way it goes, and for the new leader to seek an immediate mandate, particularly if Corbyn still heads Labour.
But if he stood down he would be labelled a liar - and his successor would be tarnished.
Cameron has had an unbelievably lucky time as PM, able to deflect blame to the libs, after winning a surprise majority against dreadful opposition he has been presented with the gift that is Corbyn. The EU will pose far greater problems and I think (and sincerely hope) he won't cope well. The mood of the general public is completely different to that of parliament where I'd guess 90% of MPs would vote IN. The 10% will cause real problems for Cameron, more importantly the electorate look at the news and without staging demonstrations are quietly very worried.
Cameron's best hope is to hold the referendum ASAP, OUT becomes more likely all the time. He'll know if that occurs his career and legacy are in tatters and people make mistakes under pressure.
Thanks. Cameron has been lucky although to no small effect do you make your own luck, or at least make the most of what you're handed. Many people thought that failing to obtain a majority in 2010 would bring him down within months.
But the EU is an issue that can't just be waved away. How to make the most of that when the rest of the continent isn't interested? One possibility is to come up with a solution in which they would be interested; which does address the issues of the Eurozone and migration. But the inevitable logic of that is more centralisation, not less.
All the same, with Corbyn having been dragged firmly into the In camp, that leaves a lot of ambivalent Labour and ex-Labour voters for UKIP to go at initially during the referendum campaign.
From a Conservative Party point of view, there is a good case for Cameron to resign shortly after the referendum whichever way it goes, and for the new leader to seek an immediate mandate, particularly if Corbyn still heads Labour.
But if he stood down he would be labelled a liar - and his successor would be tarnished.
He'd be tarnished more than his successor, so it might be worth doing.
And of course he could easily justify an election if his recommended option (in) lost.
Something has smelled about this case for months; now it stinks to high heaven.
If due process has not been followed then he should face a retrial. However, his statement, recorded and in a calm, measured voice that he had "just broken the Geneva Convention" should be all the evidence needed to convict him for murder again.
People say and do a lot of things under the stress of battle, as I know. Even his CO has resigned because of the way the courts marshal was carried out. Next time you are in battle, Dave, let me know how you feel.
I said that if process wasn't properly followed there should be a retrial.
I don't doubt that being in battle is a stressful situation but soldiers are trained for that and do know their rules of engagement. From the reports, it sounds as if his team are not contesting whether he committed a crime, just what that crime was.
We cannot simply ignore rules of war and of engagement simply because battle is hard, any more than because the soldier in question happened to be wearing a British uniform. That is the road to justifying - or at least excusing away - any behaviour.
I'm sorry dave, but it's not true in any sense. One can be trained for battle and retrained, but actual conflict, where your life is up for grabs is entirely different. One never knows how they will act and every battle situation is slightly different, be it terrain or men around you or indeed, the weapons at hand for your defence.
However the rules of engagement are a total bollocks today.
So basically anything goes then?
If the Rules of Engagement of today were used in WW2, the allies would have lost the war.
HRA and elf and safety would have done for us.
Very clearly, the British and US armed forces could not have fought WWII in the way that they did, according to today's military standards. British and US battle commanders who tried to take Japanese soldiers prisoner, in Burma or the Pacific, found that many of the prisoners would turn on them. So, quite often, they'd decide there was no point in trying to take prisoners. That would be considered a war crime today. As would the carpet-bombing of German or Japanese cities. But if we did have to fight such a war today, we'd likely abandon today's standards.
I'm waiting at a GP surgery walkin clinic. Because I can never get through during their limited periods they take appointments.
Why are GPs allowed to limit how many appointments they take? It makes it impossible for patients to work out which ones are over subscribed. And for the government to monitor the true scale of excess demand.
We should force all GPs to take appointments at all times, to publish the length of the waiting list and to scrap catchment areas. That means everyone can see where is easiest to get an appointment and help balance out demand over the network.
Just some ideas.
Ironically, GPs are the most private bit of the NHS: quasi-independent small businesses in competition with each other, whose patients can switch between them, taking their funding with them. The ironic part is that GPs are what the free market fans in both parties complain about most. Either the market is not a panacea for delivering what is wanted, or it works perfectly for the majority. Or both. ..
One part of the problem is that the central NHS has allocated smaller % of the budget to the GP service. The doctors in training have taken the hint and fewer are becoming GPs (you do wonder why there are no set GP training slots). It needs a little more money allocated to the GP service and more would become GPs. Having more would make the market work much much better as we could transfer to the more responsive GP setups. Add in a reform of the customer ratings systems through apps etc and then we start to view GPs like any service - one where we choose who to use.
There are specific GP traing posts, though many are unfilled:
Paying more is not the simple answer. The reasons that so few graduates want to go into GP (or indeed many hospital specialities like Accident and Emergency or Psychiatry) are more complex. Addressing the reasons why GP's retire early, burn out or emigrate is not an overnight job. Tackling unreasonable patient demands is as nessecary as tackling unreasonable government demands.
Thanks for the link. It indirectly answered my earlier question...9 to 11 years to train a GP. The examples of timewasting and stupidity are horrifying. I can't think of a simple, effective solution, other than introducing a numpty tax. Oh, if I could only change the world.
A simple charge to see a GP, with the usual safeguards and exemptions, would get rid of a lot of the unnecessary appointments that take up a GPs time.
The Times today has a pretty damming article about Corbyn's leadership. MPs, party workers, shadow cabinet and Corbyn's kitchen cabinet all at war. Corbyn pretty clueless about what being leader is all about with shadow cabinet members making it up for themselves as they go along. The aim of the left however is to convert the £3 members to full voting rights and get the party membership to overrule the PLP.
I'm getting very confused. He cited constituency event to avoid RWC, I presume because it's played/watched by toffs - but now he dumps his favouite hobby horse? Sounds like he's avoiding being pressed by his more voluable supporters.
This "new politics" is great fun. Corbyn is his own man, will follow his own agenda, won't get pushed around by the Party machine or the press...
Jeremy Corbyn, the new Labour leader, has pulled out of a planned appearance at the annual Stop the War coalition conference, his final as chairman of the group.
Corbyn has been a leading member of the group for more than a decade and had been expected to deliver a speech at the meeting on Saturday.
A spokesman for Corbyn, who a week ago won a landslide victory in the Labour leadership contest, said he was unable to attend because of his busy schedule.
“His diary is now obviously very busy and today he is preparing for Labour party conference,” the spokesman said.
Cameron won a majority of 12, while smaller than Major's majority of 21 in 1992 and Churchill's majority of 16 in 1951, it is unlikely that Corbyn and Farron will be winning Tory seats in by-elections as Blair and Ashdown did. The DUP and UUP will also be strongly behind Cameron in any confidence vote given the alternative is Corbyn who they loathe. Cameron's majority is larger than Wilson's majority of 3 in October 1974 and 4 in 1964 as well as the 5 seat majority Attlee won in 1950.
The only way I see the majority disappearing is, as David suggests, EU ref produces a narrow IN and a further 10 or so hardline Eurosceptic Tories defect to UKIP
I strongly suspect that when by-elections do occur there will be substantial swings against the Government - probably a good deal higher than implied by national polls.
I'd love to see that happen, but I really doubt it will. Will they be able to get a certificate of airworthiness, and if not, a permit to fly or equivalent civilian permission?
They would also need major support from the successors of the firms that made it, as ISTR the Vulcan had.
Cameron has had an unbelievably lucky time as PM, able to deflect blame to the libs, after winning a surprise majority against dreadful opposition he has been presented with the gift that is Corbyn. The EU will pose far greater problems and I think (and sincerely hope) he won't cope well. The mood of the general public is completely different to that of parliament where I'd guess 90% of MPs would vote IN. The 10% will cause real problems for Cameron, more importantly the electorate look at the news and without staging demonstrations are quietly very worried.
Cameron's best hope is to hold the referendum ASAP, OUT becomes more likely all the time. He'll know if that occurs his career and legacy are in tatters and people make mistakes under pressure.
Thanks. Cameron has been lucky although to no small effect do you make your own luck, or at least make the most of what you're handed. Many people thought that failing to obtain a majority in 2010 would bring him down within months.
But the EU is an issue that can't just be waved away. How to make the most of that when the rest of the continent isn't interested? One possibility is to come up with a solution in which they would be interested; which does address the issues of the Eurozone and migration. But the inevitable logic of that is more centralisation, not less.
All the same, with Corbyn having been dragged firmly into the In camp, that leaves a lot of ambivalent Labour and ex-Labour voters for UKIP to go at initially during the referendum campaign.
From a Conservative Party point of view, there is a good case for Cameron to resign shortly after the referendum whichever way it goes, and for the new leader to seek an immediate mandate, particularly if Corbyn still heads Labour.
But if he stood down he would be labelled a liar - and his successor would be tarnished.
Only by people who'd do that sort of thing anyway. It will be easy enough to find a reason. If he loses the referendum, he should probably resign anyway.
People didn't hold it against Wilson that he went in 1976, nor against the Conservatives in 1992 that Thatcher was replaced. It would, however, be critical to ensure that the right replacement is selected. Assuming he's not forced out by events, his successor should look continuity rather than coup.
Cameron has had an unbelievably lucky time as PM, able to deflect blame to the libs, after winning a surprise majority against dreadful opposition he has been presented with the gift that is Corbyn. The EU will pose far greater problems and I think (and sincerely hope) he won't cope well. The mood of the general public is completely different to that of parliament where I'd guess 90% of MPs would vote IN. The 10% will cause real problems for Cameron, more importantly the electorate look at the news and without staging demonstrations are quietly very worried.
Cameron's best hope is to hold the referendum ASAP, OUT becomes more likely all the time. He'll know if that occurs his career and legacy are in tatters and people make mistakes under pressure.
Thanks. Cameron has been lucky although to no small effect do you make your own luck, or at least make the most of what you're handed. Many people thought that failing to obtain a majority in 2010 would bring him down within months.
But the EU is an issue that can't just be waved away. How to make the most of that when the rest of the continent isn't interested? One possibility is to come up with a solution in which they would be interested; which does address the issues of the Eurozone and migration. But the inevitable logic of that is more centralisation, not less.
All the same, with Corbyn having been dragged firmly into the In camp, that leaves a lot of ambivalent Labour and ex-Labour voters for UKIP to go at initially during the referendum campaign.
From a Conservative Party point of view, there is a good case for Cameron to resign shortly after the referendum whichever way it goes, and for the new leader to seek an immediate mandate, particularly if Corbyn still heads Labour.
But if he stood down he would be labelled a liar - and his successor would be tarnished.
Only if it is a big In does that make sense, if a narrow In UKIP would ride a wave. If it was Out Cameron would be replaced by a more rightwing leader or possibly Boris
Cameron has had an unbelievably lucky time as PM, able to deflect blame to the libs, after winning a surprise majority against dreadful opposition he has been presented with the gift that is Corbyn. The EU will pose far greater problems and I think (and sincerely hope) he won't cope well. The mood of the general public is completely different to that of parliament where I'd guess 90% of MPs would vote IN. The 10% will cause real problems for Cameron, more importantly the electorate look at the news and without staging demonstrations are quietly very worried.
Cameron's best hope is to hold the referendum ASAP, OUT becomes more likely all the time. He'll know if that occurs his career and legacy are in tatters and people make mistakes under pressure.
Thanks. Cameron has been lucky although to no small effect do you make your own luck, or at least make the most of what you're handed. Many people thought that failing to obtain a majority in 2010 would bring him down within months.
But the EU is an issue that can't just be waved away. How to make the most of that when the rest of the continent isn't interested? One possibility is to come up with a solution in which they would be interested; which does address the issues of the Eurozone and migration. But the inevitable logic of that is more centralisation, not less.
All the same, with Corbyn having been dragged firmly into the In camp, that leaves a lot of ambivalent Labour and ex-Labour voters for UKIP to go at initially during the referendum campaign.
From a Conservative Party point of view, there is a good case for Cameron to resign shortly after the referendum whichever way it goes, and for the new leader to seek an immediate mandate, particularly if Corbyn still heads Labour.
But if he stood down he would be labelled a liar - and his successor would be tarnished.
Only by people who'd do that sort of thing anyway. It will be easy enough to find a reason. If he loses the referendum, he should probably resign anyway.
People didn't hold it against Wilson that he went in 1976, nor against the Conservatives in 1992 that Thatcher was replaced. It would, however, be critical to ensure that the right replacement is selected. Assuming he's not forced out by events, his successor should look continuity rather than coup.
Assuming he wins the referendum, there's no way Cameron will be defenestrated.
In fact it is far more likely the candidate will start out looking like a fait accompli, only challenged because the structure of the Tory leadership election produces one.
Cameron won a majority of 12, while smaller than Major's majority of 21 in 1992 and Churchill's majority of 16 in 1951, it is unlikely that Corbyn and Farron will be winning Tory seats in by-elections as Blair and Ashdown did. The DUP and UUP will also be strongly behind Cameron in any confidence vote given the alternative is Corbyn who they loathe. Cameron's majority is larger than Wilson's majority of 3 in October 1974 and 4 in 1964 as well as the 5 seat majority Attlee won in 1950.
The only way I see the majority disappearing is, as David suggests, EU ref produces a narrow IN and a further 10 or so hardline Eurosceptic Tories defect to UKIP
Valuable points.
I think t would take defections away from the Tories to rid Cameron on a majority. Unlikely to be to Labour or the Lib Dems, it's UKIP that's the unknown.
Something has smelled about this case for months; now it stinks to high heaven.
If due process has not been followed then he should face a retrial. However, his statement, recorded and in a calm, measured voice that he had "just broken the Geneva Convention" should be all the evidence needed to convict him for murder again.
I said that if process wasn't properly followed there should be a retrial.
I don't doubt that being in battle is a stressful situation but soldiers are trained for that and do know their rules of engagement. From the reports, it sounds as if his team are not contesting whether he committed a crime, just what that crime was.
We cannot simply ignore rules of war and of engagement simply because battle is hard, any more than because the soldier in question happened to be wearing a British uniform. That is the road to justifying - or at least excusing away - any behaviour.
However the rules of engagement are a total bollocks today.
So basically anything goes then?
If the Rules of Engagement of today were used in WW2, the allies would have lost the war.
HRA and elf and safety would have done for us.
Very clearly, the British and US armed forces could not have fought WWII in the way that they did, according to today's military standards. British and US battle commanders who tried to take Japanese soldiers prisoner, in Burma or the Pacific, found that many of the prisoners would turn on them. So, quite often, they'd decide there was no point in trying to take prisoners. That would be considered a war crime today. As would the carpet-bombing of German or Japanese cities. But if we did have to fight such a war today, we'd likely abandon today's standards.
You are looking back to what was total war. Even in ww1 the German navy shelled coastal towns indiscriminately. This goes back to the ACW where Sherman destroyed the ability of the southern hinterland to supply the confederate armies and also to prevent any enemy army subsisting as it tried to pursue him. We pursued a similar policy in South Africa c1900.
Cameron won a majority of 12, while smaller than Major's majority of 21 in 1992 and Churchill's majority of 16 in 1951, it is unlikely that Corbyn and Farron will be winning Tory seats in by-elections as Blair and Ashdown did. The DUP and UUP will also be strongly behind Cameron in any confidence vote given the alternative is Corbyn who they loathe. Cameron's majority is larger than Wilson's majority of 3 in October 1974 and 4 in 1964 as well as the 5 seat majority Attlee won in 1950.
The only way I see the majority disappearing is, as David suggests, EU ref produces a narrow IN and a further 10 or so hardline Eurosceptic Tories defect to UKIP
I strongly suspect that when by-elections do occur there will be substantial swings against the Government - probably a good deal higher than implied by national polls.
Maybe, but they will be to UKIP in Tory seats, not Corbyn's Labour or Farron's LDs, much as by-election swings in Labour seats in the IDS/Howard years went to the LDs
Conservatives the party of the young? Tommorow belongs to me...
Given history, I can understand why Labour are reluctant to deselect MPs even when they are getting on a bit. But I wonder if that is the real reason for their current malaise? In the seventies and eighties Labour politicians always seemed a bit brighter on average than their competition, but that has slipped in recent years.
Thanks. Cameron has been lucky although to no small effect do you make your own luck, or at least make the most of what you're handed. Many people thought that failing to obtain a majority in 2010 would bring him down within months.
But the EU is an issue that can't just be waved away. How to make the most of that when the rest of the continent isn't interested? One possibility is to come up with a solution in which they would be interested; which does address the issues of the Eurozone and migration. But the inevitable logic of that is more centralisation, not less.
All the same, with Corbyn having been dragged firmly into the In camp, that leaves a lot of ambivalent Labour and ex-Labour voters for UKIP to go at initially during the referendum campaign.
From a Conservative Party point of view, there is a good case for Cameron to resign shortly after the referendum whichever way it goes, and for the new leader to seek an immediate mandate, particularly if Corbyn still heads Labour.
But if he stood down he would be labelled a liar - and his successor would be tarnished.
Only by people who'd do that sort of thing anyway. It will be easy enough to find a reason. If he loses the referendum, he should probably resign anyway.
People didn't hold it against Wilson that he went in 1976, nor against the Conservatives in 1992 that Thatcher was replaced. It would, however, be critical to ensure that the right replacement is selected. Assuming he's not forced out by events, his successor should look continuity rather than coup.
Assuming he wins the referendum, there's no way Cameron will be defenestrated.
In fact it is far more likely the candidate will start out looking like a fait accompli, only challenged because the structure of the Tory leadership election produces one.
After a referendum win, what would be the purpose of Cameron staying on for the fag-end of the parliament? Better to go out on a high, no? I completely agree that he wouldn't be challenged (or more accurately, subject to a VoNC), but might choose to stand down anyway in, say, the autumn of 2017.
The Times today has a pretty damming article about Corbyn's leadership. MPs, party workers, shadow cabinet and Corbyn's kitchen cabinet all at war. Corbyn pretty clueless about what being leader is all about with shadow cabinet members making it up for themselves as they go along. The aim of the left however is to convert the £3 members to full voting rights and get the party membership to overrule the PLP.
So the Sun are running stories they know to be false now. Does anyone on the right want to condemn the media's behaviour yet, which is like something out of a tinpot dictatorship - or do they think it's ok because it is on their 'side'? I know I wouldn't be happy if the roles were reversed.
This "new politics" is great fun. Corbyn is his own man, will follow his own agenda, won't get pushed around by the Party machine or the press...
Jeremy Corbyn, the new Labour leader, has pulled out of a planned appearance at the annual Stop the War coalition conference, his final as chairman of the group.
Corbyn has been a leading member of the group for more than a decade and had been expected to deliver a speech at the meeting on Saturday.
A spokesman for Corbyn, who a week ago won a landslide victory in the Labour leadership contest, said he was unable to attend because of his busy schedule.
“His diary is now obviously very busy and today he is preparing for Labour party conference,” the spokesman said.
What a load of tendentious fraff. Do you not sometimes look in the mirror and think 'is this really the best use of my short time on this planet, copying and pasting weak propaganda?'
Thanks. Cameron has been lucky although to no small effect do you make your own luck, or at least make the most of what you're handed. Many people thought that failing to obtain a majority in 2010 would bring him down within months.
But the EU is an issue that can't just be waved away. How to make the most of that when the rest of the continent isn't interested? One possibility is to come up with a solution in which they would be interested; which does address the issues of the Eurozone and migration. But the inevitable logic of that is more centralisation, not less.
All the same, with Corbyn having been dragged firmly into the In camp, that leaves a lot of ambivalent Labour and ex-Labour voters for UKIP to go at initially during the referendum campaign.
From a Conservative Party point of view, there is a good case for Cameron to resign shortly after the referendum whichever way it goes, and for the new leader to seek an immediate mandate, particularly if Corbyn still heads Labour.
But if he stood down he would be labelled a liar - and his successor would be tarnished.
Only by people who'd do that sort of thing anyway. It will be easy enough to find a reason. If he loses the referendum, he should probably resign anyway.
People didn't hold it against Wilson that he went in 1976, nor against the Conservatives in 1992 that Thatcher was replaced. It would, however, be critical to ensure that the right replacement is selected. Assuming he's not forced out by events, his successor should look continuity rather than coup.
Assuming he wins the referendum, there's no way Cameron will be defenestrated.
In fact it is far more likely the candidate will start out looking like a fait accompli, only challenged because the structure of the Tory leadership election produces one.
After a referendum win, what would be the purpose of Cameron staying on for the fag-end of the parliament? Better to go out on a high, no? I completely agree that he wouldn't be challenged (or more accurately, subject to a VoNC), but might choose to stand down anyway in, say, the autumn of 2017.
My last post wasn't designed to comment on that.
Happy to dominate the narrative for a bit, wait till the opportunie moment to hand over. I think a run in for his replacement from late 2017 would be too long, unless his chosen successor is an unknown.
Something has smelled about this case for months; now it stinks to high heaven.
If due process has not been followed then he should face a retrial. However, his statement, recorded and in a calm, measured voice that he had "just broken the Geneva Convention" should be all the evidence needed to convict him for murder again.
I said that if process wasn't properly followed there should be a retrial.
I don't doubt that being in battle is a stressful situation but soldiers are trained for that and do know their rules of engagement. From the reports, it sounds as if his team are not contesting whether he committed a crime, just what that crime was.
We cannot simply ignore rules of war and of engagement simply because battle is hard, any more than because the soldier in question happened to be wearing a British uniform. That is the road to justifying - or at least excusing away - any behaviour.
However the rules of engagement are a total bollocks today.
So basically anything goes then?
If the Rules of Engagement of today were used in WW2, the allies would have lost the war.
HRA and elf and safety would have done for us.
Very clearly, the British and US armed forces could not have fought WWII in the way that they did, according to today's military standards. British and US battle commanders who tried to take Japanese soldiers prisoner, in Burma or the Pacific, found that many of the prisoners would turn on them. So, quite often, they'd decide there was no point in trying to take prisoners. That would be considered a war crime today. As would the carpet-bombing of German or Japanese cities. But if we did have to fight such a war today, we'd likely abandon today's standards.
You are looking back to what was total war. Even in ww1 the German navy shelled coastal towns indiscriminately. This goes back to the ACW where Sherman destroyed the ability of the southern hinterland to supply the confederate armies and also to prevent any enemy army subsisting as it tried to pursue him. We pursued a similar policy in South Africa c1900.
Generally, I'd regard the behaviour of the US and British armed forces in WWII as being the benchmark for what one can expect from decent soldiers.
Cameron won a majority of 12, while smaller than Major's majority of 21 in 1992 and Churchill's majority of 16 in 1951, it is unlikely that Corbyn and Farron will be winning Tory seats in by-elections as Blair and Ashdown did. The DUP and UUP will also be strongly behind Cameron in any confidence vote given the alternative is Corbyn who they loathe. Cameron's majority is larger than Wilson's majority of 3 in October 1974 and 4 in 1964 as well as the 5 seat majority Attlee won in 1950.
The only way I see the majority disappearing is, as David suggests, EU ref produces a narrow IN and a further 10 or so hardline Eurosceptic Tories defect to UKIP
I strongly suspect that when by-elections do occur there will be substantial swings against the Government - probably a good deal higher than implied by national polls.
As a rule of thumb, by-elections produce a swing double that shown in the VI polls of the day. But while that might be enough to swing marginal to Labour or Lib Dem, it won't be seeing the sort of losses John Major suffered in Eastbourne or Christchurch. In the last parliament, Newark stayed Tory, for example.
But as I mentioned in the header, by-elections are much rarer beasts these days anyway.
Was looking for an easy recipe for a dinner party tonight, stumbled upon Lisa Faulkner's website. Got the Kindle edition of her book, my word. Definitely the next Nigella but actually good at cooking.
So the Sun are running stories they know to be false now. Does anyone on the right want to condemn the media's behaviour yet, which is like something out of a tinpot dictatorship - or do they think it's ok because it is on their 'side'? I know I wouldn't be happy if the roles were reversed.
Will you be leading a March on the mirror offices with the nonce finder general, in protest at their industrial level of phone hacking? Or are you only opposed to papers that aren't on your side?
Thanks. Cameron has been lucky although to no small effect do you make your own luck, or at least make the most of what you're handed. Many people thought that failing to obtain a majority in 2010 would bring him down within months.
But the EU is an issue that can't just be waved away. How to make the most of that when the rest of the continent isn't interested? One possibility is to come up with a solution in which they would be interested; which does address the issues of the Eurozone and migration. But the inevitable logic of that is more centralisation, not less.
All the same, with Corbyn having been dragged firmly into the In camp, that leaves a lot of ambivalent Labour and ex-Labour voters for UKIP to go at initially during the referendum campaign.
From a Conservative Party point of view, there is a good case for Cameron to resign shortly after the referendum whichever way it goes, and for the new leader to seek an immediate mandate, particularly if Corbyn still heads Labour.
But if he stood down he would be labelled a liar - and his successor would be tarnished.
Only by people who'd do that sort of thing anyway. It will be easy enough to find a reason. If he loses the referendum, he should probably resign anyway.
People didn't hold it against Wilson that he went in 1976, nor against the Conservatives in 1992 that Thatcher was replaced. It would, however, be critical to ensure that the right replacement is selected. Assuming he's not forced out by events, his successor should look continuity rather than coup.
Assuming he wins the referendum, there's no way Cameron will be defenestrated.
In fact it is far more likely the candidate will start out looking like a fait accompli, only challenged because the structure of the Tory leadership election produces one.
After a referendum win, what would be the purpose of Cameron staying on for the fag-end of the parliament? Better to go out on a high, no? I completely agree that he wouldn't be challenged (or more accurately, subject to a VoNC), but might choose to stand down anyway in, say, the autumn of 2017.
I'd assumed all along that was the plan, on the basis that he'll have 'won' his major battles in the party and set things up for his preferred successor, and so by standing down (maybe a year after the vote?) it could, he might hope, draw a line under the divisiveness, in that the defeated would better accept moving on under a new leader, even if it's one who backed Cameron all the way.
Conservatives the party of the young? Tommorow belongs to me...
Given history, I can understand why Labour are reluctant to deselect MPs even when they are getting on a bit. But I wonder if that is the real reason for their current malaise? In the seventies and eighties Labour politicians always seemed a bit brighter on average than their competition, but that has slipped in recent years.
It may simply be that because Labour have had net seat losses in every election since 1997 that there has been too little space for new blood to come through. The post expenses purge in 2010 allowed for some but overall Labour MPs seem to like holding on until the bitter end.
Thanks. Cameron has been lucky although to no small effect do you make your own luck, or at least make the most of what you're handed. Many people thought that failing to obtain a majority in 2010 would bring him down within months.
But the EU is an issue that can't just be waved away. How to make the most of that when the rest of the continent isn't interested? One possibility is to come up with a solution in which they would be interested; which does address the issues of the Eurozone and migration. But the inevitable logic of that is more centralisation, not less.
All the same, with Corbyn having been dragged firmly into the In camp, that leaves a lot of ambivalent Labour and ex-Labour voters for UKIP to go at initially during the referendum campaign.
From a Conservative Party point of view, there is a good case for Cameron to resign shortly after the referendum whichever way it goes, and for the new leader to seek an immediate mandate, particularly if Corbyn still heads Labour.
But if he stood down he would be labelled a liar - and his successor would be tarnished.
Only by people who'd do that sort of thing anyway. It will be easy enough to find a reason. If he loses the referendum, he should probably resign anyway.
People didn't hold it against Wilson that he went in 1976, nor against the Conservatives in 1992 that Thatcher was replaced. It would, however, be critical to ensure that the right replacement is selected. Assuming he's not forced out by events, his successor should look continuity rather than coup.
Assuming he wins the referendum, there's no way Cameron will be defenestrated.
In fact it is far more likely the candidate will start out looking like a fait accompli, only challenged because the structure of the Tory leadership election produces one.
After a referendum win, what would be the purpose of Cameron staying on for the fag-end of the parliament? Better to go out on a high, no? I completely agree that he wouldn't be challenged (or more accurately, subject to a VoNC), but might choose to stand down anyway in, say, the autumn of 2017.
My last post wasn't designed to comment on that.
Happy to dominate the narrative for a bit, wait till the opportunie moment to hand over. I think a run in for his replacement from late 2017 would be too long, unless his chosen successor is an unknown.
Thanks. Cameron has been lucky although to no small effect do you make your own luck, or at least make the most of what you're handed. Many people thought that failing to obtain a majority in 2010 would bring him down within months.
But the EU is an issue that can't just be waved away. [...]
All the same, with Corbyn having been dragged firmly into the In camp, that leaves a lot of ambivalent Labour and ex-Labour voters for UKIP to go at initially during the referendum campaign.
From a Conservative Party point of view, there is a good case for Cameron to resign shortly after the referendum whichever way it goes, and for the new leader to seek an immediate mandate, particularly if Corbyn still heads Labour.
But if he stood down he would be labelled a liar - and his successor would be tarnished.
Only by people who'd do that sort of thing anyway. It will be easy enough to find a reason. If he loses the referendum, he should probably resign anyway.
People didn't hold it against Wilson that he went in 1976, nor against the Conservatives in 1992 that Thatcher was replaced. It would, however, be critical to ensure that the right replacement is selected. Assuming he's not forced out by events, his successor should look continuity rather than coup.
Assuming he wins the referendum, there's no way Cameron will be defenestrated.
In fact it is far more likely the candidate will start out looking like a fait accompli, only challenged because the structure of the Tory leadership election produces one.
After a referendum win, what would be the purpose of Cameron staying on for the fag-end of the parliament? Better to go out on a high, no? I completely agree that he wouldn't be challenged (or more accurately, subject to a VoNC), but might choose to stand down anyway in, say, the autumn of 2017.
My last post wasn't designed to comment on that.
Happy to dominate the narrative for a bit, wait till the opportunie moment to hand over. I think a run in for his replacement from late 2017 would be too long, unless his chosen successor is an unknown.
Unless the new PM seeks to call a snap election.
OK, yes. I was assuming the next election was 2020 (where Cameron wins and is not defenestrated).
All other things being equal I think this is unlikely. But a big shift in the Labour Party, perhaps prompted by a particular external factor, might change things.
Comments
I agree. The training structures of the NHS have failed to keep up with the modern world with half or more of UK medical graduates being female.
Maternity leave and part time working (a 70% WTE trainee creates a 30% unfillable gap in our rota) combined with an inflexible training structure of rigid rotations has not kept up with the workforce and the DoH is introducing more inflexibility!
I would not ban any of those groups but many of them could be sensibly restricted. A lot of student immigration is to fourth rate universities that is clearly more about getting people into the UK than providing a decent education. The intracompany transfer route should be restricted to be the truly high skilled. Family migration should have the income requirement increased to the actual taxes needed to be paid to cover the average government spending level per capita. Recent arranged marriages shouldn't be accommodated. Et cetera.
Blackman, took the prisoner out of sight, shot him a close range then stated on tape that he had broken the Geneva convention. It's pretty cut and dried murder and a contemporaneous record of the events is on tape.
But bigots like you don't mind because it's only an Afghan.
In any other area of life this wouldn't even be a decision.
"Darling I have got 6 eggs but no mushrooms and want to make mushroom omelettes, could you go to the shop please?"
Husband returns with 6 eggs
However the rules of engagement are a total bollocks today.
Either the market is not a panacea for delivering what is wanted, or it works perfectly for the majority. Or both. My GP's waiting room is normally full of mums with infants, and elderly patients, for both of which groups, most appointments are routine and daytime is most convenient.
It does not help that meddling politicians are also not typical patients, so they tend to get hung up on expensive solutions for unusual problems, like doctors sharing records between our Auchtermuchty constituency and central London.
But if you don't like your GP, get a different one.
I can't recall the last time I saw or heard from one of them on the TV. Just gone. Not a single mention of their conference either. I've just done a YouGov that asked me to rate a few of them which reminded me that they still exist.
And worth bearing in mind that the high employment rate for unskilled and semi-skilled EU migrants shows that there are plenty of training needs at that end of the spectrum too.
I can see a few issues though if we employ a Philipino nurse but do not permit her to marry from back home, and end her visa if she gets pregnant (though that would match the rules in the UAE).
I reckon the Sun must have known it a wrong-story, but decided it was worth running again because Corbyn won't want to draw attention to the episode even if he wasn't directly involved.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/18/vince-cable-calls-for-labour-and-lib-dem-centre-left-mps-to-unite
One key thing that I suggest to watch out for is LD policy on Trident at this Conference.
£10,000 a year as the starting point and higher amounts for various levels. Employers will then have an incentive to hire and train more Brits where they cannot get from the EC.
I think they're keeping Trident on the basis that most MPs aren't members of CND anymore...
In civilian life, man shoots unarmed man may be more complex in reality than that thumbnail sketch. It becomes more complicated still when the State gave that man the gun. And trained that man to kill people.
http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2010/02/powell-speech-kenya-hola
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11517019/One-in-3-trainee-GP-posts-are-empty-amid-warnings-of-crisis-shortage.html
Paying more is not the simple answer. The reasons that so few graduates want to go into GP (or indeed many hospital specialities like Accident and Emergency or Psychiatry) are more complex. Addressing the reasons why GP's retire early, burn out or emigrate is not an overnight job. Tackling unreasonable patient demands is as nessecary as tackling unreasonable government demands.
Resilient GP has a few here:
http://www.resilientgp.org/inappropriate-demands/
"I would say that it is a fearful doctrine, which must recoil upon the heads of those who pronounce it, to stand in judgement on a fellow human being and to say, "Because he was such-and-such, therefore the consequences which would otherwise flow from his death shall not flow."
Nor can we ourselves pick and choose where and in what parts of the world we shall use this or that kind of standard. We cannot say, "We will have African standards in Africa, Asian standards in Asia and perhaps British standards here at home." We have not that choice to make. We must be consistent with ourselves everywhere."
Which seems relevant to me as it refers to representatives of Britain killing foreigners abroad and it being pooh poohed as "Ok because it was only xyz"
Play nicely x
The only way I see the majority disappearing is, as David suggests, EU ref produces a narrow IN and a further 10 or so hardline Eurosceptic Tories defect to UKIP
I *think* qualifying starts at 2pm.
Mental health, circulatory diseases and cancer are the top three _medical_ costs. I've only had a cursory look; there's probably much more granular data available.
He's been practising a bit on the simulator to try and stop it recurring.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34301689
These days we have expensive treatments which can annoyingly cure people whereas before they conveniently died.
NHS pensions are a defined benefit public service pension scheme, which operates on a pay as you go basis. Funds in pay for payments out. The average payment out is £7,234 pa. There are 1.3million active payers and 670,000 pensioners in payment. The govt have a general consolidated fund to balance out its pension payments.
So any claims trying again to blame pensioners would seem a bit pathetic.
I think t would take defections away from the Tories to rid Cameron on a majority. Unlikely to be to Labour or the Lib Dems, it's UKIP that's the unknown.
It led to his family getting death threats from loyalist thugs.
Fiorina – 22%
Trump – 18%
Carson – 10%
Bush – 9%
Kasich – 9%
Rubio – 7%
Christie – 6%
Cruz – 6%
Paul – 3%
Huckabee – 2%
Walker – 2%
Other – 6%
http://votergravity.com/fiorina-leads-in-nh-in-post-cnn-debate-poll/
And of course he could easily justify an election if his recommended option (in) lost.
ALL ABOARD
Whatever else, he needs to be consistent. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/19/jeremy-corbyn-pulls-out-stop-the-war-coalition-conference
They would also need major support from the successors of the firms that made it, as ISTR the Vulcan had.
Alternatively, they could just fly one (ahem) by accident:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rh2YSzBdWFg
People didn't hold it against Wilson that he went in 1976, nor against the Conservatives in 1992 that Thatcher was replaced. It would, however, be critical to ensure that the right replacement is selected. Assuming he's not forced out by events, his successor should look continuity rather than coup.
In fact it is far more likely the candidate will start out looking like a fait accompli, only challenged because the structure of the Tory leadership election produces one.
Betting PostWon't last and may be rendered void, but Ladbrokes has Merhi at 3.75 not to be classified.
Good odds, giving he isn't driving in the race.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Jessop, ah, had no idea about that.
What a load of tendentious fraff. Do you not sometimes look in the mirror and think 'is this really the best use of my short time on this planet, copying and pasting weak propaganda?'
Happy to dominate the narrative for a bit, wait till the opportunie moment to hand over. I think a run in for his replacement from late 2017 would be too long, unless his chosen successor is an unknown.
But as I mentioned in the header, by-elections are much rarer beasts these days anyway.
Stand by: we have the first post-Corbyn voting intention poll in @IndyOnSunday & @TheSundayMirror tomorrow http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2015/09/19/poll-alert-56/ …
"The Labour Party declined to comment last night" seems like an excellent response. Never stop your enemy when they are making a mistake...
Just got my deep cogitation about F1 betting interrupted by the telephone... Hopefully get the pre-qualifying ramble up fairly soon.
All other things being equal I think this is unlikely. But a big shift in the Labour Party, perhaps prompted by a particular external factor, might change things.