Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The latest Jeremy Hunt betting
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The latest Jeremy Hunt betting
Another story that hasn’t received the coverage it deserves is the problems Jeremy Hunt is having with junior doctors, but with the first junior doctors’ strike scheduled for this Tuesday, that will change. But people like David Cameron and George Osborne are aware of how important the NHS is, a few days ago, The Spectator reported that
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Hunt was chosen to replace Lansley because of his rather more smooth style and also his very good friends in the media in general and the Murdoch press in particular.
Hunt has been very poor at his handling of the Junior Doctors dispute, alternately bullying and then making new information public in press releases rather than to the BMA. He was brought in to spin rather than to fix anything. To unite 98% of juniors in a strike requires a very poor negotiator (the other 2% were mostly for industrial action short of strike).
Incidentally, Mr Hunt has never been in a hospital at a weekend himself to see what the issues really are or to talk to the coalface workers:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-hunt-under-pressure-over-6918825
It really does show why Corbyn and his band of unmerry men have to go, and for us to get a sane opposition into power.
In fact, the only two that do have it as headline are both nominally right-wing newspapers!
Looks like being very close, regardless of the outcome the chasm between London Labour and its traditional Northern base is there for all to see.
Industrial action rarely works; but certainly not for highly paid professionals who already have little sympathy from Joe Bloggs.
People may trust Doctors - but they, rightly, don't trust anyone when talking about their own pay.
Not that Hunt has handled it particularly well. But the foolishness of the medical profession will get him off lightly.
A number of Con, UKIP, LD and SNP people are also very sceptical of the proposed bombing. To many of us it is an unplanned foreign entanglement without clear goals, without well defined military objectives and without a post bombing plan.
What is interesting is that the NHS don't really seem to have Labour's backing on this. At least, even if they do the state of Labour is preventing any of their support from having any impact. If Cooper or Burnham (yes, even Burnham!) was leader right now, it would be gaining traction as an issue.
Instead, the 30 or 40 Doctor friends of mine just get all enraged and excited amongst themselves. Won't make a blind bit of different to polls or actual elections.
*Incidentally, has there been a Doctor's strike before? The generation between the boomers and the Ys wouldn't dream of striking (or so they say to me), but my fellow Ys seem to be indulging their sense of millennial 'right on' fervour and 'its my rights-ness' about it...
Or have I missed something?
There is nothing in Corbyn's history to suggest he's persuadable - which is fine and principled, but a little complicated if you are the leader of a party...
PB leads the way...
You can pray for the reconversion of England, Felix, but it ain't practical politics.
A bit like a poker game where there is always a mug - if you can't see the mug; it's you!
Or the one on Wednesday as that nice Mr Cameron unaccountably wants the debate the day before the by-election.
Any Tory strategists out there listening?
Ps: I do mean "odd", any one with any sense does not want to be personally involved. I suppose it is the variation of Bedlam where the insane were locked up to be viewed by tourists passing through. Keep the politicians in Westminster, at least we'll know where they are, and we can laugh at their antics.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/45k-cost-of-alex-salmond-food-and-drink-bill-1-3961449
It would be worth discussing what we aim to achieve though. What are the objectives of bombing? Are they achievable without troops on the ground localising targets? Who are our allies and who are our enemies? Is it just IS or also other Islamist groups or even the Assad government? What does victory look like and can it last without a permanent military presence? Are we in for the long haul, with all the financial and human costs that come with it? Finally, wouldn't it be better to concentrate on the IS moles and sympathisers in our own country before tackling those in another?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/apr/24/jeremy-hunt-calls-resign-bskyb
Mr. Quidder, my view exactly. Both or neither are valid perspectives, but for us to bomb Daesh in Iraq but not Syria is just daft.
Mr. Mark, also, that could prove a Pyrrhic victory. If Labour divides the WWC and Asian vote (for and against it, respectively) that'll put quite a few seats of theirs in danger of falling.
They are managing in Iraq. We *may* have special forces on the ground specifying targets or (more likely / as well) we have some UK/US/French-trained Iraqi officers designating targets and liaising, along with the usual airborne targeting.
If you saw my post last night, it looks as though some of the fighters in Iraq are not keen on allied bombing during the final battles for cities such as Tikrit; perhaps because they have had experience of US/coalition bombing from the wrong side, perhaps because ISIS have wired entire cities with IEDs, or perhaps because house-to-house fighting makes even targeted bombing difficult. Or perhaps because they want to be seen to 'win' without US help.
"Who are our allies and who are our enemies?"
Currently, it looks as though it's the enemy-of-our-enemy (ISIS)-is-our-friend. I'm instinctively against this as such a policy always seems to backfire in the long term. We need to try to get as broad a coalition of groups together and signed up to a way forward. I proposed a possibility the other day which, whilst difficult and flawed, could be such a way forward. Certainly I haven't seen many other alternatives proposed on here.
"What does victory look like and can it last without a permanent military presence?"
The history of Iraq shows that even vast numbers of troops on the ground cannot squash Islamist insurgent groups. It has to be locals not allowing Islamists and their poison in their midst. Now that's been said, how can it be achieved? Since the Shia-Sunni split is a ripe feeding ground for ISIS, trying to reduce that pressure, giving local communities more autonomy, and liberal bribes *might* be a way forward.
Strange thing this democracy.
Labour MPs must have a short memory, how Fallon treated Milliband in the election campaign regarding defence, he demeaned himself then as purely partisan politican in regard to defense issues.
The people playing party politics are those in Labour, desperate not to offend their core Muslim vote - meaning even the most base medieval psychopaths have to be handled with kid gloves.
Internally I would act against Islamist agitators in this country. I would revoke residence permits for non-nationals at the discretion of the Home Secretary, require dual-nationals to choose a passport, and revise and refresh treason legislation so that those who advocate violence against British forces or institutions can suffer the full force of the law.
It is wrong to try to twist the docs' arms because they follow Hippocratic principles.
They have followed a long & challenging course of study, theoretical & practical, far longer that most of us. They are saving lives and promoting health. What are most of us doing?
Seven days a week full coverage is a great goal. But don't try to achieve it by blackmail. If the resources exist then do it, but not necessarily by demanding unreasonable sacrifices.
Expand the resources if necessary, if you can.
The Tories are quietly confident of a small up tick. I guess:
Labour - 39%
UKIP - 34%
Tories - 14%
Win for Labour
However, for the major opposition party to get a swing against it in a by-election spells disaster for them.
The only chance for UKIP is if Labour voters stay at home. Possible.
We Tories need Corbyn to last long enough to destroy Labour. He's got at least 2 years to go, hopefully.
My pre-race rambling is here:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/abu-dhabi-pre-race.html
Announcements yet to be made on Lotus-Renault and the BBC's coverage, or lack thereof, next year.
Life is full of disappointments.
As for our capabilities: the French (and I believe the US) have said that we have capabilities they cannot fully reproduce and which would be useful. If you believe that, then your argument somewhat falls on fallow ground.
The governments "seven day NHS" plans are very ambiguous. They constantly muddle up emergency services and elective services. Every doctor that I know wants to improve the former, but the latter is quite a different beast.
Politicians (and voters) are also very ambiguous about what is nessecary to deliver high quality 7 day emergency services. For example in order to run and staff seven day stroke services with instant access to MRI imaging and interventional radiology these services need to be organised on the basis of populations of well over a million. The same goes for many similar services, but means the closure or downgrading to minor injury units of many smaller casualty units. Try suggesting to the people of Northampton or Kettering that their hospitals should no longer take acute admissions and that their ambulances should go to Oxford or Leicester. That is before you get into geographical places like Cornwall or Isle of Wight, where arguably the right level of services are just not possible. 7 day services of nationally high quality have a lot of implications, including hospital closures and consolidation.
Mr. Foxinsox, the emergency/elective bit sounds almost akin to the deficit/debt confusion (sometimes deliberate, sometimes due to the usage of obsolete intellectual equipment).
One agrees entirely on the mythical nonsense of homeopathy. It's not just unproven, it's actively unscientific.
But IANAE. And if I was, I probably would not be able to answer you ...
So - I'd be happy for the placebo effect to be used whenever it could *work*. There was a totally fascinating BBC4 prog about this a while ago - if it airs again, well worth watching - twice.
EDIT - here it is Power of the Placebo http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1moo91_horizon-2013-2014-8-the-power-of-the-placebo_lifestyle
https://www.politicshome.com/
My problem is that I do not believe that the politicians know what the best outcome is. Doing something because everyone else is, is not the cleverest way to proceed. Some times, just saying No is the best idea.
There are many alternatives that supposedly have been considered, but some how, sending in planes is sexier for the media, and please don't tell me that politicians don't like sexy headlines.
[Table] https://t.co/6Scnj4ulIj
The Corbyn honeymoon discernible in September and October seems to have ended.
On the other hand, while Iraq was a stupid war from any number of angles, the idea that we (and, presumably the US and others) shouldn't have become involved in Afghanistan is silly: Al Qaida, ISIL and their ilk would have viewed such a decision as an expression of weakness and an invitation to strike more and strike harder. For all that Afghanistan is far from ideal now, Al Qaida no longer pose a threat.
But they, like ISIL now, thrive in failed states. You are completely right to imply that not resolving those failed states cannot produce a permanent solution to the threat from Islamist terrorism. Where I disagree is in the inference that because we've not done that in the past, we shouldn't even get involved at all now. On the contrary: what's needed is a twin-track approach, not a zero-track one.
The reason for this is in the PMs statement and was set out by the security services to the shadow cabinet. I
However to my mind another significant issue must also be factored in. Terrorists need to be aware that murdering British citizens is not a risk free option and that the UK has the will and ability to strike back in full measure.
The alternative is that we sit back and accept the very significant human, economic and political damage to our nation and allow the cancer to spread and weaken us further.
No liberal democracy can allow that disease to take hold.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3337957/Cameron-long-emotion-short-strategy-Tory-MP-John-Baron-ignores-PM-vote-NO-strikes.html
http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/raptor.cfm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brimstone_(missile)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storm_Shadow
As and aside, I read somewhere (non-authoritative source) that RAPTOR is a reason we're keeping the Tornado in service: it is so useful, and no other planes can use it.
In addition, extra aar and reconnaissance assets.
That is the real problem, there are too many governments already involved, each with totally differing required outcomes. Does anyone really think sending in some Typhoons and Tornadoes into an area already awash with fighter bombers, dropping expensive iron on an ever decreasing number of low value targets is sensible? And if one of the Tornadoes (already running on parts from other planes) goes down, then our special forces goes in on a rescue mission ...
Another person belittling our armed forces to back up their political point, I see.
As for our capabilities: the French (and I believe the US) have said that we have capabilities they cannot fully reproduce and which would be useful. If you believe that, then your argument somewhat falls on fallow ground.
Unfortunately, I am not denigrating our military. They will receive their orders, they will plan according to the resources available, and on confirmation from the politicians, will commit to action to achieve the required outcomes.
My problem is that I do not believe that the politicians know what the best outcome is. Doing something because everyone else is, is not the cleverest way to proceed. Some times, just saying No is the best idea.
There are many alternatives that supposedly have been considered, but some how, sending in planes is sexier for the media, and please don't tell me that politicians don't like sexy headlines.
Your so called argument is empty. It has no foundation and is just speculation. 'sometimes'. Yes can be right.
The reason for this is in the PMs statement and was set out by the security services to the shadow cabinet. I
Er! You actually believe that our security services are infallible? I'm sure Blair believed that as well before committing our military into Iraq. Our security services are also political and know what their politician masters want if they want continued funding and reasons for their continued existence.
As it stands, I would suggest that Israeli intellence is fully active in Syria. Unfortunately, the present Israeli government is not above manipulating or massaging information to benefit their own objectives.
The risk is that a home might need to be found for Boris Johnson after May. As part of a wider reshuffle for that purpose Jeremy Hunt might be moved.
So, no bet.