As an ex-military man, surely you would understand that if the government cut military pay while increasing overseas deployments then a fair number would not re-enlist, and that others would change career. It would affect recruitment too. Soldiers, sailors and airmen are expensive to train too. The same principle applies. I would not accuse them of being un-patriotic.
Please, I am not accusing anyone of anything. My wife was a copper, nearly thirty years ago the police had a new pay arrangement imposed on them under which for certain ranks the entitlement to overtime payment, which was for many a big earner, was removed in return for an increase of about 10% (I can't remember the exact figure) in basic pay. In recent years military pay and conditions have also been changed, more than once, to the great detriment of the service personnel (as at least one contributor to this site will attest). So what is going on in the NHS is certainly not unique.
I might also mention that for some military posts if the person leaves early they do so with a bill for a portion of their training.
My point is not that you are wrong or that junior doctors are guilty of anything. Just that the country cannot and will not accept doctors going on strike. These strikes, especially if followed by others in the near to medium term (as per your suggestion), will lead to changes that will have more drastic effects on doctors terms and conditions than they are thinking of at the moment and will change the NHS.
I think that very sad.
Indeed it is sad that the government has come up with a contract that 98% of highly educated and highly numerate doctors rejected, yet believes with the certitude of a zealot that they have right, and threatens its forcible imposition.
Is it any wonder that doctors vote with their feet? If a monopoly employer insists on unreasonable terms what else can they do other than strike or leave the employment of the government? Or should they be serfs to be bought and sold at the whim of the minister?
As much as we'd expect the opposition to be doing much better in the polling at this point, I can kind of see why a Corbynista, in between ridiculing polling (not that just Corbynistas are doing that) saying, 'see, no worse than Ed M, you're being ridiculous, now give it time'. We cling to what we can.
If Lab lose sub 100 seats in May, presumably that'd be a great result for Corbyn?
Given that Labour lost the last general election, they really ought to be making gains at interim elections if they want to be on track for the big one.
Ought to, but I was thinking relative to how bad people say he will be electorally on their prospects. Losing those seats might well augur very poorly for them, but as a number it doesn't sound catastrophic, and can be spun.
Two different things:
bad as in augurs badly for 2020 bad as in misses immediate expectations, so fuels Corbyn-must-go
It would probably fuel Rupert Murdoch must go wouldn't it. It won't be Corbyn's fault.
I had written a thread for tomorrow afternoon saying Michael Gove should be the man to lead Leave.
From that article
Cabinet heavyweight Michael Gove has become the latest Tory eurosceptic to snub the campaign for Britain to quit the EU.
Three years ago Justice Secretary Mr Gove said that he would vote to cut Britain’s ties with Brussels. Now he has decided to support David Cameron and campaign to stay in.
His U-turn mirrors similar somersaults by Conservative Eurosceptics Philip Hammond and William Hague. And it is a setback to the ‘Leave’ campaign, which wanted to make use of Mr Gove’s formidable debating skills.
So it's got to be the AV thread instead?
Nope, I need to update that again.
I've got a near completed thread comparing the Nats to Confederate States.
Cameron really need to pull something out the bag in this renegotiation. As things stand there's a six point lead for Leave, the polls are probably still undercounting right wingers, and the refugee crisis is likely to surge again over the summer.
I had written a thread for tomorrow afternoon saying Michael Gove should be the man to lead Leave.
From that article
Cabinet heavyweight Michael Gove has become the latest Tory eurosceptic to snub the campaign for Britain to quit the EU.
Three years ago Justice Secretary Mr Gove said that he would vote to cut Britain’s ties with Brussels. Now he has decided to support David Cameron and campaign to stay in.
Look on the bright side – better to find out the night before, than an hour after publishing.
They need to get rid of Hunt well before the Autumn. Even if the doctors' dispute is settled Hunt is toxic to any NHS worker. We know he's prepared to scheme and lie and play politics rather than work for the NHS.
While I agree with your some of your comments the Health Secretary's first duty is patients well being and to take on vested interests within the NHS in the wider good
His latest nonsense is that we can be all like a hospital in Seattle using work practices modeled on Toyota. This is a hospital with a greater than 1 doctor per patient ratio. And let it not be forgotten the US system is twice as expensive as ours and delivers worse outcomes. Yet this blithering idiot wishes us to follow them. Words fail me.
Do individual hospitals deliver worse outcomes or is it the unequal coverage of healthcare which produces that? Are you seriously saying that the NHS has nothing to learn from anything in the whole of the States? Or, one suspects from that attitude, anywhere.
I would have though the American diet and rampant gun violence would be main reason for poor health outcomes!!
I had written a thread for tomorrow afternoon saying Michael Gove should be the man to lead Leave.
From that article
Cabinet heavyweight Michael Gove has become the latest Tory eurosceptic to snub the campaign for Britain to quit the EU.
Three years ago Justice Secretary Mr Gove said that he would vote to cut Britain’s ties with Brussels. Now he has decided to support David Cameron and campaign to stay in.
His U-turn mirrors similar somersaults by Conservative Eurosceptics Philip Hammond and William Hague. And it is a setback to the ‘Leave’ campaign, which wanted to make use of Mr Gove’s formidable debating skills.
Many not so eurosceptic after all, I suppose? I hope there's some entertaining wailing online about dirty tricks and spineless careerists.
I still optimistic for leave, there's just so little affection for the eu and some real negatives hitting home.
Good night. Edit - if nearly all the top ranks back Cameron, maybe he would be able to cling on if they lose. No one to oust him. Grayling last man standing?
As an ex-military man, surely you would understand that if the government cut military pay while increasing overseas deployments then a fair number would not re-enlist, and that others would change career. It would affect recruitment too. Soldiers, sailors and airmen are expensive to train too. The same principle applies. I would not accuse them of being un-patriotic.
Please, I am not accusing anyone of anything. My wife was a copper, nearly thirty years ago the police had a new pay arrangement imposed on them under which for certain ranks the entitlement to overtime payment, which was for many a big earner, was removed in return for an increase of about 10% (I can't remember the exact figure) in basic pay. In recent years military pay and conditions have also been changed, more than once, to the great detriment of the service personnel (as at least one contributor to this site will attest). So what is going on in the NHS is certainly not unique.
I might also mention that for some military posts if the person leaves early they do so with a bill for a portion of their training.
My point is not that you are wrong or that junior doctors are guilty of anything. Just that the country cannot and will not accept doctors going on strike. These strikes, especially if followed by others in the near to medium term (as per your suggestion), will lead to changes that will have more drastic effects on doctors terms and conditions than they are thinking of at the moment and will change the NHS.
I think that very sad.
Indeed it is sad that the government has come up with a contract that 98% of highly educated and highly numerate doctors rejected, yet believes with the certitude of a zealot that they have right, and threatens its forcible imposition.
Is it any wonder that doctors vote with their feet? If a monopoly employer insists on unreasonable terms what else can they do other than strike or leave the employment of the government? Or should they be serfs to be bought and sold at the whim of the minister?
Again, the screams about 'breaking the NHS up' smack of hypocrisy if there is then a criticism of a monopoly employer.
Unfortunately, as with many groups of highly educated and highly numerate people, there is also a prevailing sense of entitlement.....
I had written a thread for tomorrow afternoon saying Michael Gove should be the man to lead Leave.
From that article
Cabinet heavyweight Michael Gove has become the latest Tory eurosceptic to snub the campaign for Britain to quit the EU.
Three years ago Justice Secretary Mr Gove said that he would vote to cut Britain’s ties with Brussels. Now he has decided to support David Cameron and campaign to stay in.
His U-turn mirrors similar somersaults by Conservative Eurosceptics Philip Hammond and William Hague. And it is a setback to the ‘Leave’ campaign, which wanted to make use of Mr Gove’s formidable debating skills.
That sound like the Tory establishment are going all in on Remain. An interesting development but that is a gamble all right.
As an ex-military man, surely you would understand that if the government cut military pay while increasing overseas deployments then a fair number would not re-enlist, and that others would change career. It would affect recruitment too. Soldiers, sailors and airmen are expensive to train too. The same principle applies. I would not accuse them of being un-patriotic.
Please, I am not accusing anyone of anything. My wife was a copper, nearly thirty years ago the police had a new pay arrangement imposed on them under which for certain ranks the entitlement to overtime payment, which was for many a big earner, was removed in return for an increase of about 10% (I can't remember the exact figure) in basic pay. In recent years military pay and conditions have also been changed, more than once, to the great detriment of the service personnel (as at least one contributor to this site will attest). So what is going on in the NHS is certainly not unique.
I might also mention that for some military posts if the person leaves early they do so with a bill for a portion of their training.
My point is not that you are wrong or that junior doctors are guilty of anything. Just that the country cannot and will not accept doctors going on strike. These strikes, especially if followed by others in the near to medium term (as per your suggestion), will lead to changes that will have more drastic effects on doctors terms and conditions than they are thinking of at the moment and will change the NHS.
I think that very sad.
Indeed it is sad that the government has come up with a contract that 98% of highly educated and highly numerate doctors rejected, yet believes with the certitude of a zealot that they have right, and threatens its forcible imposition.
Is it any wonder that doctors vote with their feet? If a monopoly employer insists on unreasonable terms what else can they do other than strike or leave the employment of the government? Or should they be serfs to be bought and sold at the whim of the minister?
I am sorry. I am obviously not making my point but I don't know how to express myself any clearer. I am sure it is my fault but I am lost as to how to go forward with this.
I can see that the present generation of junior doctors will vote with their feet and why, but at the end of the day these strikes will do nobody any good.
Please, for tonight at least, could we leave it there?
I've got a near completed thread comparing the Nats to Confederate States.
Is headlined 'Birth of a Nation'
Be fair TSE, whatever their faults the SNP are not in favour of slavery, and while like the Old Southerners the separatists are a large and noisy minority nobody is suggesting they will turn violent en masse.
Of course, the Confederates' dream did wither away rapidly in the face of economic reality and social catastrophe, but there the parallel ends. And even then, cotton didn't fall 80% in price in 3(?) years the way oil has.
So I would be interested to see what parallels you can come up with.
As an ex-military man, surely you would understand that if the government cut military pay while increasing overseas deployments then a fair number would not re-enlist, and that others would change career. It would affect recruitment too. Soldiers, sailors and airmen are expensive to train too. The same principle applies. I would not accuse them of being un-patriotic.
Please, I am not accusing anyone of anything. My wife was a copper, nearly thirty years ago the police had a new pay arrangement imposed on them under which for certain ranks the entitlement to overtime payment, which was for many a big earner, was removed in return for an increase of about 10% (I can't remember the exact figure) in basic pay. In recent years military pay and conditions have also been changed, more than once, to the great detriment of the service personnel (as at least one contributor to this site will attest). So what is going on in the NHS is certainly not unique.
I might also mention that for some military posts if the person leaves early they do so with a bill for a portion of their training.
My point is not that you are wrong or that junior doctors are guilty of anything. Just that the country cannot and will not accept doctors going on strike. These strikes, especially if followed by others in the near to medium term (as per your suggestion), will lead to changes that will have more drastic effects on doctors terms and conditions than they are thinking of at the moment and will change the NHS.
I think that very sad.
Indeed it is sad that the government has come up with a contract that 98% of highly educated and highly numerate doctors rejected, yet believes with the certitude of a zealot that they have right, and threatens its forcible imposition.
Is it any wonder that doctors vote with their feet? If a monopoly employer insists on unreasonable terms what else can they do other than strike or leave the employment of the government? Or should they be serfs to be bought and sold at the whim of the minister?
Any employer ultimately has the right to impose new working conditions on their employees. Why should the NHS be any different?
I had written a thread for tomorrow afternoon saying Michael Gove should be the man to lead Leave.
From that article
Cabinet heavyweight Michael Gove has become the latest Tory eurosceptic to snub the campaign for Britain to quit the EU.
Three years ago Justice Secretary Mr Gove said that he would vote to cut Britain’s ties with Brussels. Now he has decided to support David Cameron and campaign to stay in.
His U-turn mirrors similar somersaults by Conservative Eurosceptics Philip Hammond and William Hague. And it is a setback to the ‘Leave’ campaign, which wanted to make use of Mr Gove’s formidable debating skills.
Many not so eurosceptic after all, I suppose? I hope there's some entertaining wailing online about dirty tricks and spineless careerists.
I still optimistic for leave, there's just so little affection for the eu and some real negatives hitting home.
Good night. Edit - if nearly all the top ranks back Cameron, maybe he would be able to cling on if they lose. No one to oust him. Grayling last man standing?
I see the whinges had already started if this title is accurate.
As much as we'd expect the opposition to be doing much better in the polling at this point, I can kind of see why a Corbynista, in between ridiculing polling (not that just Corbynistas are doing that) saying, 'see, no worse than Ed M, you're being ridiculous, now give it time'. We cling to what we can.
If Lab lose sub 100 seats in May, presumably that'd be a great result for Corbyn?
Given that Labour lost the last general election, they really ought to be making gains at interim elections if they want to be on track for the big one.
Yup. Even some of the most dreadful oppositions that have gone on to lose to three figure majorities were smashing by elections and local elections.
In 1998, when the conservatives were on life support and the only sensible course of action all round was to turn off the ventilator, Hague gained 256 council seats, though from a low base...
Checking wiki, here are the net council seat gains of the conservatives:
1998 256 1999 1,348 2000 594 2001 120 (GE in which cons lost by a landslide) 2002 238 2003 568 2004 288 2005 152 2006 316 2007 911 (ouch, this looks like the same cycle that lost 1,348 in 1999) 2008 256 2009 244 2010 -121 2011 86 2012 -405 (omnishambles!) 2013 -335 2014 -236 2015 541
I would be expecting the conservatives to be making some mild gains in May. Anything for more than a couple of hundred would be surprising though. Constituency Labour Parties seem to be in a state of shell shock....
As an ex-military man, surely you would understand that if the government cut military pay while increasing overseas deployments then a fair number would not re-enlist, and that others would change career. It would affect recruitment too. Soldiers, sailors and airmen are expensive to train too. The same principle applies. I would not accuse them of being un-patriotic.
Please, I am not accusing anyone of anything. My wife was a copper, nearly thirty years ago the police had a new pay arrangement imposed on them under which for certain ranks the entitlement to overtime payment, which was for many a big earner, was removed in return for an increase of about 10% (I can't remember the exact figure) in basic pay. In recent years military pay and conditions have also been changed, more than once, to the great detriment of the service personnel (as at least one contributor to this site will attest). So what is going on in the NHS is certainly not unique.
I might also mention that for some military posts if the person leaves early they do so with a bill for a portion of their training.
My point is not that you are wrong or that junior doctors are guilty of anything. Just that the country cannot and will not accept doctors going on strike. These strikes, especially if followed by others in the near to medium term (as per your suggestion), will lead to changes that will have more drastic effects on doctors terms and conditions than they are thinking of at the moment and will change the NHS.
I think that very sad.
Indeed it is sad that the government has come up with a contract that 98% of highly educated and highly numerate doctors rejected, yet believes with the certitude of a zealot that they have right, and threatens its forcible imposition.
Is it any wonder that doctors vote with their feet? If a monopoly employer insists on unreasonable terms what else can they do other than strike or leave the employment of the government? Or should they be serfs to be bought and sold at the whim of the minister?
Any employer ultimately has the right to impose new working conditions on their employees. Why should the NHS be any different?
And any employee has the right to seek work elsewhere if the new working conditions are not compatible with their own plans. Why should the NHS be different?
I've got a near completed thread comparing the Nats to Confederate States.
Is headlined 'Birth of a Nation'
Be fair TSE, whatever their faults the SNP are not in favour of slavery, and while the separatists are a large and noisy minority nobody is suggesting they will turn violent en masse.
Of course, their dream did wither away rapidly in the face of economic reality and social catastrophe, but there the parallel ends. And even then, cotton didn't fall 80% in price in 3(?) years the way oil has.
So I would be interested to see what parallels you can come up with.
It is comparing their reactions to an electoral result they don't like and thus secede.
EURef victory for Leave = Lincoln's victory in 1860
As an ex-military man, surely you would understand that if the government cut military pay while increasing overseas deployments then a fair number would not re-enlist, and that others would change career. It would affect recruitment too. Soldiers, sailors and airmen are expensive to train too. The same principle applies. I would not accuse them of being un-patriotic.
Please, I am not accusing anyone of anything. My wife was a copper, nearly thirty years ago the police had a new pay arrangement imposed on them under which for certain ranks the entitlement to overtime payment, which was for many a big earner, was removed in return for an increase of about 10% (I can't remember the exact figure) in basic pay. In recent years military pay and conditions have also been changed, more than once, to the great detriment of the service personnel (as at least one contributor to this site will attest). So what is going on in the NHS is certainly not unique.
I might also mention that for some military posts if the person leaves early they do so with a bill for a portion of their training.
My point is not that you are wrong or that junior doctors are guilty of anything. Just that the country cannot and will not accept doctors going on strike. These strikes, especially if followed by others in the near to medium term (as per your suggestion), will lead to changes that will have more drastic effects on doctors terms and conditions than they are thinking of at the moment and will change the NHS.
I think that very sad.
Indeed it is sad that the government has come up with a contract that 98% of highly educated and highly numerate doctors rejected, yet believes with the certitude of a zealot that they have right, and threatens its forcible imposition.
Is it any wonder that doctors vote with their feet? If a monopoly employer insists on unreasonable terms what else can they do other than strike or leave the employment of the government? Or should they be serfs to be bought and sold at the whim of the minister?
Any employer ultimately has the right to impose new working conditions on their employees. Why should the NHS be any different?
And any employee has the right to seek work elsewhere if the new working conditions are not compatible with their own plans. Why should the NHS be different?
Going around in circles here. Yes, absolutely, it is within the rights of an employee to leave.
But it is also within the right of others to call such people, in this example and particularly when there has been government sponsored tuition, hypocrites if they claim that patient safety is their overriding concern.
I had written a thread for tomorrow afternoon saying Michael Gove should be the man to lead Leave.
From that article
Cabinet heavyweight Michael Gove has become the latest Tory eurosceptic to snub the campaign for Britain to quit the EU.
Three years ago Justice Secretary Mr Gove said that he would vote to cut Britain’s ties with Brussels. Now he has decided to support David Cameron and campaign to stay in.
His U-turn mirrors similar somersaults by Conservative Eurosceptics Philip Hammond and William Hague. And it is a setback to the ‘Leave’ campaign, which wanted to make use of Mr Gove’s formidable debating skills.
Many not so eurosceptic after all, I suppose? I hope there's some entertaining wailing online about dirty tricks and spineless careerists.
I still optimistic for leave, there's just so little affection for the eu and some real negatives hitting home.
Good night. Edit - if nearly all the top ranks back Cameron, maybe he would be able to cling on if they lose. No one to oust him. Grayling last man standing?
I see the whinges had already started if this title is accurate.
As an ex-military man, surely you would understand that if the government cut military pay while increasing overseas deployments then a fair number would not re-enlist, and that others would change career. It would affect recruitment too. Soldiers, sailors and airmen are expensive to train too. The same principle applies. I would not accuse them of being un-patriotic.
Please, I am not accusing anyone of anything. My wife was a copper, nearly thirty years ago the police had a new pay arrangement imposed on them under which for certain ranks the entitlement to overtime payment, which was for many a big earner, was removed in return for an increase of about 10% (I can't remember the exact figure) in basic pay. In recent years military pay and conditions have also been changed, more than once, to the great detriment of the service personnel (as at least one contributor to this site will attest). So what is going on in the NHS is certainly not unique.
I might also mention that for some military posts if the person leaves early they do so with a bill for a portion of their training.
My point is not that you are wrong or that junior doctors are guilty of anything. Just that the country cannot and will not accept doctors going on strike. These strikes, especially if followed by others in the near to medium term (as per your suggestion), will lead to changes that will have more drastic effects on doctors terms and conditions than they are thinking of at the moment and will change the NHS.
I think that very sad.
Indeed it is
Any employer ultimately has the right to impose new working conditions on their employees. Why should the NHS be any different?
And any employee has the right to seek work elsewhere if the new working conditions are not compatible with their own plans. Why should the NHS be different?
Going around in circles here. Yes, absolutely, it is within the rights of an employee to leave.
But it is also within the right of others to call such people, in this example and particularly when there has been government sponsored tuition, hypocrites if they claim that patient safety is their overriding concern.
That argument is much less valid when medical students pay £9000 perannum for their own tuition.
No one should be forced to work in a way that thry consider unsafe. A doctor would be failing in their ethical duty if they accepted unsafe terms.
They need to get rid of Hunt well before the Autumn. Even if the doctors' dispute is settled Hunt is toxic to any NHS worker. We know he's prepared to scheme and lie and play politics rather than work for the NHS.
While I agree with your some of your comments the Health Secretary's first duty is patients well being and to take on vested interests within the NHS in the wider good
His latest nonsense is that we can be all like a hospital in Seattle using work practices modeled on Toyota. This is a hospital with a greater than 1 doctor per patient ratio. And let it not be forgotten the US system is twice as expensive as ours and delivers worse outcomes. Yet this blithering idiot wishes us to follow them. Words fail me.
Do individual hospitals deliver worse outcomes or is it the unequal coverage of healthcare which produces that? Are you seriously saying that the NHS has nothing to learn from anything in the whole of the States? Or, one suspects from that attitude, anywhere.
We don't have anything to learn from an extremely inefficient model of healthcare. The hospital Hunt refers to is extremely well staffed compared with English hospitals and the two are not comparable.
Noticed that the local newsagent has been stocking more copies of the Morning Star lately, as you might expect in deepest Islington, and bought a copy for the first time for a while. Seems to be flourishing - up to 24 pages, and they have some good journalism, including a discovery that although we're bombing Syria as a consequence of the Paris attacks, the Government has not yet agreed to pay out from the Victims of Overseas Terrorism Compensation Scheme, as - according to a letter to a victim - "the incident has not yet been designated by the Foreign Secretary as an act of terrorism". The paper noted that 89 people were killed in the murderous rampage, and asked the Foreign Office what it took to qualify. The FO mumbled apologetically to the paper that they will "now take this forward".
Inside, they're interviewing one of Simon Danczuk's girlfriends about his political views, naturally of more interest to readers than his sexual activities - supposedly he supports fox-hunting, academies and rail privatisation. But there's an upbeat note from the Tube talks, which they say unions called "useful" for the first time.
It's naturally biased, but it covers things that other papers don't bother with, e.g. death squads in Mexico and a history of subversive cartoons going back to Henry VIII. With the mainstream press covering much the same ground every day, it wasn't a bad read.
They need to get rid of Hunt well before the Autumn. Even if the doctors' dispute is settled Hunt is toxic to any NHS worker. We know he's prepared to scheme and lie and play politics rather than work for the NHS.
While I agree with your some of your comments the Health Secretary's first duty is patients well being and to take on vested interests within the NHS in the wider good
His latest nonsense is that we can be all like a hospital in Seattle using work practices modeled on Toyota. This is a hospital with a greater than 1 doctor per patient ratio. And let it not be forgotten the US system is twice as expensive as ours and delivers worse outcomes. Yet this blithering idiot wishes us to follow them. Words fail me.
Do individual hospitals deliver worse outcomes or is it the unequal coverage of healthcare which produces that? Are you seriously saying that the NHS has nothing to learn from anything in the whole of the States? Or, one suspects from that attitude, anywhere.
We don't have anything to learn from an extremely inefficient model of healthcare
As an ex-military man, surely you would understand that if the government cut military pay while increasing overseas deployments then a fair number would not re-enlist, and that others would change career. It would affect recruitment too. Soldiers, sailors and airmen are expensive to train too. The same principle applies. I would not accuse them of being un-patriotic.
Please, I am not accusing anyone of anything. My wife was a copper, nearly thirty years ago the police had a new pay arrangement imposed on them under which for certain ranks the entitlement to overtime payment, which was for many a big earner, was removed in return for an increase of about 10% (I can't remember the exact figure) in basic pay. In recent years military pay and conditions have also been changed, more than once, to the great detriment of the service personnel (as at least one contributor to this site will attest). So what is going on in the NHS is certainly not unique.
I might also mention that for some military posts if the person leaves early they do so with a bill for a portion of their training.
My point is not that you are wrong or that junior doctors are guilty of anything. Just that the country cannot and will not accept doctors going on strike. These strikes, especially if followed by others in the near to medium term (as per your suggestion), will lead to changes that will have more drastic effects on doctors terms and conditions than they are thinking of at the moment and will change the NHS.
I think that very sad.
Indeed it is
Any employer ultimately has the right to impose new working conditions on their employees. Why should the NHS be any different?
And any employee has the right to seek work elsewhere if the new working conditions are not compatible with their own plans. Why should the NHS be different?
Going around in circles here. Yes, absolutely, it is within the rights of an employee to leave.
But it is also within the right of others to call such people, in this example and particularly when there has been government sponsored tuition, hypocrites if they claim that patient safety is their overriding concern.
That argument is much less valid when medical students pay £9000 perannum for their own tuition.
Noticed that the local newsagent has been stocking more copies of the Morning Star lately, as you might expect in deepest Islington, and bought a copy for the first time for a while. Seems to be flourishing - up to 24 pages, and they have some good journalism, including a discovery that although we're bombing Syria as a consequence of the Paris attacks, the Government has not yet agreed to pay out from the Victims of Overseas Terrorism Compensation Scheme, as - according to a letter to a victim - "the incident has not yet been designated by the Foreign Secretary as an act of terrorism". The paper noted that 89 people were killed in the murderous rampage, and asked the Foreign Office what it took to qualify. The FO mumbled apologetically to the paper that they will "now take this forward".
Inside, they're interviewing one of Simon Danczuk's girlfriends about his political views, naturally of more interest to readers than his sexual activities - supposedly he supports fox-hunting, academies and rail privatisation. But there's an upbeat note from the Tube talks, which they say unions called "useful" for the first time.
It's naturally biased, but it covers things that other papers don't bother with, e.g. death squads in Mexico and a history of subversive cartoons going back to Henry VIII. With the mainstream press covering much the same ground every day, it wasn't a bad read.
Better than the mirror/mail? All biased of course, but I just cannot stand the general style of them, prefer a guardians/telegraph feel.
Noticed that the local newsagent has been stocking more copies of the Morning Star lately, as you might expect in deepest Islington, and bought a copy for the first time for a while. Seems to be flourishing - up to 24 pages, and they have some good journalism, including a discovery that although we're bombing Syria as a consequence of the Paris attacks, the Government has not yet agreed to pay out from the Victims of Overseas Terrorism Compensation Scheme, as - according to a letter to a victim - "the incident has not yet been designated by the Foreign Secretary as an act of terrorism". The paper noted that 89 people were killed in the murderous rampage, and asked the Foreign Office what it took to qualify. The FO mumbled apologetically to the paper that they will "now take this forward".
Inside, they're interviewing one of Simon Danczuk's girlfriends about his political views, naturally of more interest to readers than his sexual activities - supposedly he supports fox-hunting, academies and rail privatisation. But there's an upbeat note from the Tube talks, which they say unions called "useful" for the first time.
It's naturally biased, but it covers things that other papers don't bother with, e.g. death squads in Mexico and a history of subversive cartoons going back to Henry VIII. With the mainstream press covering much the same ground every day, it wasn't a bad read.
Anything about death squads in North Korea or 101 other uses for an ice pick?
They need to get rid of Hunt well before the Autumn. Even if the doctors' dispute is settled Hunt is toxic to any NHS worker. We know he's prepared to scheme and lie and play politics rather than work for the NHS.
While I agree with your some of your comments the Health Secretary's first duty is patients well being and to take on vested interests within the NHS in the wider good
His latest nonsense is that we can be all like a hospital in Seattle using work practices modeled on Toyota. This is a hospital with a greater than 1 doctor per patient ratio. And let it not be forgotten the US system is twice as expensive as ours and delivers worse outcomes. Yet this blithering idiot wishes us to follow them. Words fail me.
Do individual hospitals deliver worse outcomes or is it the unequal coverage of healthcare which produces that? Are you seriously saying that the NHS has nothing to learn from anything in the whole of the States? Or, one suspects from that attitude, anywhere.
I would have though the American diet and rampant gun violence would be main reason for poor health outcomes!!
Poor outcomes are not the experience of insured americans though. We think of the US healthcare system in the way we think of the NHS as some kind of monolithic beast that spreads across the nation, in the UK we think of it as a benign deity which needs to be worshipped, while in the US we see it as an evil capitalist system out of reach of ordinary folk.
Of course this is not true, the US doesnt have one health care system, it has over fifty different health care systems organised on a state by state basis, some have exceptionally comprehensive care, and some not so, and these are backed up by medicaid and medicare, one covers people who are too poor to pay and one covers the retired, whether they can pay or not.
Add onto that obama care... The point is that for many people most of the time, the service they get from primary care puts ours to shame. Patients in the US expect/demand a substantially higher level of service from their primary care.
Try been a 35 year old male and visit your GP for an annual check up. He'll tell you to get lost and come back when something is wrong, if hes been polite he'll take your blood pressure and get the nurse/hca to check your bloods for diabetes.
We are a reactive service, primary care in the US is a proactive service, which is one of the reasons its so damn expensive.
As an ex-military man, surely you would understand that if the government cut military pay while increasing overseas deployments then a fair number would not re-enlist, and that others would change career. It would affect recruitment too. Soldiers, sailors and airmen are expensive to train too. The same principle applies. I would not accuse them of being un-patriotic.
Please, I am not accusing anyone of anything. My wife was a copper, nearly thirty years ago the police had a new pay arrangement imposed on them under which for certain ranks the entitlement to overtime payment, which was for many a big earner, was removed in return for an increase of about 10% (I can't remember the exact figure) in basic pay. In recent years military pay and conditions have also been changed, more than once, to the great detriment of the service personnel (as at least one contributor to this site will attest). So what is going on in the NHS is certainly not unique.
I might also mention that for some military posts if the person leaves early they do so with a bill for a portion of their training.
My point is not that you are wrong or that junior doctors are guilty of anything. Just that the country cannot and will not accept doctors going on strike. These strikes, especially if followed by others in the near to medium term (as per your suggestion), will lead to changes that will have more drastic effects on doctors terms and conditions than they are thinking of at the moment and will change the NHS.
I think that very sad.
Indeed it is sad that the government has come up with a contract that 98% of highly educated and highly numerate doctors rejected, yet believes with the certitude of a zealot that they have right, and threatens its forcible imposition.
Is it any wonder that doctors vote with their feet? If a monopoly employer insists on unreasonable terms what else can they do other than strike or leave the employment of the government? Or should they be serfs to be bought and sold at the whim of the minister?
Any employer ultimately has the right to impose new working conditions on their employees. Why should the NHS be any different?
And any employee has the right to seek work elsewhere if the new working conditions are not compatible with their own plans. Why should the NHS be different?
Noticed that the local newsagent has been stocking more copies of the Morning Star lately, as you might expect in deepest Islington, and bought a copy for the first time for a while. Seems to be flourishing - up to 24 pages, and they have some good journalism, including a discovery that although we're bombing Syria as a consequence of the Paris attacks, the Government has not yet agreed to pay out from the Victims of Overseas Terrorism Compensation Scheme, as - according to a letter to a victim - "the incident has not yet been designated by the Foreign Secretary as an act of terrorism". The paper noted that 89 people were killed in the murderous rampage, and asked the Foreign Office what it took to qualify. The FO mumbled apologetically to the paper that they will "now take this forward".
Inside, they're interviewing one of Simon Danczuk's girlfriends about his political views, naturally of more interest to readers than his sexual activities - supposedly he supports fox-hunting, academies and rail privatisation. But there's an upbeat note from the Tube talks, which they say unions called "useful" for the first time.
It's naturally biased, but it covers things that other papers don't bother with, e.g. death squads in Mexico and a history of subversive cartoons going back to Henry VIII. With the mainstream press covering much the same ground every day, it wasn't a bad read.
As much as we'd expect the opposition to be doing much better in the polling at this point, I can kind of see why a Corbynista, in between ridiculing polling (not that just Corbynistas are doing that) saying, 'see, no worse than Ed M, you're being ridiculous, now give it time'. We cling to what we can.
If Lab lose sub 100 seats in May, presumably that'd be a great result for Corbyn?
Given that Labour lost the last general election, they really ought to be making gains at interim elections if they want to be on track for the big one.
But it does not work like that - gains or losses tend to be related to the Local Election cycle rather than the most recent General Election result. Before the Local govt changes of 1973 the cycle was 3 years - since that date it has become 4 years. Labour made gains in 1952 but losses in 1955. Gains in 1958 but losses in 1961. Gains in 1964 but losses in 1967. Little change in 1970 but gains in 1973. Losses in 1977 but gains in 1981.
As an ex-military man, surely you would understand that if the government cut military pay while increasing overseas deployments then a fair number would not re-enlist, and that others would change career. It would affect recruitment too. Soldiers, sailors and airmen are expensive to train too. The same principle applies. I would not accuse them of being un-patriotic.
Please, I am not accusing anyone of anything. My wife was a copper, nearly thirty years ago the police had a new pay arrangement imposed on them under which for certain ranks the entitlement to overtime payment, which was for many a big earner, was removed in return for an increase of about 10% (I can't remember the exact figure) in basic pay. In recent years military pay and conditions have also been changed, more than once, to the great detriment of the service personnel (as at least one contributor to this site will attest). So what is going on in the NHS is certainly not unique.
I might also mention that for some military posts if the person leaves early they do so with a bill for a portion of their training.
My point is not that you are wrong or that junior doctors are guilty of anything. Just that the country cannot and will not accept doctors going on strike. These strikes, especially if followed by others in the near to medium term (as per your suggestion), will lead to changes that will have more drastic effects on doctors terms and conditions than they are thinking of at the moment and will change the NHS.
I think that very sad.
Indeed it is sad that the government has come up with a contract that 98% of highly educated and highly numerate doctors rejected, yet believes with the certitude of a zealot that they have right, and threatens its forcible imposition.
Is it any wonder that doctors vote with their feet? If a monopoly employer insists on unreasonable terms what else can they do other than strike or leave the employment of the government? Or should they be serfs to be bought and sold at the whim of the minister?
Any employer ultimately has the right to impose new working conditions on their employees. Why should the NHS be any different?
And any employee has the right to seek work elsewhere if the new working conditions are not compatible with their own plans. Why should the NHS be different?
Is anyone suggesting it should be?
Having witnessed similar discussions with other medics, it would seem intransigence is not in short supply in the profession these days.
Why do we have to assume that staying nuclear has to be with Trident ? And, 4 of them.
All the nuclear powers went to submarine-launch as soon as they could because land-based weaponry was just too vulnerable. As the 50's advanced the USAF became more and more stressed by the pressure. By the end the pilots were sleeping in/near the planes, the planes had rockets attached for rapid launch and half the planes were in the air 24/7. Base commanders were stressed, airframes were aging rapidly, and they even started designing atomic-powered bombers. Things were just too much. As soon as it was demonstrated you could launch missiles from a sub, the armed forces said "fuck it", breathed out, and transferred the nukes to undetectable subs that can patrol for years.
The UK had even more incentive. The warning time from the Warsaw Pact Western border to the UK was only a few minutes, and the fuelling times for liquid-fuel land-based missiles were in the tens of minutes. You would have to have had ground crews working fuelling missiles in the full knowledge that most of them would burn to death before their task was complete. The RAF had V-bombers, but never in the numbers the US had and again, you would lose some on the ground. A nation with a history of sub building, a maritime tradition and little land area to hide would gravitate to sub-launch like a drowning man. If the UK is going to keep nukes, it's going to want to keep SLBMs
Lots of words, very little substance. Submarines yes, why trident ? Military-Industrial-Complex including UNITE the trade union.
The Seattle hospital lauded by Hunt has 336 beds and 480 doctors. Walsall Hospital which is local to me has 600 beds and in September employed 388 doctors. It serves a population of about 250,000 so Hunt is talking small hospitals here. He's comparing a Smart car with a Bentley, but there again given Hunt's grasp on statistics he probably thinks they're the same.
I see ComRes has already been undermined by Survation showing a much smaller lead!
Top satire!
It makes nonsense of the hysteria of a few hours ago.
Not really - Labour are just as poor in both. The main difference is Survation have UKIP higher and Cons lower....and we all know how that plays out in elections.
I see ComRes has already been undermined by Survation showing a much smaller lead!
Top satire!
It makes nonsense of the hysteria of a few hours ago.
Not really - Labour are just as poor in both. The main difference is Survation have UKIP higher and Cons lower....and we all know how that plays out in elections.
Does Corbo even have any cheerleaders left on pb now?
It is excellent that Labour's vote has stabilised at 29%.A public debate on Trident is much needed fire services are to be cut by a further 20%,flood prevention and defences need investment Socialism is the language of priorites.Which is the greater threat to national security,fire cuts,cuts to GP services and cuts to flood defences,or Trident?
The Fire services, should be cut by a lot more than 20%, in the last 10 years the number of fires has gone down by aprox 50% and the number of people killed by 2/3s.
Why do the Tories not believe in global warming ? There is a warm dividend !!!
The main reason there has been a drop in the number of fires is because of the number of people who has stopped smocking, or at least, cut down/smock in the garden. as well as an increase in the reliabliaty of electricle and gas appliances. this combined with the increase in the number of houses with fire/smock detecters has resulted in an even bigger reduction in the number of deaths, all good stuff! I realy don't think the amount of rainfall would have a significant impact on the number of buildings that catch fire, nor do I think that there has been any significant change in the amount of rain, when averaged over a year.
You should "realy" cut out the "smocking" near "electricle" appliances.
Is that all that Cameron`s great renegotiation ploy consists of?
It seems to me that Cameron is the most feeble prime minister we have had since Neville Chamberlain.
So feeble, he's driven Labour insane and wiped out the Lib Dems. Just imagine what he would have achieved if he wasn't feeble.
Rubbish, Mr Eagles! Labour did it all by themselves.
As for the Lib Dems, Cameron was so feeble that the people at the top of the Lib Dems actually trusted him! From the beginning, Cameron was a broken reed. What the Tories had to do was import a rottweiler from abroad and give him a knighthood. Crosby won the last election for the Tories (albeit with under 25% of the registered voters). Cameron just dithered around, pretending to be a Lib Dem.
If that were the case why didn't people vote for the real thing?
Look, Cameron has his flaws, and I was among those who voted LD, but the idea Cameron is self evidently terrible loser who, to see you explain it, contributed pretty much nothing to his own victory, relying instead on the people being idiots (which is your implication in that Crosby must have tricked the people into voting Cameron, and that they only voted Cameron for acting like a LD, despite LDs being on the ballot), is pretty absurd.
I actually think there is something in the point that Cameron's apparent comfort in coalition made some people, particularly in the SW, think he was more acceptable to vote for than previous Tories, but you don't get as big a lead in the votes as he did purely on the opposition being crap and through tricks (and yes, I know it wasn't so big a lead given how small a parliamentary majority it is, but is still a lot more votes)
Cameron commands the centre ground, like Blair. No one can deny that.
And he will consolidate it over the rest of his Premiership effectively locking labour out of the centre ground indefinately
Nothing is indefinite in politics. Let's see how nice are the loony Tory-sceptics when they lose the once in a generation referendum.
You're one of the nicest, most genuine men I've ever met in politics, and your obvious decency shines out in almost everything you do. You care a great deal for the country, for Broxtowe, and for the Labour Party.
But you're partly culpable for the delusion that has Labour in it's grip. You have put your decency at the service of the worst thing to happen to a major British political party since Enoch Powell gave the worst Tory instincts the respectability it lost after fascism.
You'll realise this, because you're not a total fool. But it will be too late.
You're one of the nicest, most genuine men I've ever met in politics, and your obvious decency shines out in almost everything you do. You care a great deal for the country, for Broxtowe, and for the Labour Party.
But you're partly culpable for the delusion that has Labour in it's grip. You have put your decency at the service of the worst thing to happen to a major British political party since Enoch Powell gave the worst Tory instincts the respectability it lost after fascism.
You'll realise this, because you're not a total fool. But it will be too late.
The Seattle hospital lauded by Hunt has 336 beds and 480 doctors. Walsall Hospital which is local to me has 600 beds and in September employed 388 doctors. It serves a population of about 250,000 so Hunt is talking small hospitals here. He's comparing a Smart car with a Bentley, but there again given Hunt's grasp on statistics he probably thinks they're the same.
Thats more like it. I tell you, Corbynism is sweeping the nation...or it is just that the lesser lead is just Tory / UKIP switchers ;-)
I'm actually surprised the Greens are as high as 3% - I expected their voteshare to be stripped almost bare once Corbyn's crew took over at Labour. Obviously 3% is not a lot, but it puts them within the same order of magnitude as the Lib Dems.
I have this theory, that Old Greens (ie those who voted Green in May 2015) have switched to Corbyn's Labour, but moderate Labour voters who think Jez is a disaster have moved to the Greens.
An interesting theory - do we have any polls that would let us trace back voter history far enough to see if this is the case?
You're one of the nicest, most genuine men I've ever met in politics, and your obvious decency shines out in almost everything you do. You care a great deal for the country, for Broxtowe, and for the Labour Party.
But you're partly culpable for the delusion that has Labour in it's grip. You have put your decency at the service of the worst thing to happen to a major British political party since Enoch Powell gave the worst Tory instincts the respectability it lost after fascism.
You'll realise this, because you're not a total fool. But it will be too late.
And, who are you to give that moral lecture ?
Somebody who know that the Morning Star is controlled by the old Stalinists of the communist party of GB, and that it should have no place in the discourse of a democratic Party.
"No Icelanders under the age of 25 believe the creation story that God was responsible for creating the universe, a new poll claims.
The poll, commissioned by the Icelandic Ethical Humanist Association, claims that 93.9 per cent in the under 25 category responded that the universe was created by the Big Bang. Just over 6 per cent responded with ‘don’t know’ or ‘other’. None of the respondents, however, believed that the universe had been created by God."
That argument is much less valid when medical students pay £9000 perannum for their own tuition.
No one should be forced to work in a way that thry consider unsafe. A doctor would be failing in their ethical duty if they accepted unsafe terms.
Doctors would also be unethical if they used 'unsafe terms' politically in wage negotiations as a means of denying service and creating other unsafe conditions.
I am not accusing you of that, but I see more than a smidgen of that in the union position.
They need to get rid of Hunt well before the Autumn. Even if the doctors' dispute is settled Hunt is toxic to any NHS worker. We know he's prepared to scheme and lie and play politics rather than work for the NHS.
While I agree with your some of your comments the Health Secretary's first duty is patients well being and to take on vested interests within the NHS in the wider good
His latest nonsense is that we can be all like a hospital in Seattle using work practices modeled on Toyota. This is a hospital with a greater than 1 doctor per patient ratio. And let it not be forgotten the US system is twice as expensive as ours and delivers worse outcomes. Yet this blithering idiot wishes us to follow them. Words fail me.
Looks like you don't like him then
I doubt whether Hunt could put in an appearance in any hospital in the country now.
Are NHS staff really that violent psychopaths that they would do physical harm to him?
That's not the point, people have no trust in him.
Given the near apocalyptic language you used about Lansley's reforms, you get a bit hyperbolic when anyone proposes changes to the NHS.
Lansley's reforms completely bajoed the finances of the NHS pushing trusts into deficit. So pretty apocalyptic.
They need to get rid of Hunt well before the Autumn. Even if the doctors' dispute is settled Hunt is toxic to any NHS worker. We know he's prepared to scheme and lie and play politics rather than work for the NHS.
While I agree with your some of your comments the Health Secretary's first duty is patients well being and to take on vested interests within the NHS in the wider good
His latest nonsense is that we can be all like a hospital in Seattle using work practices modeled on Toyota. This is a hospital with a greater than 1 doctor per patient ratio. And let it not be forgotten the US system is twice as expensive as ours and delivers worse outcomes. Yet this blithering idiot wishes us to follow them. Words fail me.
Looks like you don't like him then
I doubt whether Hunt could put in an appearance in any hospital in the country now.
Are NHS staff really that violent psychopaths that they would do physical harm to him?
That's not the point, people have no trust in him.
Given the near apocalyptic language you used about Lansley's reforms, you get a bit hyperbolic when anyone proposes changes to the NHS.
Lansley's reforms completely bajoed the finances of the NHS pushing trusts into deficit. So pretty apocalyptic.
Quite. We have heard much of the finances of acute trusts bit not of the CCGs which pay them. Their finances equally parlous. They spend a large amount these days on Commissioning Support Units, probate sector organisations to help them negotiate the labyrinthine mess Lansley has left behind.
Comments
Is it any wonder that doctors vote with their feet? If a monopoly employer insists on unreasonable terms what else can they do other than strike or leave the employment of the government? Or should they be serfs to be bought and sold at the whim of the minister?
I've got a near completed thread comparing the Nats to Confederate States.
Is headlined 'Birth of a Nation'
I still optimistic for leave, there's just so little affection for the eu and some real negatives hitting home.
Good night.
Edit - if nearly all the top ranks back Cameron, maybe he would be able to cling on if they lose. No one to oust him. Grayling last man standing?
Unfortunately, as with many groups of highly educated and highly numerate people, there is also a prevailing sense of entitlement.....
I can see that the present generation of junior doctors will vote with their feet and why, but at the end of the day these strikes will do nobody any good.
Please, for tonight at least, could we leave it there?
Of course, the Confederates' dream did wither away rapidly in the face of economic reality and social catastrophe, but there the parallel ends. And even then, cotton didn't fall 80% in price in 3(?) years the way oil has.
So I would be interested to see what parallels you can come up with.
http://capx.co/the-cabinets-eurosceptics-are-a-bunch-of-careerist-scaredy-cats/
In 1998, when the conservatives were on life support and the only sensible course of action all round was to turn off the ventilator, Hague gained 256 council seats, though from a low base...
Checking wiki, here are the net council seat gains of the conservatives:
1998 256
1999 1,348
2000 594
2001 120 (GE in which cons lost by a landslide)
2002 238
2003 568
2004 288
2005 152
2006 316
2007 911 (ouch, this looks like the same cycle that lost 1,348 in 1999)
2008 256
2009 244
2010 -121
2011 86
2012 -405 (omnishambles!)
2013 -335
2014 -236
2015 541
I would be expecting the conservatives to be making some mild gains in May. Anything for more than a couple of hundred would be surprising though. Constituency Labour Parties seem to be in a state of shell shock....
EURef victory for Leave = Lincoln's victory in 1860
Alex Salmond, the new Jefferson Davis?
PS - Mr Meeks encouraged me to do this thread.
But it is also within the right of others to call such people, in this example and particularly when there has been government sponsored tuition, hypocrites if they claim that patient safety is their overriding concern.
No one should be forced to work in a way that thry consider unsafe. A doctor would be failing in their ethical duty if they accepted unsafe terms.
Inside, they're interviewing one of Simon Danczuk's girlfriends about his political views, naturally of more interest to readers than his sexual activities - supposedly he supports fox-hunting, academies and rail privatisation. But there's an upbeat note from the Tube talks, which they say unions called "useful" for the first time.
It's naturally biased, but it covers things that other papers don't bother with, e.g. death squads in Mexico and a history of subversive cartoons going back to Henry VIII. With the mainstream press covering much the same ground every day, it wasn't a bad read.
Of course this is not true, the US doesnt have one health care system, it has over fifty different health care systems organised on a state by state basis, some have exceptionally comprehensive care, and some not so, and these are backed up by medicaid and medicare, one covers people who are too poor to pay and one covers the retired, whether they can pay or not.
Add onto that obama care... The point is that for many people most of the time, the service they get from primary care puts ours to shame. Patients in the US expect/demand a substantially higher level of service from their primary care.
Try been a 35 year old male and visit your GP for an annual check up. He'll tell you to get lost and come back when something is wrong, if hes been polite he'll take your blood pressure and get the nurse/hca to check your bloods for diabetes.
We are a reactive service, primary care in the US is a proactive service, which is one of the reasons its so damn expensive.
Bonne nuit!
You're one of the nicest, most genuine men I've ever met in politics, and your obvious decency shines out in almost everything you do. You care a great deal for the country, for Broxtowe, and for the Labour Party.
But you're partly culpable for the delusion that has Labour in it's grip. You have put your decency at the service of the worst thing to happen to a major British political party since Enoch Powell gave the worst Tory instincts the respectability it lost after fascism.
You'll realise this, because you're not a total fool. But it will be too late.
Donald Trump – 30%
John Kasich – 15%
Marco Rubio – 13%
Chris Christie – 9%
Ted Cruz – 9%
Jeb Bush – 6%
Carly Fiorina – 5%
Ben Carson – 4%
Rand Paul – 2%
Other – 1%
Undecided – 6%
http://overtimepolitics.com/donald-trump-leads-john-kasich-by-15-points-in-new-hampshire-30-15/
The poll, commissioned by the Icelandic Ethical Humanist Association, claims that 93.9 per cent in the under 25 category responded that the universe was created by the Big Bang. Just over 6 per cent responded with ‘don’t know’ or ‘other’. None of the respondents, however, believed that the universe had been created by God."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/poll-claims-that-no-icelanders-under-25-believe-god-created-the-universe-a6816226.html
EU shock as 'out' vote storms six per cent ahead in wake of the Paris massacre, Cologne sex attacks and migrant crisis:
http://tinyurl.com/jbqqr8x
Pretty much precisely what I have been predicting here over recent days.
Comres:
Con: 19
Lab: 10
LD: 13
UKIP: 8
Greem: 3
SNP: 47
http://www.comres.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/SM_IoS_Jan2016_tables.pdf
On a more serious note.....the Midlands numbers (Con: 48, Lab: 25) are dire for Lab.....
I am not accusing you of that, but I see more than a smidgen of that in the union position.
Party is United (net): -45
Corbyn make good PM (net) : +30
Of course, nowhere near as good as Cameron's among Con voters:
Party is United (net): +48
Cameron is good PM (net) : +73
But the Labour problem would appear to be more dis-unity than Corbyn.....
This message was brought to you by Tories for Corbyn.....
www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxnuLjIKwtk