Those conservatives will still happily vote for Trump against Hillary or Sanders, the ones who might vote for Bloomberg are relatively wealthy, fiscally conservative and relaxed about immigration, probably employing a few immigrants themselves
FWIW, my OC Mother-in-law (solid GOP, backed Santorum last time round) is seriously considering voting for Hillary (or abstaining) in a Clinton vs Trump competition. This is despite the fact that she despises the Clintons. Anecdote, of course, but perhaps indicative on how people will actually vote in the ballot box when it's not a generic question (as it largely is at this stage)
It'll be a fascinating choice, down to who you believe is the most mentally unbalanced and pathologically amoral candidate on the ballot in November.
Since Trump only has B+ grades in those subjects, the choice seems clear...
Clinton will be a bad President, but won't fundamentally damage the country.
In the previous thread, somebody warned us not to fall into the trap of thinking that the American voters will regard Trump with disdain and ridicule in the way that Europeans do.
Without needing to think of Trump as being merely ridiculous (although he indeed is), I have for months been of the opinion that he can't win the presidential election, for one reason alone (in addition to all the other reasons), which is this graph:
Just watched Derren Brown manipulate 3 out of 4 people to seemingly push someone off the top of a building on his latest TV show.
It is worth bearing in mind that it is not 3 out of 4 people in the general population, but 3 out of 4 people from a selected-and-filtered sub-sample of gullible and suggestible people. If I had applied, I would have been selected out at the first stage because (I'm fairly sure that) I would have been oblivious to the standing-up-and-sitting-down whenever-the-ping-goes task.
I was amazed that so many people copied the three actors by standing up and sitting down every time the bell sounded.
In the previous thread, somebody warned us not to fall into the trap of thinking that the American voters will regard Trump with disdain and ridicule in the way that Europeans do.
Without needing to think of Trump as being merely ridiculous (although he indeed is), I have for months been of the opinion that he can't win the presidential election, for one reason alone (in addition to all the other reasons), which is this graph:
Didn't Romney also do very badly with Hispanics? He was still able to poll 47% and 48% is enough to win sometimes, such as in the year 2000 for instance.
Those conservatives will still happily vote for Trump against Hillary or Sanders, the ones who might vote for Bloomberg are relatively wealthy, fiscally conservative and relaxed about immigration, probably employing a few immigrants themselves
FWIW, my OC Mother-in-law (solid GOP, backed Santorum last time round) is seriously considering voting for Hillary (or abstaining) in a Clinton vs Trump competition. This is despite the fact that she despises the Clintons. Anecdote, of course, but perhaps indicative on how people will actually vote in the ballot box when it's not a generic question (as it largely is at this stage)
It'll be a fascinating choice, down to who you believe is the most mentally unbalanced and pathologically amoral candidate on the ballot in November.
Since Trump only has B+ grades in those subjects, the choice seems clear...
Trump could make it a laughing stock.
That's fine. Have you forgotten they've been there before - Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush (I), Clinton (I), Bush(II) ?
Trump may be a joke, but Clinton(II) is truly terrifying...
Though I have to say, when I visited someone in the Royal Bournemouth early in the morning, the ward girls actually changing nappies looked ill with fatigue...
Do they still have two-three nurses who spend all day bullying (it's BEST for baby!) the mothers of newborns into breastfeeding instead of bottle? If so, tell them to stop nagging shellshocked women and go do some nappychanging instead. New mothers have already got enough things to cope with.
It is often said that generic drugs don't match the performance of the original because of differences in the binder or formulation of the capsule. Is there any truth in any of these assertions?
No
File it along with the oik in PCWorld telling you the £75 hdmi cable will give you a better picture.
Incredible that Monster have made a business out of that.
In the previous thread, somebody warned us not to fall into the trap of thinking that the American voters will regard Trump with disdain and ridicule in the way that Europeans do.
Without needing to think of Trump as being merely ridiculous (although he indeed is), I have for months been of the opinion that he can't win the presidential election, for one reason alone (in addition to all the other reasons), which is this graph:
@PClipp 'The Labour Government under Jim Callaghan, was one of the best this country has known. The only policies they could implement - during the Lib-Lab pact - were Labour policies that were approved by the Liberals. Most of the time, they just governed quietly, without too much change.'
You do spout some rubbish, were you actually around at that time or just trying to rewrite history? Massive inflation, endless strikes including the winter of discontent & Denis Healey forced to go to the IMF with a begging bowl.
Point of order sir: didn't most of those things happen after the ending of the LibLab pact?
Or before the Lib Lab pact came into effect. Indeed, I was around and remember it well. In the period of the Lib-Lab Pact, things just ticked over quietly, with no surprises - until the Labour Left forgot they had lost their majority.
Most of the junior doctors on TV look awfully young. Barely old enough to have gone to university never mind left it and actually become doctors. If one of them came near me I'd be worrying about them - whether they were wearing a vest, eating properly and so forth.
I am sure policemen are getting younger too!
Mr Hunt is showing his dedication to reducing unnessecary cardiac deaths here:
Not enough ambulances? Well slow down the response times for heart attacks. Simples! Though I am sure it must somehow be the BMAs fault. Or the EU.
Hunt could never in a million years be as bad as Burnham and Labour. Remember Mid Staffs? Dying elderly people forced to drink water from flower vases. There's the benchmark for failing healthcare.
47 excess deaths in 3 months is a faster rate than Stafford. Read the article.
As ever, Mr Fox, you are missing the point about Stafford.
The mistreatment of patients was a scandal. It was compounded by a cover-up that allowed it to continue, including terrible treatment of locals who tried to blow the whistle.
It was further compounded by the government's actions, including Burnham's. Your inability to repeatedly admit what went on at Stafford (despite having apparent;y read the report - which one?) makes me rather take your views on this strike with a large pinch of salt.
It doesn't matter who leads Labour now. The overwhelming majority of Englishmen and Englishwomen (outside London, of course) know now that Labour's members hold a set of values profoundly inimical to their own. That will become the dominant political fact over the next decade or so, as England becomes, in effect, a one-Party state.
I expect one of the candidates in the next Tory leadership election to call for the Labour Party's membership to be criminalised.
Most of the junior doctors on TV look awfully young. Barely old enough to have gone to university never mind left it and actually become doctors. If one of them came near me I'd be worrying about them - whether they were wearing a vest, eating properly and so forth.
I am sure policemen are getting younger too!
Mr Hunt is showing his dedication to reducing unnessecary cardiac deaths here:
Not enough ambulances? Well slow down the response times for heart attacks. Simples! Though I am sure it must somehow be the BMAs fault. Or the EU.
Hunt could never in a million years be as bad as Burnham and Labour. Remember Mid Staffs? Dying elderly people forced to drink water from flower vases. There's the benchmark for failing healthcare.
47 excess deaths in 3 months is a faster rate than Stafford. Read the article.
As ever, Mr Fox, you are missing the point about Stafford.
The mistreatment of patients was a scandal. It was compounded by a cover-up that allowed it to continue, including terrible treatment of locals who tried to blow the whistle.
It was further compounded by the government's actions, including Burnham's. Your inability to repeatedly admit what went on at Stafford (despite having apparent;y read the report - which one?) makes me rather take your views on this strike with a large pinch of salt.
I have not defended what went on at Stafford. What I have disputed is your personalisation of the issue to Andy Burnham. The problems at Stafford were over a long period of time and particularly were brought about by the Milburn reforms, followed by Reid, Hewitt and Johnson.
To try to personalise it to Andy Burnham misses both the point and the nessecary lessons. One of these lessons is that top down management to meet financial targets at the expense of patient care creats a bad hospital culture.
Most of the junior doctors on TV look awfully young. Barely old enough to have gone to university never mind left it and actually become doctors. If one of them came near me I'd be worrying about them - whether they were wearing a vest, eating properly and so forth.
I am sure policemen are getting younger too!
Mr Hunt is showing his dedication to reducing unnessecary cardiac deaths here:
Not enough ambulances? Well slow down the response times for heart attacks. Simples! Though I am sure it must somehow be the BMAs fault. Or the EU.
Hunt could never in a million years be as bad as Burnham and Labour. Remember Mid Staffs? Dying elderly people forced to drink water from flower vases. There's the benchmark for failing healthcare.
47 excess deaths in 3 months is a faster rate than Stafford. Read the article.
As ever, Mr Fox, you are missing the point about Stafford.
The mistreatment of patients was a scandal. It was compounded by a cover-up that allowed it to continue, including terrible treatment of locals who tried to blow the whistle.
It was further compounded by the government's actions, including Burnham's. Your inability to repeatedly admit what went on at Stafford (despite having apparent;y read the report - which one?) makes me rather take your views on this strike with a large pinch of salt.
I have not defended what went on at Stafford. What I have disputed is your personalisation of the issue to Andy Burnham. The problems at Stafford were over a long period of time and particularly were brought about by the Milburn reforms, followed by Reid, Hewitt and Johnson.
To try to personalise it to Andy Burnham misses both the point and the nessecary lessons. One of these lessons is that top down management to meet financial targets at the expense of patient care creats a bad hospital culture.
Burnham appears to believe that we should still not know about Stafford.
Most of the junior doctors on TV look awfully young. Barely old enough to have gone to university never mind left it and actually become doctors. If one of them came near me I'd be worrying about them - whether they were wearing a vest, eating properly and so forth.
I am sure policemen are getting younger too!
Mr Hunt is showing his dedication to reducing unnessecary cardiac deaths here:
Not enough ambulances? Well slow down the response times for heart attacks. Simples! Though I am sure it must somehow be the BMAs fault. Or the EU.
Hunt could never in a million years be as bad as Burnham and Labour. Remember Mid Staffs? Dying elderly people forced to drink water from flower vases. There's the benchmark for failing healthcare.
47 excess deaths in 3 months is a faster rate than Stafford. Read the article.
As ever, Mr Fox, you are missing the point about Stafford.
The mistreatment of patients was a scandal. It was compounded by a cover-up that allowed it to continue, including terrible treatment of locals who tried to blow the whistle.
It was further compounded by the government's actions, including Burnham's. Your inability to repeatedly admit what went on at Stafford (despite having apparent;y read the report - which one?) makes me rather take your views on this strike with a large pinch of salt.
I have not defended what went on at Stafford. What I have disputed is your personalisation of the issue to Andy Burnham. The problems at Stafford were over a long period of time and particularly were brought about by the Milburn reforms, followed by Reid, Hewitt and Johnson.
To try to personalise it to Andy Burnham misses both the point and the nessecary lessons. One of these lessons is that top down management to meet financial targets at the expense of patient care creats a bad hospital culture.
Burnham appears to believe that we should still not know about Stafford.
Andy Burnham commissioned the Francis inquiry into Mid Staffs.
Most of the junior doctors on TV look awfully young. Barely old enough to have gone to university never mind left it and actually become doctors. If one of them came near me I'd be worrying about them - whether they were wearing a vest, eating properly and so forth.
I am sure policemen are getting younger too!
Mr Hunt is showing his dedication to reducing unnessecary cardiac deaths here:
Not enough ambulances? Well slow down the response times for heart attacks. Simples! Though I am sure it must somehow be the BMAs fault. Or the EU.
Hunt could never in a million years be as bad as Burnham and Labour. Remember Mid Staffs? Dying elderly people forced to drink water from flower vases. There's the benchmark for failing healthcare.
47 excess deaths in 3 months is a faster rate than Stafford. Read the article.
As ever, Mr Fox, you are missing the point about Stafford.
I have not defended what went on at Stafford. What I have disputed is your personalisation of the issue to Andy Burnham. The problems at Stafford were over a long period of time and particularly were brought about by the Milburn reforms, followed by Reid, Hewitt and Johnson.
To try to personalise it to Andy Burnham misses both the point and the nessecary lessons. One of these lessons is that top down management to meet financial targets at the expense of patient care creats a bad hospital culture.
Burnham appears to believe that we should still not know about Stafford.
Considering one of Burnham's first actions as minister was to commission a public enquiry, I think that is incorrect.
Alan Johnson seems to have dodged the blame well, as has Patricia Hewitt who were in charge at the peak of the problems, but lets shoot the messenger.
I have said enough on this in the past, including pointing out that there are a number of hospitals with worse excess mortality than Stafford in the period in question. Several of these are in the midlands, so I hear whispers of what is going on.
My own hospital now has excellent senior management and better than average mortality (SHIMI) figures for the country.
Getting back to the strike, this is a particularly well balanced review of the issues from the Economist:
I have not defended what went on at Stafford. What I have disputed is your personalisation of the issue to Andy Burnham. The problems at Stafford were over a long period of time and particularly were brought about by the Milburn reforms, followed by Reid, Hewitt and Johnson.
To try to personalise it to Andy Burnham misses both the point and the nessecary lessons. One of these lessons is that top down management to meet financial targets at the expense of patient care creats a bad hospital culture.
No, you have gone much further than that. For one thing, you have repeatedly ignored the fact Burnham was in the Health dept for part of the period, and you have claimed it was fine because he instituted the inquiry (when in reality he set up the first, bogus internal inquiry, which even the chair (Francis) said had had insufficient scope). I believe that limited-scope, private inquiry was an attempt at a cover-up. You seem to disagree, in which case do you think it was mere incompetence on Burnham's part?.
And remember, Burnham was - and is - against the second public inquiry, which finally got to near the truth, and wishes it had not been published. This is important as the second inquiry came up with many more findings ('lessons') than Burnham's first, limited, inquiry.
Those lessons - which you think are so important - would never be known to be learnt if Burnham had had his way. As someone in favour of patient safety and learning lessons, I thought you would be as angry with Burnham as I am.
Also, you are reducing the 'lessons' to ones that meet your current political aims. The lessons in the second Francis report are much wider than that. So you can re-read it and learn the 'lessons' again, here's a link:
So my 'personalisation' of it towards Burnham very relevant. I'm interested as to why you repeatedly deny the above facts. As I said, it does not bode well for your comments about the current strike.
Oh, and I had a family member mistreated at Stafford (fortunately in a minor way, and not with long-term consequences). So it is personal to me, as it it to many people with family and friends in the Stafford area.
Considering one of Burnham's first actions as minister was to commission a public enquiry, I think that is incorrect.
Alan Johnson seems to have dodged the blame well, as has Patricia Hewitt who were in charge at the peak of the problems, but lets shoot the messenger.
I have said enough on this in the past, including pointing out that there are a number of hospitals with worse excess mortality than Stafford in the period in question. Several of these are in the midlands, so I hear whispers of what is going on.
My own hospital now has excellent senior management and better than average mortality (SHIMI) figures for the country.
Getting back to the strike, this is a particularly well balanced review of the issues from the Economist:
"Considering one of Burnham's first actions as minister was to commission a public enquiry, I think that is incorrect."
No, he did not. As it's been pointed out to you many times before, I suppose you're lying.
There were two Francis inquiries. The first was set up by Burnham, was not public, and was criticised by its chair, Francis, for its limited scope. The coalition set up the wider public inquiry that got to the truth and made many more recommendation.
Think about this: Burnham's inquiry made 18 recommendations. The second, public Francis inquiry made 290.
You may want to ask why Burnham limited the scope of 'his' inquiry, and why he thinks the public inquiry should not have been published. In other words, why those lessons should not have been learnt.
As for the rest: the problems at Stafford went well past clinical and monetary. An example is the way whistleblowers were treated, as well as family members who had the temerity to try to say something was going wrong. That's why the Stafford scandal was so much bigger - and more important to get to the truth - than the other sad cases.
Most of the junior doctors on TV look awfully young. Barely old enough to have gone to university never mind left it and actually become doctors. If one of them came near me I'd be worrying about them - whether they were wearing a vest, eating properly and so forth.
I am sure policemen are getting younger too!
Mr Hunt is showing his dedication to reducing unnessecary cardiac deaths here:
Not enough ambulances? Well slow down the response times for heart attacks. Simples! Though I am sure it must somehow be the BMAs fault. Or the EU.
Hunt could never in a million years be as bad as Burnham and Labour. Remember Mid Staffs? Dying elderly people forced to drink water from flower vases. There's the benchmark for failing healthcare.
47 excess deaths in 3 months is a faster rate than Stafford. Read the article.
As ever, Mr Fox, you are missing the point about Stafford.
The mistreatment of patients was a scandal. It was compounded by a cover-up that allowed it to continue, including terrible treatment of locals who tried to blow the whistle.
It was further compounded by the government's actions, including Burnham's. Your inability to repeatedly admit what went on at Stafford (despite having apparent;y read the report - which one?) makes me rather take your views on this strike with a large pinch of salt.
I have not defended what went on at Stafford. What I have disputed is your personalisation of the issue to Andy Burnham. The problems at Stafford were over a long period of time and particularly were brought about by the Milburn reforms, followed by Reid, Hewitt and Johnson.
To try to personalise it to Andy Burnham misses both the point and the nessecary lessons. One of these lessons is that top down management to meet financial targets at the expense of patient care creats a bad hospital culture.
Burnham appears to believe that we should still not know about Stafford.
Andy Burnham commissioned the Francis inquiry into Mid Staffs.
If you read my other posts, you can see that's disingenuous. He commissioned the first Francis inquiry, which was not public, and whose remit Francis himself criticised.
The second Francis inquiry, the public one, was commissioned by the coalition.
Stafford had one positive result. Not long after, I went to visit a terminally ill friend(in the SE of England) and the nursing staff were brilliant. All patients had to be seen every so often and the buzzers were answered pdq.
Frankly Stafford is not relevant to the Doctors strike, only in as much as it shows how little the Hippocratic oath means (if indeed they still take it).. patents have suffered as a result of their operations/procedures being cancelled. This strike seems to be about money pure and simple.. As for the hours they work, they don't know they were born, fewer hours seems to me equals less well trained Doctors and with less experience... so the quid pro quo is that the advancement ladder should therefore take longer to climb....
Stafford had one positive result. Not long after, I went to visit a terminally ill friend(in the SE of England) and the nursing staff were brilliant. All patients had to be seen every so often and the buzzers were answered pdq.
Frankly Stafford is not relevant to the Doctors strike, only in as much as it shows how little the Hippocratic oath means (if indeed they still take it).. patents have suffered as a result of their operations/procedures being cancelled. This strike seems to be about money pure and simple.. As for the hours they work, they don't know they were born, fewer hours seems to me equals less well trained Doctors and with less experience... so the quid pro quo is that the advancement ladder should therefore take longer to climb....
Longer to qualify? They'll go on strike again.
Still, it's fascinating to see so called 'medical professionals' regurgitating the Stafford reports to justify what happened there. Anyone with any sense of basic human decency wouldn't waste their time doing so.
Corbyn won because he was athentic and the other three didn't do anything.
Hillary, unlike her husband is a shit politician and has been connected to numerous scandals.
Sanders is benefitting from the devotion of the faithful just like Corbyn did.
Trump is going to be the next president.
(Expect Cruz to be the next VP or AG, I imagine this has already been worked out).
Sanders is presently leading Trump in the polls
Expect this to change.
Trump hasn't gone after Sanders yet.
Sanders hasn't gone after Trump either. Though I think Bloomberg would run anyway if that was the choice and would have a reasonable chance of winning
But Sanders didn't go after Hillary either.
Quite frankly he simply doesn't seem to have it in him, just like Bush doesn't.
I actually think that Sanders is a more difficult opponent for Trump than Clinton. Trump is clearly a "people" person, Clinton isn't and in any debate he would destroy her.
Sanders on the other hand has the Corbyn factor within the dems that Clinton doesn't.
Bloomberg WILL NOT run as an independent. He is well known and has moderate support in New York but not elsewhere. If he did run, he may easily cost Trump the presidency but wouldn't achieve enough to win it for himself. Why bother to only come second?
He would have the best chance of any third party contendor in history against Trump and Sanders and could well win the coasts and much of the MidWest and Florida and Virginia. As a multibillionaire he could also easily afford it
I just don't understand how Bloomberg could be considered to have a serious chance of winning as an independent.
Stafford had one positive result. Not long after, I went to visit a terminally ill friend(in the SE of England) and the nursing staff were brilliant. All patients had to be seen every so often and the buzzers were answered pdq.
Frankly Stafford is not relevant to the Doctors strike, only in as much as it shows how little the Hippocratic oath means (if indeed they still take it).. patents have suffered as a result of their operations/procedures being cancelled. This strike seems to be about money pure and simple.. As for the hours they work, they don't know they were born, fewer hours seems to me equals less well trained Doctors and with less experience... so the quid pro quo is that the advancement ladder should therefore take longer to climb....
Longer to qualify? They'll go on strike again.
Still, it's fascinating to see so called 'medical professionals' regurgitating the Stafford reports to justify what happened there. Anyone with any sense of basic human decency wouldn't waste their time doing so.
NO.. longer to climb the greasy pole.. ie career advancement.
An example of a recommendation ('lesson') that Burnham (and sadly, presumably Dr Sox) would rather not have had made:
Recommendation 173 Every healthcare organisation and everyone working for them must be honest, open and truthful in all their dealings with patients and the public, and organisational and personal interests must never be allowed to outweigh the duty to be honest, open and truthful.
In fact, it's sad that Francis felt it necessary that had to be said. It should be the first thing taught at medical school.
And how about recommendation 5:
Recommendation 5 In reaching out to patients, consideration should be given to including expectations in the NHS Constitution that: *) Staff put patients before themselves; *) They will do everything in their power to protect patients from avoidable harm; *) They will be honest and open with patients regardless of the consequences for themselves; *) Where they are unable to provide the assistance a patient needs, they will direct them where possible to those who can do so; *) They will apply the NHS values in all their work
Only about 5% of the comments in this thread are about Corbyn or Trident. Shows how relevant he / it is.
I think the header is right though. Trident may be very relevant to Corbyn's survival.
Yep, the leadership has decided to make it totemic. If they cannot change policy, where does it leave Corbyn, McDonnell etc? They will not be able to support conference-approved policy.
What's craven about apologizing when one of your warships enters another countries waters?. I would expect the Iranians to do the same if they entered British waters.
Corbyn won because he was athentic and the other three didn't do anything.
Hillary, unlike her husband is a shit politician and has been connected to numerous scandals.
Sanders is benefitting from the devotion of the faithful just like Corbyn did.
Trump is going to be the next president.
(Expect Cruz to be the next VP or AG, I imagine this has already been worked out).
Sanders is presently leading Trump in the polls
Expect this to change.
Trump hasn't gone after Sanders yet.
Sanders hasn't gone after Trump either. Though I think Bloomberg would run anyway if that was the choice and would have a reasonable chance of winning
But Sanders didn't go after Hillary either.
Quite frankly he simply doesn't seem to have it in him, just like Bush doesn't.
I actually think that Sanders is a more difficult opponent for Trump than Clinton. Trump is clearly a "people" person, Clinton isn't and in any debate he would destroy her.
Sanders on the other hand has the Corbyn factor within the dems that Clinton doesn't.
Bloomberg WILL NOT run as an independent. He is well known and has moderate support in New York but not elsewhere. If he did run, he may easily cost Trump the presidency but wouldn't achieve enough to win it for himself. Why bother to only come second?
He would have the best chance of any third party contendor in history against Trump and Sanders and could well win the coasts and much of the MidWest and Florida and Virginia. As a multibillionaire he could also easily afford it
Best chance in history? The bar for that is 1912, and that race shows just how big the barriers are.
Only about 5% of the comments in this thread are about Corbyn or Trident. Shows how relevant he / it is.
I think the header is right though. Trident may be very relevant to Corbyn's survival.
Yep, the leadership has decided to make it totemic. If they cannot change policy, where does it leave Corbyn, McDonnell etc? They will not be able to support conference-approved policy.
It will mean that Corbyn's supporters will have to become full members and turn up to Conference for the policy debate. Most of them think Twitter is a substitute for that, it isn't.
The problem with Staffs was, as foxinsox says, top down management systems which resulted In very poor care but lots of forms neatly filled in. The real target of the public Francis inquiry was this target driven culture which dehumanised the staff and the patients alike. It was a really important lesson which has application even beyond the Health Service.
It is simplistic to say that this was a fundamental rejection of the New Labour way of managing and "improving" public services but there are significant elements of truth to it. I personally have doubts that even now the lessons of Francis have been fully applied. It is an emphasis on cultuppre and politicians of all stripes prefer things easier to measure, even if they are ultimately less important.
You could argue Blair. After he'd been there for a decade (more, as leader of the party), had one single pre-eminent rival/potential successor, and had pre-empted his own departure.
Corbyn won because he was athentic and the other three didn't do anything.
Hillary, unlike her husband is a shit politician and has been connected to numerous scandals.
Sanders is benefitting from the devotion of the faithful just like Corbyn did.
Trump is going to be the next president.
(Expect Cruz to be the next VP or AG, I imagine this has already been worked out).
Sanders is presently leading Trump in the polls
Expect this to change.
Trump hasn't gone after Sanders yet.
Sanders hasn't gone after Trump either. Though I think Bloomberg would run anyway if that was the choice and would have a reasonable chance of winning
But Sanders didn't go after Hillary either.
Quite frankly he simply doesn't seem to have it in him, just like Bush doesn't.
I actually think that Sanders is a more difficult opponent for Trump than Clinton. Trump is clearly a "people" person, Clinton isn't and in any debate he would destroy her.
Sanders on the other hand has the Corbyn factor within the dems that Clinton doesn't.
Bloomberg WILL NOT run as an independent. He is well known and has moderate support in New York but not elsewhere. If he did run, he may easily cost Trump the presidency but wouldn't achieve enough to win it for himself. Why bother to only come second?
He would have the best chance of any third party contendor in history against Trump and Sanders and could well win the coasts and much of the MidWest and Florida and Virginia. As a multibillionaire he could also easily afford it
Best chance in history? The bar for that is 1912, and that race shows just how big the barriers are.
How do you win with no infrastructure in place, against two party machines?
As a post script I think the recent cancellation of the inquiry into the culture of banks was another example of the lessons of Francis not having been learned under this government. Culture is important.
Those conservatives will still happily vote for Trump against Hillary or Sanders, the ones who might vote for Bloomberg are relatively wealthy, fiscally conservative and relaxed about immigration, probably employing a few immigrants themselves
FWIW, my OC Mother-in-law (solid GOP, backed Santorum last time round) is seriously considering voting for Hillary (or abstaining) in a Clinton vs Trump competition. This is despite the fact that she despises the Clintons. Anecdote, of course, but perhaps indicative on how people will actually vote in the ballot box when it's not a generic question (as it largely is at this stage)
It'll be a fascinating choice, down to who you believe is the most mentally unbalanced and pathologically amoral candidate on the ballot in November.
Since Trump only has B+ grades in those subjects, the choice seems clear...
Clinton will be a bad President, but won't fundamentally damage the country.
Trump could make it a laughing stock.
The choice is clear. Albeit with a heavy heart.
No more than Bush jnr, who was what used to be termed a simpleton.
That's not a charity, it's a publically funded campaign vehicle!
Surely not
@Herald_Editor: The SNP Govt gave SAWA £16k of public money - hours after Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh applied to register it as a charity https://t.co/sYAYqsnbTA
@Herald_Editor: The SNP Govt gave SAWA £16k of public money - hours after Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh applied to register it as a charity https://t.co/sYAYqsnbTA
What's craven about apologizing when one of your warships enters another countries waters?. I would expect the Iranians to do the same if they entered British waters.
What's craven about apologizing when one of your warships enters another countries waters?. I would expect the Iranians to do the same if they entered British waters.
F1: found out through the top comment of this story (plans to speed up cars for 2017 etc: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/35283404 ) that Coulthard seems to have the commentary gig for Channel 4.
Only about 5% of the comments in this thread are about Corbyn or Trident. Shows how relevant he / it is.
I think the header is right though. Trident may be very relevant to Corbyn's survival.
Yep, the leadership has decided to make it totemic. If they cannot change policy, where does it leave Corbyn, McDonnell etc? They will not be able to support conference-approved policy.
It will mean that Corbyn's supporters will have to become full members and turn up to Conference for the policy debate. Most of them think Twitter is a substitute for that, it isn't.
The conference doesn't work the way you think - any member can buy a visitor's pass, but voting is representational, so to influence policy you simply need to ensure that the CLP's elected delegates support your preferred views.
What's craven about apologizing when one of your warships enters another countries waters?. I would expect the Iranians to do the same if they entered British waters.
F1: found out through the top comment of this story (plans to speed up cars for 2017 etc: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/35283404 ) that Coulthard seems to have the commentary gig for Channel 4.
Is it safe to assume that McLaren will improve from total crap to just crap? How are Red Bull doing with the Renault engine?
McLaren could make a great leap forward. Honda know the problem (MGU-H/K aren't hooked up properly) it's a question of whether they have both the technical nous and the freedom, within the rules, to make the necessary changes.
Or they could fail utterly. Renault's reliability went downhill from 2014 to 2015, and one of their upgrades led to the engine actually becoming slower. Improvement is not guaranteed.
Only about 5% of the comments in this thread are about Corbyn or Trident. Shows how relevant he / it is.
I think the header is right though. Trident may be very relevant to Corbyn's survival.
Yep, the leadership has decided to make it totemic. If they cannot change policy, where does it leave Corbyn, McDonnell etc? They will not be able to support conference-approved policy.
It will mean that Corbyn's supporters will have to become full members and turn up to Conference for the policy debate. Most of them think Twitter is a substitute for that, it isn't.
The conference doesn't work the way you think - any member can buy a visitor's pass, but voting is representational, so to influence policy you simply need to ensure that the CLP's elected delegates support your preferred views.
Ah, thanks for correcting my ignorance. So the individual CLPs will elect delegates to the Conference, and they will be the ones who vote, rather than any members that turn up? So those with a view on Trident need to make sure that their CLP delegates have the same views.
F1: found out through the top comment of this story (plans to speed up cars for 2017 etc: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/35283404 ) that Coulthard seems to have the commentary gig for Channel 4.
Apparently Top Gear were hoping to get him, for all the rumours it appears they haven't actually contracted anyone to the show except Evans.
Edit: That BBC story is enlightening. How are they supposed to design the tyres for the new car if there's no testing allowed, and it sounds like the new regs give even more aerodynamic downforce, which will lead to even less overtaking than now!
F1: found out through the top comment of this story (plans to speed up cars for 2017 etc: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/35283404 ) that Coulthard seems to have the commentary gig for Channel 4.
Is it safe to assume that McLaren will improve from total crap to just crap? How are Red Bull doing with the Renault engine?
McLaren-Honda's performance can't get much worse. Honda have some really good engineers, so I hold out some hope.
As an aside, there seems a rather firm correlation between Macca's performance and the times they try building road cars. They designed/built the F1 between 1990/1 and 1999, and had fairly horrible (for them) results during that period, only recovering in 1998 when most of the road car work was done.
Their next lone-build road car came along from 2010 period, just in time for another dip in form.
So from that limited dataset, when McLaren start designing and building road cars, their racing form dramatically dips. Cause or correlation? The teams are meant to be separate, but you have to ask whether management attention is diverted away from F1.
McLaren could make a great leap forward. Honda know the problem (MGU-H/K aren't hooked up properly) it's a question of whether they have both the technical nous and the freedom, within the rules, to make the necessary changes.
Or they could fail utterly. Renault's reliability went downhill from 2014 to 2015, and one of their upgrades led to the engine actually becoming slower. Improvement is not guaranteed.
great leap forward - sounds very Chairman Mao.
Renault - are we back to cheese eating surrender monkeys and freedom fries?
I shall await your reports with interest.
It's good to know that the most lantern jawed man since Desperate Dan has the Channel 4 commentary.
What's craven about apologizing when one of your warships enters another countries waters?. I would expect the Iranians to do the same if they entered British waters.
All you need to know about Boris in one paragraph (admittedly attributed rather than direct speech: apparently he is tempted to endorse Leave but says that he isn't actually in favour of leaving: what to do? He's not ruled out endorsing it anyway!
F1: found out through the top comment of this story (plans to speed up cars for 2017 etc: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/35283404 ) that Coulthard seems to have the commentary gig for Channel 4.
Apparently Top Gear were hoping to get him, for all the rumours it appears they haven't actually contracted anyone to the show except Evans.
Edit: That BBC story is enlightening. How are they supposed to design the tyres for the new car if there's no testing allowed, and it sounds like the new regs give even more aerodynamic downforce, which will lead to even less overtaking than now!
Mr. Sandpit, I'd also heard the rumours (many of them) that Coulthard was going to Top Gear.
BBC have that back to front. One suspects Evans will be bloody awful.
Mr Radio 2.
Evans is a giant ego, without the humour of Clarkson. TG is going to be a ratings losing, TV switching off disaster. I wouldn't be surprised if it was canned after a single series, assuming of course that a complete one makes it to transmission.
McLaren could make a great leap forward. Honda know the problem (MGU-H/K aren't hooked up properly) it's a question of whether they have both the technical nous and the freedom, within the rules, to make the necessary changes.
Or they could fail utterly. Renault's reliability went downhill from 2014 to 2015, and one of their upgrades led to the engine actually becoming slower. Improvement is not guaranteed.
The McLaren issue was indeed the MGU-H unit - it basically wasn't big enough but the tight packaging of the engine meant they couldn't fix it in-season due to the development rules. That meant they ran out of electric power on long straights, they also had the reliablilty problems everyone else had in 2014 as they got their heads around the new power units.
If they get it right, expect them to be challenging with Williams and Force India, but if they get it wrong they'll be at the back again for another whole season.
Next year could be very tight at the back of the grid - Marussia now have Mercedes power, and new entrant Haas have been working very closely with Ferrari and are expected to be quick out of the box.
Mr. B, Renault have their own team now, so as well as the loss of love from Red Bull's constant bitching, the engine manufacturer's prime concern will be team Renault, not Red Bull.
As we've seen with Mercedes, sometimes updates can be mysteriously slow coming to non-manufacturer teams...
Mr. B (2), we shall see. I may well tune into episode 1 to see how it stacks up.
Mr. Sandpit, I'd also heard the rumours (many of them) that Coulthard was going to Top Gear.
BBC have that back to front. One suspects Evans will be bloody awful.
Chris Evans is an experienced presenter and the BBC (and its viewers) know his style. Coulthard was never that likely -- it's like the old rumours around The Stig on Clarkson's TG where every retired F1 driver was named as a candidate.
"Now, change is coming; a dramatic increase in the productivity of the NHS’s exquisitely-qualified and expensive workforce is as necessary as it is desirable. Not even those at the very top of the social and professional scale can be safe from the glorious disruption technology brings.
This will be the story of medicine and technology in the 21st Century: bad for doctors, good for the rest of us. The junior doctors should enjoy their position of strength for it will not last. "
F1: found out through the top comment of this story (plans to speed up cars for 2017 etc: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/35283404 ) that Coulthard seems to have the commentary gig for Channel 4.
Apparently Top Gear were hoping to get him, for all the rumours it appears they haven't actually contracted anyone to the show except Evans.
Edit: That BBC story is enlightening. How are they supposed to design the tyres for the new car if there's no testing allowed, and it sounds like the new regs give even more aerodynamic downforce, which will lead to even less overtaking than now!
I thought Sabine Schmitz was signed to the show?
The rumours were Schmitz, Couthard and Chris Harris (UK magazine and Youtube journo, likes going sideways). They've definitely not got Couthard and there's been no official (from the BBC) announcement of the other two.
Unfortunately it looks like a disaster before they've aired a single episode, and the old team on Amazon will have their new season ready to go first.
Mr. Sandpit, I'd also heard the rumours (many of them) that Coulthard was going to Top Gear.
BBC have that back to front. One suspects Evans will be bloody awful.
Mr Radio 2.
Evans is a giant ego, without the humour of Clarkson. TG is going to be a ratings losing, TV switching off disaster. I wouldn't be surprised if it was canned after a single series, assuming of course that a complete one makes it to transmission.
I've lost count of the times Clarkson or the other 2 would say 'ambitious but rubbish' or ask why everything they do either breaks down, sinks, or catches fire. I just don't see Evans doing that. Evans says the car will be the star. But it isn't. Top Gear is about the presenters. It is a vehicle for vehicles, adventures and challenges.
What made Top Gear work was the relationship and chemistry between the three of them. Top Gear Germany, USA or Australia just didn't work as well.
Mr. 30, if it's a disaster, they'll axe Evans and probably try someone new. The Stig is eminently recognisable, and the show got over 300m global viewers with Clarkson, Hammond and May. One would guess the BBC would not want to ditch the brand unless it was beyond saving.
Mr. Sandpit, I'd be surprised if McLaren were back up to Williams' level. Force India had a cracking year given lack of early development, but McLaren's resources are far greater. If McLaren can't be top 5, it's got to count as another very bad year.
I agree the back of the grid could be interesting but I'm not convinced Haas will be there [at the back, I mean]. They've been doing lots of work with Ferrari and have a top driver in Grosjean. If I were Sauber, I'd be worried.
Mr. L, May wasn't an experienced presenter. Experience is not the issue. It's about whether someone's likeable, and whether they have chemistry with their co-hosts.
Edited extra bit: Mr. B, precisely. Top Gear wasn't a car show. It was a three blokes cocking about show.
F1: found out through the top comment of this story (plans to speed up cars for 2017 etc: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/35283404 ) that Coulthard seems to have the commentary gig for Channel 4.
Apparently Top Gear were hoping to get him, for all the rumours it appears they haven't actually contracted anyone to the show except Evans.
Edit: That BBC story is enlightening. How are they supposed to design the tyres for the new car if there's no testing allowed, and it sounds like the new regs give even more aerodynamic downforce, which will lead to even less overtaking than now!
I thought Sabine Schmitz was signed to the show?
The rumours were Schmitz, Couthard and Chris Harris (UK magazine and Youtube journo, likes going sideways). They've definitely not got Couthard and there's been no official (from the BBC) announcement of the other two.
Unfortunately it looks like a disaster before they've aired a single episode, and the old team on Amazon will have their new season ready to go first.
Schmitz would be a good addition.
If all else fails, they have The Stig. Some say.......
Mr. Sandpit, I'd also heard the rumours (many of them) that Coulthard was going to Top Gear.
BBC have that back to front. One suspects Evans will be bloody awful.
Mr Radio 2.
Evans is a giant ego, without the humour of Clarkson. TG is going to be a ratings losing, TV switching off disaster. I wouldn't be surprised if it was canned after a single series, assuming of course that a complete one makes it to transmission.
I've lost count of the times Clarkson or the other 2 would say 'ambitious but rubbish' or ask why everything they do either breaks down, sinks, or catches fire. I just don't see Evans doing that. Evans says the car will be the star. But it isn't. Top Gear is about the presenters. It is a vehicle for vehicles, adventures and challenges.
What made Top Gear work was the relationship and chemistry between the three of them. Top Gear Germany, USA or Australia just didn't work as well.
Yes. The old team would call a crap car crap. They key will be the demographics of the audience for the timeslot (8pm Sunday if they don't change it) - old Top Gear had as many women watching it as men. Women won't be interested in watching just another car show, it needs to be an entertainment show.
"Now, change is coming; a dramatic increase in the productivity of the NHS’s exquisitely-qualified and expensive workforce is as necessary as it is desirable. Not even those at the very top of the social and professional scale can be safe from the glorious disruption technology brings.
This will be the story of medicine and technology in the 21st Century: bad for doctors, good for the rest of us. The junior doctors should enjoy their position of strength for it will not last. "
GPs will be the first to be rendered obsolete.
I see HMG sources have announced that they'll impose the new contract if no agreement is reached.
Mr. Sandpit, more women than men (at one point, at least. I remember because it struck me as unexpected, given the nature of the show).
On an unrelated note, I liked the entirely mental first episode of Gotham's second series on Monday. It's like an unholy marriage of the Original Series' surreal madness and the grimness of the recent trilogy.
McLaren could make a great leap forward. Honda know the problem (MGU-H/K aren't hooked up properly) it's a question of whether they have both the technical nous and the freedom, within the rules, to make the necessary changes.
Or they could fail utterly. Renault's reliability went downhill from 2014 to 2015, and one of their upgrades led to the engine actually becoming slower. Improvement is not guaranteed.
Honda are apparently very confident of fixing the issue, someone who would know says they think they can bring 2.2s per lap in performance from fixing their hybrid problems and the new Prodromou chassis will also have decent gains. If they are right then Alonso at 66/1 on PP looks very tempting, even as a trading bet.
Mr. Sandpit, I'd also heard the rumours (many of them) that Coulthard was going to Top Gear.
BBC have that back to front. One suspects Evans will be bloody awful.
Mr Radio 2.
Evans is a giant ego, without the humour of Clarkson. TG is going to be a ratings losing, TV switching off disaster. I wouldn't be surprised if it was canned after a single series, assuming of course that a complete one makes it to transmission.
I've lost count of the times Clarkson or the other 2 would say 'ambitious but rubbish' or ask why everything they do either breaks down, sinks, or catches fire. I just don't see Evans doing that. Evans says the car will be the star. But it isn't. Top Gear is about the presenters. It is a vehicle for vehicles, adventures and challenges.
What made Top Gear work was the relationship and chemistry between the three of them. Top Gear Germany, USA or Australia just didn't work as well.
Yes. The old team would call a crap car crap. They key will be the demographics of the audience for the timeslot (8pm Sunday if they don't change it) - old Top Gear had as many women watching it as men. Women won't be interested in watching just another car show, it needs to be an entertainment show.
All you need to know about Boris in one paragraph (admittedly attributed rather than direct speech: apparently he is tempted to endorse Leave but says that he isn't actually in favour of leaving: what to do? He's not ruled out endorsing it anyway!
Sounds about right. Boris wants to be next leader and PM so he needs a platform after the mayoralty and the EU referendum will give him one. He doesn't need to win, just prove he can lead a proxy election. It may be Boris is angling for a Cabinet post to shut him up.
Mr. L, May wasn't an experienced presenter. Experience is not the issue. It's about whether someone's likeable, and whether they have chemistry with their co-hosts.
Edited extra bit: Mr. B, precisely. Top Gear wasn't a car show. It was a three blokes cocking about show.
To be fair, May has learned well. I enjoyed his wine show. and a couple of his other shows. Clarkson is good on his own too, if iconoclastic. Hammond wears on one after a short while on his own.
But as a trio they are a rare combination, and they are smart enough to realize it.
Mr. B, Renault have their own team now, so as well as the loss of love from Red Bull's constant bitching, the engine manufacturer's prime concern will be team Renault, not Red Bull.
As we've seen with Mercedes, sometimes updates can be mysteriously slow coming to non-manufacturer teams...
Mr. B (2), we shall see. I may well tune into episode 1 to see how it stacks up.
Red Bull aren't getting the whole power unit from Renault, just the ICE, the hybrid parts, electrics and control units are going to be custom built by Red Bull, the rumours are that they are also developing their own ICE and will become fully independent for 2017
Mr. Max, so they say. They also reckoned, multiple times, they'd bring great improvements to the engine in the 2015 season. Didn't happen.
I'm not saying it can't or won't, just that it might, or it might not, and some optimistic pronouncements don't hold much weight.
Prodromou probably knows his beans, but Ferrari has James Allison[sp].
As a trading bet, Alonso may make sense, but Button kept him very honest last year. Button's odds will be longer and may be better value (cf backing Rosberg for the title at 16 or so in 2014).
Edited extra bit: Mr. Max, cheers for that info, (although the combustion engine is quite a large component ).
I heard a similar rumour a while ago, that they'd have an Infiniti engine. This sounds a bit similar. Hopefully they'll stop bleating all the damned time.
Mr. Sandpit, I'd also heard the rumours (many of them) that Coulthard was going to Top Gear.
BBC have that back to front. One suspects Evans will be bloody awful.
Mr Radio 2.
Evans is a giant ego, without the humour of Clarkson. TG is going to be a ratings losing, TV switching off disaster. I wouldn't be surprised if it was canned after a single series, assuming of course that a complete one makes it to transmission.
I've lost count of the times Clarkson or the other 2 would say 'ambitious but rubbish' or ask why everything they do either breaks down, sinks, or catches fire. I just don't see Evans doing that. Evans says the car will be the star. But it isn't. Top Gear is about the presenters. It is a vehicle for vehicles, adventures and challenges.
What made Top Gear work was the relationship and chemistry between the three of them. Top Gear Germany, USA or Australia just didn't work as well.
Yes. The old team would call a crap car crap. They key will be the demographics of the audience for the timeslot (8pm Sunday if they don't change it) - old Top Gear had as many women watching it as men. Women won't be interested in watching just another car show, it needs to be an entertainment show.
The latest Top Gear re-edit: Top Gear : The Races, hosted by Matt Leblanc, starts on BBC America next Monday at 9pm.
Mr. Sandpit, I'd also heard the rumours (many of them) that Coulthard was going to Top Gear.
BBC have that back to front. One suspects Evans will be bloody awful.
Mr Radio 2.
Evans is a giant ego, without the humour of Clarkson. TG is going to be a ratings losing, TV switching off disaster. I wouldn't be surprised if it was canned after a single series, assuming of course that a complete one makes it to transmission.
If I were the BBC I would put it on BBC 1. That way ratings would hold up better.
Mr. L, May wasn't an experienced presenter. Experience is not the issue. It's about whether someone's likeable, and whether they have chemistry with their co-hosts.
Indeed -- the point was that Evans is not a surprise package: he presents The One Show and TFI Friday. A better rumour imo might be that some of Evans' commercial activities raise problems: if the BBC axed Michel Roux Jr from Masterchef because he advertised potatoes, is it OK for Chris Evans to be a quasi-dealer in vintage supercars?
Mr. Sandpit, I'd also heard the rumours (many of them) that Coulthard was going to Top Gear.
BBC have that back to front. One suspects Evans will be bloody awful.
Mr Radio 2.
Evans is a giant ego, without the humour of Clarkson. TG is going to be a ratings losing, TV switching off disaster. I wouldn't be surprised if it was canned after a single series, assuming of course that a complete one makes it to transmission.
I've lost count of the times Clarkson or the other 2 would say 'ambitious but rubbish' or ask why everything they do either breaks down, sinks, or catches fire. I just don't see Evans doing that. Evans says the car will be the star. But it isn't. Top Gear is about the presenters. It is a vehicle for vehicles, adventures and challenges.
What made Top Gear work was the relationship and chemistry between the three of them. Top Gear Germany, USA or Australia just didn't work as well.
Yes. The old team would call a crap car crap. They key will be the demographics of the audience for the timeslot (8pm Sunday if they don't change it) - old Top Gear had as many women watching it as men. Women won't be interested in watching just another car show, it needs to be an entertainment show.
I remember him from Tomorrow's World with Raymond Baxter.
Comments
Trump could make it a laughing stock.
The choice is clear. Albeit with a heavy heart.
(European: the stripes go top-right to bottom-left;
American: the stripes go top-left to bottom-right)
Without needing to think of Trump as being merely ridiculous (although he indeed is), I have for months been of the opinion that he can't win the presidential election, for one reason alone (in addition to all the other reasons), which is this graph:
http://www.redstate.com/uploads/2015/08/TrumpHispanics-620x519.jpg
Trump may be a joke, but Clinton(II) is truly terrifying...
Thought Nikki Haley hit it out of the park
Pretty much sums it up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhou_Youguang
The furore over the republication of Hitler's venomous ideas shows that this is still a country whose leaders aren't comfortable with the truth"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/12095001/Whether-its-Cologne-sex-assaults-or-Mein-Kampf-Germany-still-doesnt-trust-its-people.html
The mistreatment of patients was a scandal. It was compounded by a cover-up that allowed it to continue, including terrible treatment of locals who tried to blow the whistle.
It was further compounded by the government's actions, including Burnham's. Your inability to repeatedly admit what went on at Stafford (despite having apparent;y read the report - which one?) makes me rather take your views on this strike with a large pinch of salt.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-35299597
I expect one of the candidates in the next Tory leadership election to call for the Labour Party's membership to be criminalised.
The war ended over 70 years ago, and there's no other nation I can think of that has atoned so consistently and comprehensively for its sins.
To try to personalise it to Andy Burnham misses both the point and the nessecary lessons. One of these lessons is that top down management to meet financial targets at the expense of patient care creats a bad hospital culture.
Alan Johnson seems to have dodged the blame well, as has Patricia Hewitt who were in charge at the peak of the problems, but lets shoot the messenger.
I have said enough on this in the past, including pointing out that there are a number of hospitals with worse excess mortality than Stafford in the period in question. Several of these are in the midlands, so I hear whispers of what is going on.
My own hospital now has excellent senior management and better than average mortality (SHIMI) figures for the country.
Getting back to the strike, this is a particularly well balanced review of the issues from the Economist:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2016/01/testing-their-patients?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/blamebritishpublicforjuniordoctorsstrike
And remember, Burnham was - and is - against the second public inquiry, which finally got to near the truth, and wishes it had not been published. This is important as the second inquiry came up with many more findings ('lessons') than Burnham's first, limited, inquiry.
Those lessons - which you think are so important - would never be known to be learnt if Burnham had had his way. As someone in favour of patient safety and learning lessons, I thought you would be as angry with Burnham as I am.
Also, you are reducing the 'lessons' to ones that meet your current political aims. The lessons in the second Francis report are much wider than that. So you can re-read it and learn the 'lessons' again, here's a link:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20150407084003/http://www.midstaffspublicinquiry.com/report
So my 'personalisation' of it towards Burnham very relevant. I'm interested as to why you repeatedly deny the above facts. As I said, it does not bode well for your comments about the current strike.
Oh, and I had a family member mistreated at Stafford (fortunately in a minor way, and not with long-term consequences). So it is personal to me, as it it to many people with family and friends in the Stafford area.
No, he did not. As it's been pointed out to you many times before, I suppose you're lying.
There were two Francis inquiries. The first was set up by Burnham, was not public, and was criticised by its chair, Francis, for its limited scope. The coalition set up the wider public inquiry that got to the truth and made many more recommendation.
Think about this: Burnham's inquiry made 18 recommendations. The second, public Francis inquiry made 290.
You may want to ask why Burnham limited the scope of 'his' inquiry, and why he thinks the public inquiry should not have been published. In other words, why those lessons should not have been learnt.
As for the rest: the problems at Stafford went well past clinical and monetary. An example is the way whistleblowers were treated, as well as family members who had the temerity to try to say something was going wrong. That's why the Stafford scandal was so much bigger - and more important to get to the truth - than the other sad cases.
The second Francis inquiry, the public one, was commissioned by the coalition.
Frankly Stafford is not relevant to the Doctors strike, only in as much as it shows how little the Hippocratic oath means (if indeed they still take it).. patents have suffered as a result of their operations/procedures being cancelled. This strike seems to be about money pure and simple.. As for the hours they work, they don't know they were born, fewer hours seems to me equals less well trained Doctors and with less experience... so the quid pro quo is that the advancement ladder should therefore take longer to climb....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-35299930
US apologises for Iran naval incursion- Revolutionary Guards
Part of Obama's craven Iranian policy.
Still, it's fascinating to see so called 'medical professionals' regurgitating the Stafford reports to justify what happened there. Anyone with any sense of basic human decency wouldn't waste their time doing so.
Why criminalise a laughing stock? We never bothered with the Revolutionary Communist Party
And how about recommendation 5:
EXCLUSIVE: SNP MP Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh under pressure over charity she chaired.
Only 3% went to good causes. https://t.co/sYAYqsnbTA
In very poor care but lots of forms neatly filled in. The real target of the public Francis inquiry was this target driven culture which dehumanised the staff and the patients alike. It was a really important lesson which has application even beyond the Health Service.
It is simplistic to say that this was a fundamental rejection of the New Labour way of managing and "improving" public services but there are significant elements of truth to it. I personally have doubts that even now the lessons of Francis have been fully applied. It is an emphasis on cultuppre and politicians of all stripes prefer things easier to measure, even if they are ultimately less important.
Remind me who was forced to resign by pressure?
You could argue Blair. After he'd been there for a decade (more, as leader of the party), had one single pre-eminent rival/potential successor, and had pre-empted his own departure.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/12095984/Muslim-men-considered-us-to-be-whores.html
Handy picture of a bear in this article.
@Herald_Editor: The SNP Govt gave SAWA £16k of public money - hours after Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh applied to register it as a charity https://t.co/sYAYqsnbTA
Oh dear oh dear
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Iranian_seizure_of_Royal_Navy_personnel
Or even the second:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Iranian_seizure_of_Royal_Navy_personnel
http://labourlist.org/2016/01/it-feels-like-there-are-two-labour-parties-but-not-in-the-way-you-think/
The conference doesn't work the way you think - any member can buy a visitor's pass, but voting is representational, so to influence policy you simply need to ensure that the CLP's elected delegates support your preferred views.
Apparently the Iranians are now saying the boat's navigation system was broken. Both of them? How likely is that?
McLaren could make a great leap forward. Honda know the problem (MGU-H/K aren't hooked up properly) it's a question of whether they have both the technical nous and the freedom, within the rules, to make the necessary changes.
Or they could fail utterly. Renault's reliability went downhill from 2014 to 2015, and one of their upgrades led to the engine actually becoming slower. Improvement is not guaranteed.
https://joesaward.wordpress.com/2016/01/11/a-neat-deal-for-dc/
Apparently Top Gear were hoping to get him, for all the rumours it appears they haven't actually contracted anyone to the show except Evans.
Edit: That BBC story is enlightening. How are they supposed to design the tyres for the new car if there's no testing allowed, and it sounds like the new regs give even more aerodynamic downforce, which will lead to even less overtaking than now!
BBC have that back to front. One suspects Evans will be bloody awful.
As an aside, there seems a rather firm correlation between Macca's performance and the times they try building road cars. They designed/built the F1 between 1990/1 and 1999, and had fairly horrible (for them) results during that period, only recovering in 1998 when most of the road car work was done.
Their next lone-build road car came along from 2010 period, just in time for another dip in form.
So from that limited dataset, when McLaren start designing and building road cars, their racing form dramatically dips. Cause or correlation? The teams are meant to be separate, but you have to ask whether management attention is diverted away from F1.
Renault - are we back to cheese eating surrender monkeys and freedom fries?
I shall await your reports with interest.
It's good to know that the most lantern jawed man since Desperate Dan has the Channel 4 commentary.
Point 3 here:
http://link.huffingtonpost.com/view/524aa3dc3227b874ccf803013ihn2.9r/6b25a6b0
If they get it right, expect them to be challenging with Williams and Force India, but if they get it wrong they'll be at the back again for another whole season.
Next year could be very tight at the back of the grid - Marussia now have Mercedes power, and new entrant Haas have been working very closely with Ferrari and are expected to be quick out of the box.
As we've seen with Mercedes, sometimes updates can be mysteriously slow coming to non-manufacturer teams...
Mr. B (2), we shall see. I may well tune into episode 1 to see how it stacks up.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/nhs/12093232/Strike-all-you-like-doctors-technology-will-soon-take-away-your-power.html
"Now, change is coming; a dramatic increase in the productivity of the NHS’s exquisitely-qualified and expensive workforce is as necessary as it is desirable. Not even those at the very top of the social and professional scale can be safe from the glorious disruption technology brings.
This will be the story of medicine and technology in the 21st Century: bad for doctors, good for the rest of us. The junior doctors should enjoy their position of strength for it will not last. "
Unfortunately it looks like a disaster before they've aired a single episode, and the old team on Amazon will have their new season ready to go first.
What made Top Gear work was the relationship and chemistry between the three of them. Top Gear Germany, USA or Australia just didn't work as well.
Mr. Sandpit, I'd be surprised if McLaren were back up to Williams' level. Force India had a cracking year given lack of early development, but McLaren's resources are far greater. If McLaren can't be top 5, it's got to count as another very bad year.
I agree the back of the grid could be interesting but I'm not convinced Haas will be there [at the back, I mean]. They've been doing lots of work with Ferrari and have a top driver in Grosjean. If I were Sauber, I'd be worried.
Edited extra bit: Mr. B, precisely. Top Gear wasn't a car show. It was a three blokes cocking about show.
If all else fails, they have The Stig. Some say.......
I see HMG sources have announced that they'll impose the new contract if no agreement is reached.
On an unrelated note, I liked the entirely mental first episode of Gotham's second series on Monday. It's like an unholy marriage of the Original Series' surreal madness and the grimness of the recent trilogy.
But as a trio they are a rare combination, and they are smart enough to realize it.
Roll on the Amazon show.
I'm not saying it can't or won't, just that it might, or it might not, and some optimistic pronouncements don't hold much weight.
Prodromou probably knows his beans, but Ferrari has James Allison[sp].
As a trading bet, Alonso may make sense, but Button kept him very honest last year. Button's odds will be longer and may be better value (cf backing Rosberg for the title at 16 or so in 2014).
Edited extra bit: Mr. Max, cheers for that info, (although the combustion engine is quite a large component
I heard a similar rumour a while ago, that they'd have an Infiniti engine. This sounds a bit similar. Hopefully they'll stop bleating all the damned time.
Maybe grandfathering in such deals is ok, but new ones are frowned upon?