He has time, if he becomes PM in 2025 he would be the same age as Obama when he was elected president. Now he is engaged hopefully his private life will settle down and be less prone to intrusion
Win what? With whom? Would you like Britain to govern Syria? If not, who would you realistically hope to help gain power by dropping a few bombs?
Who did you hope to gain power for by bombing and invading Iraq?
Elected democrats - not my business of which particular type. but I hoped clearly better than Saddam. The fact that this turned out to be largely illusory is the main reason why I've been against interventions in Libya (as surely most now agree has been a disaster?) and Syria.
It is a mistake to take one example and see it as a rule. Iraq went wrong for various reasons the biggest of which was sh*t post invasion preparation, insufficient policing resources and not being honest about what the motive was for real.
There is no bombing of Syria, there is bombing of IS in Syria. Suppressing their concentrations is a fair policy if you take the view they are horrible individuals who pose a multiple front threat. If you don't then it isn't a fair policy.
Bombing Syria was never required to get rid of Assad.
The Doctors will scweam and scweam and scweeeeeeeeeeeeeam !
Mostly they will vote with their feet. We have 50% vacancies in the East Midlands GP training scheme, and similar in specialities like Emergency Medicine.
Its called market forces. You would have thought Tories would understand that! If you want people to work unsocial hours then you have to pay a premium rate.
If you want pay to be determined by market forces - and I can see why you might when there are such shortages - then you can't have a state owned, state run system.
So which is it you want? A competitive market system where doctors get paid more but you also get payments by patients, insurance, private providers etc? Or a state run system where market forces are replaced by rationing and queuing and doctors' pay gets screwed down?
Seems to me you want the best of both worlds.
It looks to me that the Tories want market forces only when it suits them.
They could incentivise people to work antisocial hours or they could use the power of being a monopoly employer to coerce people.
They may get their way, but dont expect support with targets etc.
True enough. And I'm no great supporter of targets. Measurement is not the same as evaluation.
But it seems to me that doctors want a state run system but then complain when the monopoly employer seeks to coerce them.
So which is more important for doctors: having the state as employer or being paid properly and incentivised as in any market?
That is a false choice. They do not want a paycut.
They also are not impressed by a health minister who refuses to negotiate for a year, who refuses to put figures to his proposals then comes out with a proposal the day before the strike ballot and presents it to the media rather than our negotiating representatives. We want everything on the table in the negotiations and a DoH that acts in good faith.
The Doctors will scweam and scweam and scweeeeeeeeeeeeeam !
Mostly they will vote with their feet. We have 50% vacancies in the East Midlands GP training scheme, and similar in specialities like Emergency Medicine.
Its called market forces. You would have thought Tories would understand that! If you want people to work unsocial hours then you have to pay a premium rate.
If you want pay to be determined by market forces - and I can see why you might when there are such shortages - then you can't have a state owned, state run system.
So which is it you want? A competitive market system where doctors get paid more but you also get payments by patients, insurance, private providers etc? Or a state run system where market forces are replaced by rationing and queuing and doctors' pay gets screwed down?
Seems to me you want the best of both worlds.
It looks to me that the Tories want market forces only when it suits them.
They could incentivise people to work antisocial hours or they could use the power of being a monopoly employer to coerce people.
They may get their way, but dont expect support with targets etc.
One more point: I regularly work very long hours, weekends and sometimes through the night. When I was dealing with Britain's biggest fraud trial I went 14 months without a holiday. There is simply no concept of anti-social working hours. In my team and the teams around me we work however long it takes and at whatever times to get the job done. We get paid well for it, of course. And I love my job. But I do what is needed to do the best professional job I can.
The idea that the normal working day is 9-5 and anything outside that is anti-social and deserving of some extra premium seems rather old-fashioned.
If doctors want to be paid well, good for them, but they might have to accept a different sort of health service, one rather more like those in other countries where doctors are better paid. Trouble is the moment anyone suggests that, doctors are the first to scream about privatisation and the dismantling of the NHS.
The Doctors will scweam and scweam and scweeeeeeeeeeeeeam !
Mostly they will vote with their feet. We have 50% vacancies in the East Midlands GP training scheme, and similar in specialities like Emergency Medicine.
Its called market forces. You would have thought Tories would understand that! If you want people to work unsocial hours then you have to pay a premium rate.
If you want pay to be determined by market forces - and I can see why you might when there are such shortages - then you can't have a state owned, state run system.
So which is it you want? A competitive market system where doctors get paid more but you also get payments by patients, insurance, private providers etc? Or a state run system where market forces are replaced by rationing and queuing and doctors' pay gets screwed down?
Seems to me you want the best of both worlds.
It looks to me that the Tories want market forces only when it suits them.
They could incentivise people to work antisocial hours or they could use the power of being a monopoly employer to coerce people.
They may get their way, but dont expect support with targets etc.
True enough. And I'm no great supporter of targets. Measurement is not the same as evaluation.
But it seems to me that doctors want a state run system but then complain when the monopoly employer seeks to coerce them.
So which is more important for doctors: having the state as employer or being paid properly and incentivised as in any market?
That is a false choice. They do not want a paycut.
They also are not impressed by a health minister who refuses to negotiate for a year, who refuses to put figures to his proposals then comes out with a proposal the day before the strike ballot and presents it to the media rather than our negotiating representatives. We want everything on the table in the negotiations and a DoH that acts in good faith.
Really, get real. Lots of people in lots of industries have had to endure pay cuts in both real and nominal terms in the last 8 years. Lots, including where I work. They did not want it. And there was no question of negotiation.
But when money is tight - and the state is still running a deficit - that's what happens. That's the price you pay for being in the state sector.
LD 1096 - 69.2% plus 39.3% Con 234 - 14.8% minus 13.7% UKIP 158 - 10.0% minus 9.7% Lab 53 - 3.3% minus 9.0% Green 43 - 2.7% minus 6.8%
Is Mr Sanders planning to try to regain Torbay in 2020? Might have a chance on the basis of this.
Massive result for Sanders. Thought he'd do well but that's an almost SNP like result.
The LDs already held the seat and he has name recognition so not that big a surprise, I was at uni with Kevin Foster, the new Tory MP and he has put in a lot of work on the ground in Torbay which was why he won it in the first place.
I have been agreeing with Peter Hitchens far too much tonight.
Me too. Frightening isn't it
He used to be a Marxist until the age of 30.
Edit: a Trotskyist, not a Marxist.
Did he?
His brother was one of my favorite people, sadly taken early
I had the pleasure of chatting with Peter Hitchens on the phone earlier this year and he is a really nice guy. An incredible amount of people on Twitter beating themselves up for agreeing with him tonight... Why?! He speaks sense
Hah - I've found myself agreeing with Jenny Jones on the police. They've probably been cut a bit far and fast !
Hitchens point about Housing benefit/council house sell off was brilliant btw. Give up capital value for an ongoing expenditure stream - makes sense.
Surely until the point of sale the effective capital value of social housing stock is zero.
"Security at Sharm el-Sheikh airport has been exposed as a shambles after guards let Brits jump queues for a £15 fee — without checking their luggage."
The Doctors will scweam and scweam and scweeeeeeeeeeeeeam !
Mostly they will vote with their feet. We have 50% vacancies in the East Midlands GP training scheme, and similar in specialities like Emergency Medicine.
Its called market forces. You would have thought Tories would understand that! If you want people to work unsocial hours then you have to pay a premium rate.
There is a huge problem for Doctors when they choose to strike.
People. Stop. Dying.
homeopathy in action?
Transition effects. Same as the loss of revenue when you jack up the top rate of Stamp Duty. It falls for a bit but eventually gets much, much higher.
The Doctors will scweam and scweam and scweeeeeeeeeeeeeam !
Mostly they will vote with their feet. We have 50% vacancies in the East Midlands GP training scheme, and similar in specialities like Emergency Medicine.
Its called market forces. You would have thought Tories would understand that! If you want people to work unsocial hours then you have to pay a premium rate.
There is a huge problem for Doctors when they choose to strike.
People. Stop. Dying.
homeopathy in action?
Transition effects. Same as the loss of revenue when you jack up the top rate of Stamp Duty. It falls for a bit but eventually gets much, much higher.
Win what? With whom? Would you like Britain to govern Syria? If not, who would you realistically hope to help gain power by dropping a few bombs?
Who did you hope to gain power for by bombing and invading Iraq?
Elected democrats - not my business of which particular type. but I hoped clearly better than Saddam. The fact that this turned out to be largely illusory is the main reason why I've been against interventions in Libya (as surely most now agree has been a disaster?) and Syria.
It is a mistake to take one example and see it as a rule. Iraq went wrong for various reasons the biggest of which was sh*t post invasion preparation, insufficient policing resources and not being honest about what the motive was for real.
There is no bombing of Syria, there is bombing of IS in Syria. Suppressing their concentrations is a fair policy if you take the view they are horrible individuals who pose a multiple front threat. If you don't then it isn't a fair policy.
Bombing Syria was never required to get rid of Assad.
what the west is actually going to have to do is to find a way to back down against putin without appearing to do so, try to safeguard the Kurds without upsetting Turkey, and allow Assad/continuity Assad to stay without upsetting our charming friends in Saudi Arabia.
simple really!
suppose a bit of random pointless bombing is the best the superior eton trained PPEs can come up with at the present moment
So the 9000 pound cap on university fees is to be abolished.
P.S. I don't believe the bomb story since there is no evidence from the wreckage itself of an explosion so far and the Russians, which would profit the most from the bomb story, deny it.
There has been a picture of a 'shrapnel' puncture from the inside out. But otherwise yes, there seems no published evidence either way. Egyptian airport security versus Russian plane maintenance. Its a tough call. I'm dubious about the bomb, but I don't think I would be that dubious if I was a prime minister. I think politically the Russians are desperate to avoid a bomb story. Crap Russian airlines are always factored in.
A bomb is by far the most likely cause to my thinking. It just seems an improbable time for an aeroplane to fail catastrophically: not on take-off or while climbing steeply, when the stresses are greatest, but at cruising altitude. It's one thing for a technical fault to force it down but quite another to simply break up in the air. Add to that the motive and opportunity that some IS sympathiser would have and the secondary effects on Egypt's western/Russian-based tourism and you have a strong and consistent hypothesis.
I agree entirely - the bomb onboard has to be the leading hypothesis until there is some evidence in. One possible other explanation for a mid air explosion is the TWA800 fuel vapour in the fuel tank scenario.
The Doctors will scweam and scweam and scweeeeeeeeeeeeeam !
Mostly they will vote with their feet. We have 50% vacancies in the East Midlands GP training scheme, and similar in specialities like Emergency Medicine.
Its called market forces. You would have thought Tories would understand that! If you want people to work unsocial hours then you have to pay a premium rate.
If you want pay to be determined by market forces - and I can see why you might when there are such shortages - then you can't have a state owned, state run system.
So which is it you want? A competitive market system where doctors get paid more but you also get payments by patients, insurance, private providers etc? Or a state run system where market forces are replaced by rationing and queuing and doctors' pay gets screwed down?
Seems to me you want the best of both worlds.
It looks to me that the Tories want market forces only when it suits them.
They could incentivise people to work antisocial hours or they could use the power of being a monopoly employer to coerce people.
They may get their way, but dont expect support with targets etc.
One more point: I regularly work very long hours, weekends and sometimes through the night. When I was dealing with Britain's biggest fraud trial I went 14 months without a holiday. There is simply no concept of anti-social working hours. In my team and the teams around me we work however long it takes and at whatever times to get the job done. We get paid well for it, of course. And I love my job. But I do what is needed to do the best professional job I can.
The idea that the normal working day is 9-5 and anything outside that is anti-social and deserving of some extra premium seems rather old-fashioned.
If doctors want to be paid well, good for them, but they might have to accept a different sort of health service, one rather more like those in other countries where doctors are better paid. Trouble is the moment anyone suggests that, doctors are the first to scream about privatisation and the dismantling of the NHS.
The best paid doctors in the US do two things NHS doctors don't - work very long hours and take on business risk. They are entrepreneurs (and innovators), not just service providers.
Evidently no-one feels able to match Ms Free and Mr T's excellent contributions ...
So it looks as if the plane was brought down by a bomb. Even if it was not, can anyone blame the government for having acted as they have, *if* they think it is a possibility?
And as an aside, does the government's actions indicate that they think airport personnel might be responsible?
The best paid doctors in the US do two things NHS doctors don't - work very long hours and take on business risk. They are entrepreneurs (and innovators), not just service providers.
And provide a much better service as a result. As long as you have insurance, you never have to wait two weeks for a GP appointment anywhere in the US, which is the norm in London (and that's if you're prepared to go during the working day). And then you could have to wait a month to see a consultant. No other major developed economy has this issue.
Frankly, it's a stain on the capital's attempt to attract and retain talent that, even with private insurance, it's a nightmare to get health treatment in a convenient manner. It was the main reason I moved out.
It is a mistake to take one example and see it as a rule. Iraq went wrong for various reasons the biggest of which was sh*t post invasion preparation, insufficient policing resources and not being honest about what the motive was for real.
There is no bombing of Syria, there is bombing of IS in Syria. Suppressing their concentrations is a fair policy if you take the view they are horrible individuals who pose a multiple front threat. If you don't then it isn't a fair policy.
Bombing Syria was never required to get rid of Assad.
In Lebanon, Egypt, Libya and Iraq, there have been attempts to bring in democratic systems and they've all failed miserably. Perhaps a handful of countries isn't enough to form a rule, but there's certainly more evidence that democracy doesn't work in the Middle East than it does. There's not one positive case we can point to, unless you include Tunisia, which is still very early days, and also suggests it needs to be an indigenous push.
Jon Warner @JonathanRWarner 54s54 seconds ago So Jim McMahon is the new candidate for #OldhamWest. Couldn't have picked a better choice to champion our labour values!! (@CllrJimMcMahon)
The only difference is that Corbyn has lost an ally and gained yet another enemy in the PLP, the Tories never had a chance in Oldham anyway.
Corbyn couldn't have avoided McMahon anyway since he is the local council leader and the new post GE members are not members for long enough (6 months) to vote for the selection, if Meacher had died a month or two later then Corbyn would had a chance of installing an ally in the seat.
"Tories never had a chance in Oldham anyway" Why not, they are only 700 votes behind UKIP, Labour don't have the incumbency factor (and do have Corbyn) and most of all it's a by-election.
Welcome to Sweden, home of left wing social policy.
They are now thinking of cutting aid to genuinely poor people in the third world so that they can pay for the aggressive young men who have paid smugglers to get themselves into Europe:
Those poor people in slums in Africa are out of sight, out of mind, so we can cut their aid. But the brown people that have turned up here, we should only be nice to. That means only giving them six month sentences when they rape Swedish women.
Comments
There is no bombing of Syria, there is bombing of IS in Syria. Suppressing their concentrations is a fair policy if you take the view they are horrible individuals who pose a multiple front threat. If you don't then it isn't a fair policy.
Bombing Syria was never required to get rid of Assad.
One more point: I regularly work very long hours, weekends and sometimes through the night. When I was dealing with Britain's biggest fraud trial I went 14 months without a holiday. There is simply no concept of anti-social working hours. In my team and the teams around me we work however long it takes and at whatever times to get the job done. We get paid well for it, of course. And I love my job. But I do what is needed to do the best professional job I can.
The idea that the normal working day is 9-5 and anything outside that is anti-social and deserving of some extra premium seems rather old-fashioned.
If doctors want to be paid well, good for them, but they might have to accept a different sort of health service, one rather more like those in other countries where doctors are better paid. Trouble is the moment anyone suggests that, doctors are the first to scream about privatisation and the dismantling of the NHS.
Really, get real. Lots of people in lots of industries have had to endure pay cuts in both real and nominal terms in the last 8 years. Lots, including where I work. They did not want it. And there was no question of negotiation.
But when money is tight - and the state is still running a deficit - that's what happens. That's the price you pay for being in the state sector.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/6728835/Security-lapses-at-Sharm-el-Sheikh-airport.html
simple really!
suppose a bit of random pointless bombing is the best the superior eton trained PPEs can come up with at the present moment
So it looks as if the plane was brought down by a bomb. Even if it was not, can anyone blame the government for having acted as they have, *if* they think it is a possibility?
And as an aside, does the government's actions indicate that they think airport personnel might be responsible?
Frankly, it's a stain on the capital's attempt to attract and retain talent that, even with private insurance, it's a nightmare to get health treatment in a convenient manner. It was the main reason I moved out.
Why not, they are only 700 votes behind UKIP, Labour don't have the incumbency factor (and do have Corbyn) and most of all it's a by-election.
They are now thinking of cutting aid to genuinely poor people in the third world so that they can pay for the aggressive young men who have paid smugglers to get themselves into Europe:
http://www.euractiv.com/sections/development-policy/sweden-considers-cutting-development-aid-budget-60-due-refugee-crisis
Those poor people in slums in Africa are out of sight, out of mind, so we can cut their aid. But the brown people that have turned up here, we should only be nice to. That means only giving them six month sentences when they rape Swedish women.
http://www.thelocal.se/20151106/teens-sentenced-for-gang-rape-on-hipster-island
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/11/05/uk-eurozone-economy-france-idUKKCN0SU1CX20151105