Sure, but we're kind of used to it now (which is my point) plus the Tories are being unusually SHITE.
Osborne should have retired as Chancellor right after the election, and taken the plaudits, then become an eminence grise as Foreign Secretary, hovering near the premiership, ready to pounce.
He's now screwed forever, probably.
I reckon the steel crisis may well bring the government down or at least mortally wound it. The angst on social media is more pronounced than it was even during the banking crisis or the expenses saga.
The working classes are rightly pissed off with our manufacturing sector disappearing without a decent fight. Even the yellow bellied Italians flouted EU state aid rules and propped up their steelworkers.
Fuck it, nationalise it. And nationalise it in a new, modern, one-nation Tory way, by using the steel to build stuff and make Britain great again.
If might sound like pissed emotional bullshit (with me, it usually is) but at least it's better than selling the steel industry off to vultures who will gradually reduce the employees down from 24k to zero over the next two decades. The industry employed 250k in the 70s, and unlike coal we'll always need steel. So let's see it as an opportunity and do something profound. Nationalise it and build with it.
It's a money pit. Whatever the industry is losing now, is a fraction of the investment needed to build and upgrade to modern, energy efficient mills and smelting plant. And even if that money were found and spent, automation would put many out of work. Today's problems are the legacy of decisions and inaction, 30, 40, 50 years ago.
I think British Steel had been modernised effectively in the 1980s.
How well it was managed and invested in by Tata I don't know.
But things have changed beyond its control - see the change in steel production around the world:
I've asked before how in a globalised world economy when competing against peoples who are as intelligent and educated as us but who are willing to work harder, for less pay and under fewer restrictions does the UK maintain its higher standard of living.
In the case of the Port Talbot steelworkers and previously the Redcar steelworkers the answer is that they wont maintain their standard of living.
Last I heard, they hadn't even decided if they were going for ballasted or concreted trackbed.
Why would* it not go ahead?
*Not should
Euston.
The station alterations will be a major moneypit, and I'm concerned they're trying to cost-reduce it to non-existence. But I haven't had my ear close to the ground for a few months.
Very good point. It's already bad enough that they won't be joining it to HS1. Apparently they didn't build the HS1 tunnel with a box ready for a link line from HS2 to join it - to save money. But I really hope don't they terminate HS1 at Old Oak Common as has been suggested.
The "Link" would would have smashed through Camden, destroying an entire neighbourhood, so thank F for the power of Primrose Hill NIMBYS
You need to re-read Dombey and Son. There was massive disruption when the railway was first built through the area, but would you do without it now?
This is for more than your generation.
What a total load of bollocks. The railway to Euston destroyed half of John Nash's Park Village. A horrible crime. The greatest and most beautiful urban development in Europe, probably in the world, ever, and the fucking railways just shunted a chunk of it into the dust, so they could get to... Euston? Brilliant.
Thank God the bulk of the Nash Terraces survived (despite the 1945 Labour government's plan to level them)
What's the point in destroying beauty to make journeys two minutes faster. There are plenty of ugly routes into London. Use them.
I enjoy the ride out of Euston. I always crane to catch a glimpse of the house my grandfather was brought up in, in Park Village East. https://goo.gl/maps/zp7FAeNzzQr London has some islands of beauty amongst the dross.
But the official verdict is in, from the Royal Town Planning Institute.
"1960's tower blocks have had plenty of time and cycles of fashion to become admired and cherished. They are not admired and cherished because they are fuck ugly and designed by sociopaths."
Actually, some are being converted into liveable, desirable properties. It's been going on for some time: when I lived in East London in 1992, a steel-framed tower block in Bethnal Green had been stripped right back to the frame for renovation. I do wonder how it's faired since. The problems of tower blocks were manyfold, but there are ways of curing many of the problems they had.
"I am sure many bad Victorian and older buildings were demolished, but a lot of good and even great ones met the same fate, both in town and country, for economic reasons or due to the arrogance of succeeding generations thinking they knew better and that asbestos and pebble dashing were infinitely preferable to porticos and pointed arches."
Indeed. And a great deal of brilliant architecture was lost through the evils of death duties and other taxes. But do not assume that what replaced them was necessarily worse. As an example, look at housing. Some of Glasgow's tower blocks may be terrible places to live, but are they generally worse than the tenements they replaced?
I would far rather live in a converted Victorian workhouse or stable block, than a converted 1960's high rise. Sorry but that says something about standards.
Sure, but we're kind of used to it now (which is my point) plus the Tories are being unusually SHITE.
Osborne should have retired as Chancellor right after the election, and taken the plaudits, then become an eminence grise as Foreign Secretary, hovering near the premiership, ready to pounce.
He's now screwed forever, probably.
I reckon the steel crisis may well bring the government down or at least mortally wound it. The angst on social media is more pronounced than it was even during the banking crisis or the expenses saga.
The working classes are rightly pissed off with our manufacturing sector disappearing without a decent fight. Even the yellow bellied Italians flouted EU state aid rules and propped up their steelworkers.
Fuck it, nationalise it. And nationalise it in a new,
It's a money pit. Whatever the industry is losing now, is a fraction of the investment needed to build and upgrade to modern, energy efficient mills and smelting plant. And even if that money were found and spent, automation would put many out of work. Today's problems are the legacy of decisions and inaction, 30, 40, 50 years ago.
I think British Steel had been modernised effectively in the 1980s.
How well it was managed and invested in by Tata I don't know.
But things have changed beyond its control - see the change in steel production around the world:
I've asked before how in a globalised world economy when competing against peoples who are as intelligent and educated as us but who are willing to work harder, for less pay and under fewer restrictions does the UK maintain its higher standard of living.
In the case of the Port Talbot steelworkers and previously the Redcar steelworkers the answer is that they wont maintain their standard of living.
There are highly paid countries with good social services that are significant manufacturing exporters. Indeed Germany has an enormous trade surplus, but there are other successful manufacturers in Europe (and of course Britain is part of Europe).
All you have to do is build something worth the money.
Back to politics, I now foresee a run of modest Labour leads in the polls.
The Tories look divided (and they are, horribly) on Europe, they are very exposed on the steel thing, the deficit is viciously nasty and Osborne is terminally devalued, and most of all Labour and Corbyn haven't done anything TOTALLY or unusually insane for a fortnight.
Corbyn's Labour to lead by 2 or 3 points on average?
There is a sense of general malaise, of 'the country is on the wrong path'.
I think this article captures the feeling somewhat:
' While steelworkers in Port Talbot stare into the abyss, a Saudi playboy swans around London in a fleet of golden supercars.
As a snapshot of modern Britain, it says as much about the state of the nation as that famous old photograph of street urchins staring at top-hatted Harrow public school boys said about the class divide in 1937.
The rich have always been with us. But the chasm between the ultra-wealthy and the common herd has never been greater.
At least the old British moneyed classes maintained a certain decorous restraint. OK, so they lived in grand townhouses and on country estates, but few ever flaunted their money in the faces of the hoi polloi. '
I remember how well Richard Littlejohn damned the Major government as it disintegrated.
I'm struggling to understand what precisely the problem is here other than envy.
The Saudi's haven't made their money here, they've made it in Middle East oil by and large.
They're spending their money here. Ostentatiously maybe, but they are.
If we prevent or discourage the Saudi's from spending their money here what is that going to do? It will lessen the ostentatiously visible gap between rich and poor, that much is true. But it will also reduce the amount of money being spent in the UK and damage our economy.
Money made overseas and spent here is a good thing, not a bad thing. Even if its ostentatious.
Few people relish having things which they will never have flaunted in their faces by people who they deem have done nothing to deserves said things.
This becomes even more annoying when it is believed that the government is more interested in pandering to the flaunters than it is in helping 'people like me'.
Last I heard, they hadn't even decided if they were going for ballasted or concreted trackbed.
Why would* it not go ahead?
*Not should
Euston.
The station alterations will be a major moneypit, and I'm concerned they're trying to cost-reduce it to non-existence. But I haven't had my ear close to the ground for a few months.
Very good point. It's already bad enough that they won't be joining it to HS1. Apparently they didn't build the HS1 tunnel with a box ready for a link line from HS2 to join it - to save money. But I really hope don't they terminate HS1 at Old Oak Common as has been suggested.
The "Link" would would have smashed through Camden, destroying an entire neighbourhood, so thank F for the power of Primrose Hill NIMBYS
You need to re-read Dombey and Son. There was massive disruption when the railway was first built through the area, but would you do without it now?
This is for more than your generation.
What a total load of bollocks. The railway to Euston destroyed half of John Nash's Park Village. A horrible crime. The greatest and most beautiful urban development in Europe, probably in the world, ever, and the fucking railways just shunted a chunk of it into the dust, so they could get to... Euston? Brilliant.
Thank God the bulk of the Nash Terraces survived (despite the 1945 Labour government's plan to level them)
What's the point in destroying beauty to make journeys two minutes faster. There are plenty of ugly routes into London. Use them.
I enjoy the ride out of Euston. I always crane to catch a glimpse of the house my grandfather was brought up in, in Park Village East. https://goo.gl/maps/zp7FAeNzzQr London has some islands of beauty amongst the dross.
But the official verdict is in, from the Royal Town Planning Institute.
Out of curiosity Rod but why don't you relocate a few miles to the south-east ?
Why would I need to? The city centre is 20 minutes away when I need it, thanks to the superb Merseyside transportation and infrastructure network. I enjoy my beach and the view too much.
Anyhow, both are now on the Sunday Times list of best places to live in the UK...
Sure, but we're kind of used to it now (which is my point) plus the Tories are being unusually SHITE.
Osborne should have retired as Chancellor right after the election, and taken the plaudits, then become an eminence grise as Foreign Secretary, hovering near the premiership, ready to pounce.
He's now screwed forever, probably.
I reckon the steel crisis may well bring the government down or at least mortally wound it. The angst on social media is more pronounced than it was even during the banking crisis or the expenses saga.
The working classes are rightly pissed off with our manufacturing sector disappearing without a decent fight. Even the yellow bellied Italians flouted EU state aid rules and propped up their steelworkers.
Fuck it, nationalise it. And nationalise it in a new,
It's a money pit. Whatever the industry is losing now, is a fraction of the investment needed to build and upgrade to modern, energy efficient mills and smelting plant. And even if that money were found and spent, automation would put many out of work. Today's problems are the legacy of decisions and inaction, 30, 40, 50 years ago.
I think British Steel had been modernised effectively in the 1980s.
How well it was managed and invested in by Tata I don't know.
But things have changed beyond its control - see the change in steel production around the world:
I've asked before how in a globalised world economy when competing against peoples who are as intelligent and educated as us but who are willing to work harder, for less pay and under fewer restrictions does the UK maintain its higher standard of living.
In the case of the Port Talbot steelworkers and previously the Redcar steelworkers the answer is that they wont maintain their standard of living.
There are highly paid countries with good social services that are significant manufacturing exporters. Indeed Germany has an enormous trade surplus, but there are other successful manufacturers in Europe (and of course Britain is part of Europe).
All you have to do is build something worth the money.
You need a USP - quality, cost, service, innovation, whatever.
The problem is Britain has more in common with Woolworths or BHS.
We can't compete on cost, there's not enough quality and brand loyalty is fading fast.
As an ignoramus on steel production, can anyone educate me?
Is a blast furnace based on the process developed by Henry Bessemer which I think was all about using additional oxygen to burn impurities from the iron.
Back to politics, I now foresee a run of modest Labour leads in the polls.
The Tories look divided (and they are, horribly) on Europe, they are very exposed on the steel thing, the deficit is viciously nasty and Osborne is terminally devalued, and most of all Labour and Corbyn haven't done anything TOTALLY or unusually insane for a fortnight.
Corbyn's Labour to lead by 2 or 3 points on average?
There is a sense of general malaise, of 'the country is on the wrong path'.
I think this article captures the feeling somewhat:
' While steelworkers in Port Talbot stare into the abyss, a Saudi playboy swans around London in a fleet of golden supercars.
As a snapshot of modern Britain, it says as much about the state of the nation as that famous old photograph of street urchins staring at top-hatted Harrow public school boys said about the class divide in 1937.
The rich have always been with us. But the chasm between the ultra-wealthy and the common herd has never been greater.
At least the old British moneyed classes maintained a certain decorous restraint. OK, so they lived in grand townhouses and on country estates, but few ever flaunted their money in the faces of the hoi polloi. '
I remember how well Richard Littlejohn damned the Major government as it disintegrated.
I'm struggling to understand what precisely the problem is here other than envy.
The Saudi's haven't made their money here, they've made it in Middle East oil by and large.
They're spending their money here. Ostentatiously maybe, but they are.
If we prevent or discourage the Saudi's from spending their money here what is that going to do? It will lessen the ostentatiously visible gap between rich and poor, that much is true. But it will also reduce the amount of money being spent in the UK and damage our economy.
Money made overseas and spent here is a good thing, not a bad thing. Even if its ostentatious.
I tend to agree with you - if we can get a little of the billions we've spent on their oil back on some property and other luxury fripperies (and weapons ) then so much the better. The difficulty with the super rich these days is they live relatively 'cheaply' in a very internationally mobile way. In the days of the aristocracy they had responsibilities were huge employers - there's little of that with today's super rich. The trickle down effect seems a bit dry.
There is a sense of general malaise, of 'the country is on the wrong path'.
I think this article captures the feeling somewhat:
' While steelworkers in Port Talbot stare into the abyss, a Saudi playboy swans around London in a fleet of golden supercars.
As a snapshot of modern Britain, it says as much about the state of the nation as that famous old photograph of street urchins staring at top-hatted Harrow public school boys said about the class divide in 1937.
The rich have always been with us. But the chasm between the ultra-wealthy and the common herd has never been greater.
At least the old British moneyed classes maintained a certain decorous restraint. OK, so they lived in grand townhouses and on country estates, but few ever flaunted their money in the faces of the hoi polloi. '
I remember how well Richard Littlejohn damned the Major government as it disintegrated.
I'm struggling to understand what precisely the problem is here other than envy.
The Saudi's haven't made their money here, they've made it in Middle East oil by and large.
They're spending their money here. Ostentatiously maybe, but they are.
If we prevent or discourage the Saudi's from spending their money here what is that going to do? It will lessen the ostentatiously visible gap between rich and poor, that much is true. But it will also reduce the amount of money being spent in the UK and damage our economy.
Money made overseas and spent here is a good thing, not a bad thing. Even if its ostentatious.
Few people relish having things which they will never have flaunted in their faces by people who they deem have done nothing to deserves said things.
This becomes even more annoying when it is believed that the government is more interested in pandering to the flaunters than it is in helping 'people like me'.
So that covers envy, though I said other than envy what is the problem?
As for "flaunting in their faces" I've not seen any of that in my face, though I've seen it in the media. Probably because I don't live in the same area as these people so why would I see it in real life? Those who have seen it in real life will mainly be those whose jobs depend upon taking money from these flaunters. So the problem is the media not the flaunters, if you don't like it then maybe stop looking at that media, problem solved.
Sure, but we're kind of used to it now (which is my point) plus the Tories are being unusually SHITE.
Osborne should have retired as Chancellor right after the election, and taken the plaudits, then become an eminence grise as Foreign Secretary, hovering near the premiership, ready to pounce.
He's now screwed forever, probably.
I reckon the steel crisis may well bring the government down or at least mortally wound it. The angst on social media is more pronounced than it was even during the banking crisis or the expenses saga
It's a money pit. Whatever the industry is losing now, is a fraction of the investment needed to build and upgrade to modern, energy efficient mills and smelting plant. And even if that money were found and spent, automation would put many out of work. Today's problems are the legacy of decisions and inaction, 30, 40, 50 years ago.
I think British Steel had been modernised effectively in the 1980s.
How well it was managed and invested in by Tata I don't know.
But things have changed beyond its control - see the change in steel production around the world:
I've asked before how in a globalised world economy when competing against peoples who are as intelligent and educated as us but who are willing to work harder, for less pay and under fewer restrictions does the UK maintain its higher standard of living.
In the case of the Port Talbot steelworkers and previously the Redcar steelworkers the answer is that they wont maintain their standard of living.
There are highly paid countries with good social services that are significant manufacturing exporters. Indeed Germany has an enormous trade surplus, but there are other successful manufacturers in Europe (and of course Britain is part of Europe).
All you have to do is build something worth the money.
"1960's tower blocks have had plenty of time and cycles of fashion to become admired and cherished. They are not admired and cherished because they are fuck ugly and designed by sociopaths."
Actually, some are being converted into liveable, desirable properties. It's been going on for some time: when I lived in East London in 1992, a steel-framed tower block in Bethnal Green had been stripped right back to the frame for renovation. I do wonder how it's faired since. The problems of tower blocks were manyfold, but there are ways of curing many of the problems they had.
"I am sure many bad Victorian and older buildings were demolished, but a lot of good and even great ones met the same fate, both in town and country, for economic reasons or due to the arrogance of succeeding generations thinking they knew better and that asbestos and pebble dashing were infinitely preferable to porticos and pointed arches."
Indeed. And a great deal of brilliant architecture was lost through the evils of death duties and other taxes. But do not assume that what replaced them was necessarily worse. As an example, look at housing. Some of Glasgow's tower blocks may be terrible places to live, but are they generally worse than the tenements they replaced?
I would far rather live in a converted Victorian workhouse or stable block, than a converted 1960's high rise. Sorry but that says something about standards.
You say it yourself: "converted Victorian workhouse or stable block". The act of repurposing or converting a structure can change it drastically whilst maintaining the architectural essence. The double glazing will keep out the draughts, the loo (if it had one) will be inside, and there will be water to all floors. Yet you are comparing that altered structure, not the one as originally built. It has been massively improved.
A converted structure is in many ways not the same structure. In many cases it is only a hollow shell of what was there before.
Sure, but we're kind of used to it now (which is my point) plus the Tories are being unusually SHITE.
Osborne should have retired as Chancellor right after the election, and taken the plaudits, then become an eminence grise as Foreign Secretary, hovering near the premiership, ready to pounce.
He's now screwed forever, probably.
I reckon the steel crisis may well bring the government down or at least mortally wound it. The angst on social media is more pronounced than it was even during the banking crisis or the expenses saga.
The working classes are rightly pissed off with our manufacturing sector disappearing without a decent fight. Even the yellow bellied Italians flouted EU state aid rules and propped up their steelworkers.
Fuck it, nationalise it. And nationalise it in a new,
It's a money pit. Whatever .
I think British Steel had been modernised effectively in the 1980s.
How well it was managed and invested in by Tata I don't know.
But things have changed beyond its control - see the change in steel production around the world:
I've asked before how in a globalised world economy when competing against peoples who are as intelligent and educated as us but who are willing to work harder, for less pay and under fewer restrictions does the UK maintain its higher standard of living.
In the case of the Port Talbot steelworkers and previously the Redcar steelworkers the answer is that they wont maintain their standard of living.
There are highly paid countries with good social services that are significant manufacturing exporters. Indeed Germany has an enormous trade surplus, but there are other successful manufacturers in Europe (and of course Britain is part of Europe).
All you have to do is build something worth the money.
You need a USP - quality, cost, service, innovation, whatever.
The problem is Britain has more in common with Woolworths or BHS.
We can't compete on cost, there's not enough quality and brand loyalty is fading fast.
Why are our Euro-neighbours doing so much better? Perhaps we could learn something from them.
Personally I find right wing frothers proclaiming their support for the NHS one of the more bizarre features of the campaign.
Well that's fair, because I find lefties being converted to hardcore whiggish neoliberal economists who love good old labour market flexibility very chucklesome.
Personally I find right wing frothers proclaiming their support for the NHS one of the more bizarre features of the campaign.
Why? The right wing has managed the NHS for most of its life, the right wing proposed the NHS in the first place, the right wing has increased funding on the NHS to record levels and the right has at the last two elections has proposed more funding or the NHS than the left did.
That you find the right incompatible with the NHS says more about your prejudices than it does the right in this country.
Is China putting the steel capped hobnail boot in?
"China has said it will levy 46% duties on a type of high tech steel produced by Tata Steel in Wales, Sky News has learned. The Chinese Government argues that European Union exports of "grain oriented electrical steel" are causing "substantial damage" and "material injury" to China's industry.mThis form of steel is manufactured in Newport by Tata Steel's Cogent subsidiary - one of just 16 global producers of the highly specialised product "
I'm struggling to understand what precisely the problem is here other than envy.
The Saudi's haven't made their money here, they've made it in Middle East oil by and large.
They're spending their money here. Ostentatiously maybe, but they are.
If we prevent or discourage the Saudi's from spending their money here what is that going to do? It will lessen the ostentatiously visible gap between rich and poor, that much is true. But it will also reduce the amount of money being spent in the UK and damage our economy.
Money made overseas and spent here is a good thing, not a bad thing. Even if its ostentatious.
Few people relish having things which they will never have flaunted in their faces by people who they deem have done nothing to deserves said things.
This becomes even more annoying when it is believed that the government is more interested in pandering to the flaunters than it is in helping 'people like me'.
So that covers envy, though I said other than envy what is the problem?
As for "flaunting in their faces" I've not seen any of that in my face, though I've seen it in the media. Probably because I don't live in the same area as these people so why would I see it in real life? Those who have seen it in real life will mainly be those whose jobs depend upon taking money from these flaunters. So the problem is the media not the flaunters, if you don't like it then maybe stop looking at that media, problem solved.
But people LIKE to resent others and believe their victims and to have someone to blame.
They LIKE to see people different to themselves have their reputations blacked and their things taken from them and redistributed.
And they get ANGRY when those things aren't then done.
Personally I find right wing frothers proclaiming their support for the NHS one of the more bizarre features of the campaign.
Why? The right wing has managed the NHS for most of its life, the right wing proposed the NHS in the first place, the right wing has increased funding on the NHS to record levels and the right has at the last two elections has proposed more funding or the NHS than the left did.
That you find the right incompatible with the NHS says more about your prejudices than it does the right in this country.
Do you recall Dan Hannan on the subject?
Who in Vote.Leave has advocated increased funding for the NHS in the past? First IDS on disability cuts and now others joining in. I like a bit of Blue on Blue. Popcorn time!
Back to politics, I now foresee a run of modest Labour leads in the polls.
The Tories look divided (and they are, horribly) on Europe, they are very exposed on the steel thing, the deficit is viciously nasty and Osborne is terminally devalued, and most of all Labour and Corbyn haven't done anything TOTALLY or unusually insane for a fortnight.
Corbyn's Labour to lead by 2 or 3 points on average?
There is a sense of general malaise, of 'the country is on the wrong path'.
I think this article captures the feeling somewhat:
' While steelworkers in Port Talbot stare into the abyss, a Saudi playboy swans around London in a fleet of golden supercars.
I remember how well Richard Littlejohn damned the Major government as it disintegrated.
I'm struggling to understand what precisely the problem is here other than envy.
The Saudi's haven't made their money here, they've made it in Middle East oil by and large.
They're spending their money here. Ostentatiously maybe, but they are.
If we prevent or discourage the Saudi's from spending their money here what is that going to do? It will lessen the ostentatiously visible gap between rich and poor, that much is true. But it will also reduce the amount of money being spent in the UK and damage our economy.
Money made overseas and spent here is a good thing, not a bad thing. Even if its ostentatious.
Not everyone agrees with your "anything goes" attitude to life.
@BBCPolitics: Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale seeks to clarify reports she might back Scottish independence if it could... https://t.co/6VzbTBNCIz
I'm struggling to understand what precisely the problem is here other than envy.
The Saudi's haven't made their money here, they've made it in Middle East oil by and large.
They're spending their money here. Ostentatiously maybe, but they are.
If we prevent or discourage the Saudi's from spending their money here what is that going to do? It will lessen the ostentatiously visible gap between rich and poor, that much is true. But it will also reduce the amount of money being spent in the UK and damage our economy.
Money made overseas and spent here is a good thing, not a bad thing. Even if its ostentatious.
Few people relish having things which they will never have flaunted in their faces by people who they deem have done nothing to deserves said things.
This becomes even more annoying when it is believed that the government is more interested in pandering to the flaunters than it is in helping 'people like me'.
So that covers envy, though I said other than envy what is the problem?
As for "flaunting in their faces" I've not seen any of that in my face, though I've seen it in the media. Probably because I don't live in the same area as these people so why would I see it in real life? Those who have seen it in real life will mainly be those whose jobs depend upon taking money from these flaunters. So the problem is the media not the flaunters, if you don't like it then maybe stop looking at that media, problem solved.
But people LIKE to resent others and believe their victims and to have someone to blame.
They LIKE to see people different to themselves have their reputations blacked and their things taken from them and redistributed.
And they get ANGRY when those things aren't then done.
OK I get that entirely. Some people love the politics of envy. Having said that why should we deprive them of the opportunity to enjoy getting angry?
Personally I find right wing frothers proclaiming their support for the NHS one of the more bizarre features of the campaign.
Why? The right wing has managed the NHS for most of its life, the right wing proposed the NHS in the first place, the right wing has increased funding on the NHS to record levels and the right has at the last two elections has proposed more funding or the NHS than the left did.
That you find the right incompatible with the NHS says more about your prejudices than it does the right in this country.
Do you recall Dan Hannan on the subject?
Who in Vote.Leave has advocated increased funding for the NHS in the past? First IDS on disability cuts and now others joining in. I like a bit of Blue on Blue. Popcorn time!
The entire Conservative Party - see the manifestos from 2015. Only us Tories promised the 8bn demanded by the head of the NHS.
As an ignoramus on steel production, can anyone educate me?
Is a blast furnace based on the process developed by Henry Bessemer which I think was all about using additional oxygen to burn impurities from the iron.
Back to politics, I now foresee a run of modest Labour leads in the polls.
The Tories look divided (and they are, horribly) on Europe, they are very exposed on the steel thing, the deficit is viciously nasty and Osborne is terminally devalued, and most of all Labour and Corbyn haven't done anything TOTALLY or unusually insane for a fortnight.
Corbyn's Labour to lead by 2 or 3 points on average?
There is a sense of general malaise, of 'the country is on the wrong path'.
I think this article captures the feeling somewhat:
' While steelworkers in Port Talbot stare into the abyss, a Saudi playboy swans around London in a fleet of golden supercars.
I remember how well Richard Littlejohn damned the Major government as it disintegrated.
I'm struggling to understand what precisely the problem is here other than envy.
The Saudi's haven't made their money here, they've made it in Middle East oil by and large.
They're spending their money here. Ostentatiously maybe, but they are.
If we prevent or discourage the Saudi's from spending their money here what is that going to do? It will lessen the ostentatiously visible gap between rich and poor, that much is true. But it will also reduce the amount of money being spent in the UK and damage our economy.
Money made overseas and spent here is a good thing, not a bad thing. Even if its ostentatious.
Not everyone agrees with your "anything goes" attitude to life.
No shit Sherlock. If we did 100% of votes would have gone to Cameron's Conservatives at the last election and they didn't.
Have you got anything other than envy or "this shouldn't go" that is a problem here?
Torsten Bell is the perfect example of a theoretical political commentator. He never seems to reference reality, but only studies and economic theorists....
Personally I find right wing frothers proclaiming their support for the NHS one of the more bizarre features of the campaign.
Why? The right wing has managed the NHS for most of its life, the right wing proposed the NHS in the first place, the right wing has increased funding on the NHS to record levels and the right has at the last two elections has proposed more funding or the NHS than the left did.
That you find the right incompatible with the NHS says more about your prejudices than it does the right in this country.
Do you recall Dan Hannan on the subject?
Who in Vote.Leave has advocated increased funding for the NHS in the past? First IDS on disability cuts and now others joining in. I like a bit of Blue on Blue. Popcorn time!
Every Tory politician in Vote Leave proposed it in their manifesto in both 2010 and 2015.
Personally I find right wing frothers proclaiming their support for the NHS one of the more bizarre features of the campaign.
Why? The right wing has managed the NHS for most of its life, the right wing proposed the NHS in the first place, the right wing has increased funding on the NHS to record levels and the right has at the last two elections has proposed more funding or the NHS than the left did.
That you find the right incompatible with the NHS says more about your prejudices than it does the right in this country.
Do you recall Dan Hannan on the subject?
Who in Vote.Leave has advocated increased funding for the NHS in the past? First IDS on disability cuts and now others joining in. I like a bit of Blue on Blue. Popcorn time!
The entire Conservative Party - see the manifestos from 2015. Only us Tories promised the 8bn demanded by the head of the NHS.
Sure, but we're kind of used to it now (which is my point) plus the Tories are being unusually SHITE.
Osborne should have retired as Chancellor right after the election, and taken the plaudits, then become an eminence grise as Foreign Secretary, hovering near the premiership, ready to pounce.
He's now screwed forever, probably.
I reckon the steel crisis may well bring the government down or at least mortally wound it. The angst on social media is more pronounced than it was even during the banking crisis or the expenses saga.
The working classes are rightly pissed off with our manufacturing sector disappearing without a decent fight. Even the yellow bellied Italians flouted EU state aid rules and propped up their steelworkers.
Fuck it, nationalise it. And nationalise it in a new,
It's a money pit. Whatever .
I think British Steel had been modernised effectively in the 1980s.
How well it was managed and invested in by Tata I don't know.
But things have changed beyond its control - see the change in steel production around the world:
I've asked before how in a globalised world economy when competing against peoples who are as intelligent and educated as us but who are willing to work harder, for less pay and under fewer restrictions does the UK maintain its higher standard of living.
In the case of the Port Talbot steelworkers and previously the Redcar steelworkers the answer is that they wont maintain their standard of living.
There are highly paid countries with good social services that are significant manufacturing exporters. Indeed Germany has an enormous trade surplus, but there are other successful manufacturers in Europe (and of course Britain is part of Europe).
All you have to do is build something worth the money.
You need a USP - quality, cost, service, innovation, whatever.
The problem is Britain has more in common with Woolworths or BHS.
We can't compete on cost, there's not enough quality and brand loyalty is fading fast.
Why are our Euro-neighbours doing so much better? Perhaps we could learn something from them.
Are our Euro-neighbours doing so much better ?
Germany arguably but they've rigorously kept their costs controlled and invested and worked hard.
But are France and Italy or Spain or many others doing any better ?
My Doctor pals seem to fall in into two categories.
Strikers and silent on strikes. The silent ones are the majority. My call that middle class professionals will not move their families because of a tiny contract tweak seems to be the right one...
I enjoy the ride out of Euston. I always crane to catch a glimpse of the house my grandfather was brought up in, in Park Village East. https://goo.gl/maps/zp7FAeNzzQr London has some islands of beauty amongst the dross.
But the official verdict is in, from the Royal Town Planning Institute.
Having a couple of breaks in Liverpool in 2013 - my first stay ever in the city - I was bowled over by that waterfront (+ St. George's Hall + the park with the statues + Walker Art Gallery** + Port Sunlight/Lever Art Gallery + Liverpool Cathedral) - and, unlike Birmingham, it doesn't feel like a foreign country.
** 'When Did You Last See Your Father?' + some other favourites ...
Personally I find right wing frothers proclaiming their support for the NHS one of the more bizarre features of the campaign.
Why? The right wing has managed the NHS for most of its life, the right wing proposed the NHS in the first place, the right wing has increased funding on the NHS to record levels and the right has at the last two elections has proposed more funding or the NHS than the left did.
That you find the right incompatible with the NHS says more about your prejudices than it does the right in this country.
Do you recall Dan Hannan on the subject?
Who in Vote.Leave has advocated increased funding for the NHS in the past? First IDS on disability cuts and now others joining in. I like a bit of Blue on Blue. Popcorn time!
The entire Conservative Party - see the manifestos from 2015. Only us Tories promised the 8bn demanded by the head of the NHS.
Few people relish having things which they will never have flaunted in their faces by people who they deem have done nothing to deserves said things.
This becomes even more annoying when it is believed that the government is more interested in pandering to the flaunters than it is in helping 'people like me'.
So that covers envy, though I said other than envy what is the problem?
As for "flaunting in their faces" I've not seen any of that in my face, though I've seen it in the media. Probably because I don't live in the same area as these people so why would I see it in real life? Those who have seen it in real life will mainly be those whose jobs depend upon taking money from these flaunters. So the problem is the media not the flaunters, if you don't like it then maybe stop looking at that media, problem solved.
But people LIKE to resent others and believe their victims and to have someone to blame.
They LIKE to see people different to themselves have their reputations blacked and their things taken from them and redistributed.
And they get ANGRY when those things aren't then done.
OK I get that entirely. Some people love the politics of envy. Having said that why should we deprive them of the opportunity to enjoy getting angry?
Because that anger then gets refocused on governments who don't take action against the cause of the anger.
How many times has the phrase 'the government should do something' been uttered.
Personally I find right wing frothers proclaiming their support for the NHS one of the more bizarre features of the campaign.
Why? The right wing has managed the NHS for most of its life, the right wing proposed the NHS in the first place, the right wing has increased funding on the NHS to record levels and the right has at the last two elections has proposed more funding or the NHS than the left did.
That you find the right incompatible with the NHS says more about your prejudices than it does the right in this country.
Do you recall Dan Hannan on the subject?
Who in Vote.Leave has advocated increased funding for the NHS in the past? First IDS on disability cuts and now others joining in. I like a bit of Blue on Blue. Popcorn time!
The entire Conservative Party - see the manifestos from 2015. Only us Tories promised the 8bn demanded by the head of the NHS.
That link says Stevens denies that the figure was fiddled and its an after the fact claim by a bitter ex Lib Dem MP. Gee great source that.
Though even if its true it doesn't explain why did Labour pledge to spend even less than the Tories? Nor does it change the fact the Tories pledged increased funding which was your question.
Personally I find right wing frothers proclaiming their support for the NHS one of the more bizarre features of the campaign.
Why? The right wing has managed the NHS for most of its life, the right wing proposed the NHS in the first place, the right wing has increased funding on the NHS to record levels and the right has at the last two elections has proposed more funding or the NHS than the left did.
That you find the right incompatible with the NHS says more about your prejudices than it does the right in this country.
Do you recall Dan Hannan on the subject?
Who in Vote.Leave has advocated increased funding for the NHS in the past? First IDS on disability cuts and now others joining in. I like a bit of Blue on Blue. Popcorn time!
The entire Conservative Party - see the manifestos from 2015. Only us Tories promised the 8bn demanded by the head of the NHS.
That link says Stevens denies that the figure was fiddled and its an after the fact claim by a bitter ex Lib Dem MP. Gee great source that.
Though even if its true it doesn't explain why did Labour pledge to spend even less than the Tories? Nor does it change the fact the Tories pledged increased funding which was your question.
I love it when Tories get all hot for the NHS. It always rings so true. Just like kippers fighting the bedroom tax!
Few people relish having things which they will never have flaunted in their faces by people who they deem have done nothing to deserves said things.
This becomes even more annoying when it is believed that the government is more interested in pandering to the flaunters than it is in helping 'people like me'.
So that covers envy, though I said other than envy what is the problem?
As for "flaunting in their faces" I've not seen any of that in my face, though I've seen it in the media. Probably because I don't live in the same area as these people so why would I see it in real life? Those who have seen it in real life will mainly be those whose jobs depend upon taking money from these flaunters. So the problem is the media not the flaunters, if you don't like it then maybe stop looking at that media, problem solved.
But people LIKE to resent others and believe their victims and to have someone to blame.
They LIKE to see people different to themselves have their reputations blacked and their things taken from them and redistributed.
And they get ANGRY when those things aren't then done.
OK I get that entirely. Some people love the politics of envy. Having said that why should we deprive them of the opportunity to enjoy getting angry?
Because that anger then gets refocused on governments who don't take action against the cause of the anger.
How many times has the phrase 'the government should do something' been uttered.
Too many to mention. Doesn't make it right every time though, does it? A sensible position of any government (Tory governments especially) is to know when to be masterly inactive.
Personally I find right wing frothers proclaiming their support for the NHS one of the more bizarre features of the campaign.
I too am disturbed by it. All right-wing politics is now being conducted through the prism of Brexit. Leavers are flocking to any far-left or sentimental cause merely if it provides them with stick to beat the Remainers. We've had the absurd spectacle of Leavers advocating rampant protectionism just because Cameron dabbled in a bit of free-marketry over steel tariffs. It's looking unhinged and might push me towards remain. The company you keep and all that.
Sure, but we're kind of used to it now (which is my point) plus the Tories are being unusually SHITE.
Osborne should have retired as Chancellor right after the election, and taken the plaudits, then become an eminence grise as Foreign Secretary, hovering near the premiership, ready to pounce.
He's now screwed forever, probably.
I reckon the steel crisis may well bring the government down or at least mortally wound it. The angst on social media is more pronounced than it was even during the banking crisis or the expenses saga.
The working classes are rightly pissed off with our manufacturing sector disappearing without a decent fight. Even the yellow bellied Italians flouted EU state aid rules and propped up their steelworkers.
Fuck it, nationalise it. And nationalise it in a new,
It's a money pit. Whatever .
I think British Steel had been modernised effectively in the 1980s.
How well it was managed and invested in by Tata I don't know.
But things have changed beyond its control - see the change in steel production around the world:
I've asked before how in a globalised world economy when competing against peoples who are as intelligent and educated as us but who are willing to work harder, for less pay and under fewer restrictions does the UK maintain its higher standard of living.
In the case of the Port Talbot steelworkers and previously the Redcar steelworkers the answer is that they wont maintain their standard of living.
There are highly paid countries with good social services that are significant manufacturing exporters. Indeed Germany has an enormous trade surplus, but there are other successful manufacturers in Europe (and of course Britain is part of Europe).
All you have to do is build something worth the money.
You need a USP - quality, cost, service, innovation, whatever.
The problem is Britain has more in common with Woolworths or BHS.
We can't compete on cost, there's not enough quality and brand loyalty is fading fast.
Why are our Euro-neighbours doing so much better? Perhaps we could learn something from them.
Are our Euro-neighbours doing so much better ?
Germany arguably but they've rigorously kept their costs controlled and invested and worked hard.
But are France and Italy or Spain or many others doing any better ?
Italy has a balance of trade surplus, France and Spain a modest balance of trade deficit.
Personally I find right wing frothers proclaiming their support for the NHS one of the more bizarre features of the campaign.
Why? The right wing has managed the NHS for most of its life, the right wing proposed the NHS in the first place, the right wing has increased funding on the NHS to record levels and the right has at the last two elections has proposed more funding or the NHS than the left did.
That you find the right incompatible with the NHS says more about your prejudices than it does the right in this country.
Do you recall Dan Hannan on the subject?
Who in Vote.Leave has advocated increased funding for the NHS in the past? First IDS on disability cuts and now others joining in. I like a bit of Blue on Blue. Popcorn time!
The entire Conservative Party - see the manifestos from 2015. Only us Tories promised the 8bn demanded by the head of the NHS.
That link says Stevens denies that the figure was fiddled and its an after the fact claim by a bitter ex Lib Dem MP. Gee great source that.
Though even if its true it doesn't explain why did Labour pledge to spend even less than the Tories? Nor does it change the fact the Tories pledged increased funding which was your question.
I love it when Tories get all hot for the NHS. It always rings so true. Just like kippers fighting the bedroom tax!
Again the Tories proposed the NHS, the Tories have managed the NHS for most of its life and the Tories have increased NHS spending to record levels and the Tories have proposed more NHS spending than any other party in the last two general elections in a row. The Tories are the party of the NHS.
It shouldn't be too surprising either. Who are the main beneficiaries of NHS spending? Other than the staff it's the elderly who benefit the most. Who are the main Tory target voters? The elderly. It is logical for the Tories to manage the NHS well, though in the interest of those whom the NHS treats rather than the staff.
Personally I find right wing frothers proclaiming their support for the NHS one of the more bizarre features of the campaign.
Why? The right wing has managed the NHS for most of its life, the right wing proposed the NHS in the first place, the right wing has increased funding on the NHS to record levels and the right has at the last two elections has proposed more funding or the NHS than the left did.
That you find the right incompatible with the NHS says more about your prejudices than it does the right in this country.
Do you recall Dan Hannan on the subject?
Who in Vote.Leave has advocated increased funding for the NHS in the past? First IDS on disability cuts and now others joining in. I like a bit of Blue on Blue. Popcorn time!
The entire Conservative Party - see the manifestos from 2015. Only us Tories promised the 8bn demanded by the head of the NHS.
That link says Stevens denies that the figure was fiddled and its an after the fact claim by a bitter ex Lib Dem MP. Gee great source that.
Though even if its true it doesn't explain why did Labour pledge to spend even less than the Tories? Nor does it change the fact the Tories pledged increased funding which was your question.
I love it when Tories get all hot for the NHS. It always rings so true. Just like kippers fighting the bedroom tax!
Again the Tories proposed the NHS, the Tories have managed the NHS for most of its life and the Tories have increased NHS spending to record levels and the Tories have proposed more NHS spending than any other party in the last two general elections in a row. The Tories are the party of the NHS.
It shouldn't be too surprising either. Who are the main beneficiaries of NHS spending? Other than the staff it's the elderly who benefit the most. Who are the main Tory target voters? The elderly. It is logical for the Tories to manage the NHS well, though in the interest of those whom the NHS treats rather than the staff.
Again the Tories proposed the NHS, the Tories have managed the NHS for most of its life and the Tories have increased NHS spending to record levels and the Tories have proposed more NHS spending than any other party in the last two general elections in a row. The Tories are the party of the NHS.
It shouldn't be too surprising either. Who are the main beneficiaries of NHS spending? Other than the staff it's the elderly who benefit the most. Who are the main Tory target voters? The elderly. It is logical for the Tories to manage the NHS well, though in the interest of those whom the NHS treats rather than the staff.
Say it like you believe it...
Or just vote for an alternative party that proposes less spending.
Pop quiz, which is the only party to have cut NHS spending?
Personally I find right wing frothers proclaiming their support for the NHS one of the more bizarre features of the campaign.
...
Do you recall Dan Hannan on the subject?
Who in Vote.Leave has advocated increased funding for the NHS in the past? First IDS on disability cuts and now others joining in. I like a bit of Blue on Blue. Popcorn time!
The entire Conservative Party - see the manifestos from 2015. Only us Tories promised the 8bn demanded by the head of the NHS.
That link says Stevens denies that the figure was fiddled and its an after the fact claim by a bitter ex Lib Dem MP. Gee great source that.
Though even if its true it doesn't explain why did Labour pledge to spend even less than the Tories? Nor does it change the fact the Tories pledged increased funding which was your question.
I love it when Tories get all hot for the NHS. It always rings so true. Just like kippers fighting the bedroom tax!
Again the Tories proposed the NHS, the Tories have managed the NHS for most of its life and the Tories have increased NHS spending to record levels and the Tories have proposed more NHS spending than any other party in the last two general elections in a row. The Tories are the party of the NHS.
It shouldn't be too surprising either. Who are the main beneficiaries of NHS spending? Other than the staff it's the elderly who benefit the most. Who are the main Tory target voters? The elderly. It is logical for the Tories to manage the NHS well, though in the interest of those whom the NHS treats rather than the staff.
Say it like you believe it...
Great marshalling of sniffy words against fact there.
Again the Tories proposed the NHS, the Tories have managed the NHS for most of its life and the Tories have increased NHS spending to record levels and the Tories have proposed more NHS spending than any other party in the last two general elections in a row. The Tories are the party of the NHS.
It shouldn't be too surprising either. Who are the main beneficiaries of NHS spending? Other than the staff it's the elderly who benefit the most. Who are the main Tory target voters? The elderly. It is logical for the Tories to manage the NHS well, though in the interest of those whom the NHS treats rather than the staff.
Say it like you believe it...
Or just vote for an alternative party that proposes less spending.
Pop quiz, which is the only party to have cut NHS spending?
Personally I find right wing frothers proclaiming their support for the NHS one of the more bizarre features of the campaign.
Why? The right wing has managed the NHS for most of its life, the right wing proposed the NHS in the first place, the right wing has increased funding on the NHS to record levels and the right has at the last two elections has proposed more funding or the NHS than the left did.
That you find the right incompatible with the NHS says more about your prejudices than it does the right in this country.
Do you recall Dan Hannan on the subject?
Who in Vote.Leave has advocated increased funding for the NHS in the past? First IDS on disability cuts and now others joining in. I like a bit of Blue on Blue. Popcorn time!
The entire Conservative Party - see the manifestos from 2015. Only us Tories promised the 8bn demanded by the head of the NHS.
That link says Stevens denies that the figure was fiddled and its an after the fact claim by a bitter ex Lib Dem MP. Gee great source that.
Though even if its true it doesn't explain why did Labour pledge to spend even less than the Tories? Nor does it change the fact the Tories pledged increased funding which was your question.
I love it when Tories get all hot for the NHS. It always rings so true. Just like kippers fighting the bedroom tax!
As a former member of UKIP I always found the bedroom tax fine on paper, however, there is simply not enough housing stock to make it workable.
Sure, but we're kind of used to it now (which is my point) plus the Tories are being unusually SHITE.
Osborne should have retired as Chancellor right after the election, and taken the plaudits, then become an eminence grise as Foreign Secretary, hovering near the premiership, ready to pounce.
He's now screwed forever, probably.
I rec
Fuck it, nationalise it. And nationalise it in a new,
It's a money pit. Whatever .
I think British Steel had been modernised effectively in the 1980s.
How well it was managed and invested in by Tata I don't know.
But things have changed beyond its control - see the change in steel production around the world:
I've asked before how in a globalised world economy when competing against peoples who are as intelligent and educated as us but who are willing to work harder, for less pay and under fewer restrictions does the UK maintain its higher standard of living.
In the case of the Port Talbot steelworkers and previously the Redcar steelworkers the answer is that they wont maintain their standard of living.
There are
All you have to do is build something worth the money.
You need a USP - quality, cost, service, innovation, whatever.
The problem is Britain has more in common with Woolworths or BHS.
We can't compete on cost, there's not enough quality and brand loyalty is fading fast.
Why are our Euro-neighbours doing so much better? Perhaps we could learn something from them.
Are our Euro-neighbours doing so much better ?
Germany arguably but they've rigorously kept their costs controlled and invested and worked hard.
But are France and Italy or Spain or many others doing any better ?
No, they're really NOT doing any better than us, in most cases they are doing worse. All
German salaries have been stagnant for several decades.
No western nation can avoid this. Western political hegemony, and our easy economic superiority, is at an end. The Renaissance and the industrial revolution has run its course.
Russia and Brazil are in negative GDP territory, and China keeps trying desperate stimulus measures to reinflate its bubble. Going straight to Japan like stagnation. That is why steel is so cheap. The Chinese construction boom went bust.
I've asked before how in a globalised world economy when competing against peoples who are as intelligent and educated as us but who are willing to work harder, for less pay and under fewer restrictions does the UK maintain its higher standard of living.
In the case of the Port Talbot steelworkers and previously the Redcar steelworkers the answer is that they wont maintain their standard of living.
There are highly paid countries with good social services that are significant manufacturing exporters. Indeed Germany has an enormous trade surplus, but there are other successful manufacturers in Europe (and of course Britain is part of Europe).
All you have to do is build something worth the money.
You need a USP - quality, cost, service, innovation, whatever.
The problem is Britain has more in common with Woolworths or BHS.
We can't compete on cost, there's not enough quality and brand loyalty is fading fast.
Why are our Euro-neighbours doing so much better? Perhaps we could learn something from them.
Are our Euro-neighbours doing so much better ?
Germany arguably but they've rigorously kept their costs controlled and invested and worked hard.
But are France and Italy or Spain or many others doing any better ?
Italy has a balance of trade surplus, France and Spain a modest balance of trade deficit.
Its easy to get a balance of trade surplus - all you have to do is stop buying so much imported consumer tat and taking so many foreign holidays.
Italy though does produce things which are in demand and viewed as high quality and brandworthy. France and Spain less so.
And the overall health of the Italian, French and Spanish economies is not good.
I enjoy the ride out of Euston. I always crane to catch a glimpse of the house my grandfather was brought up in, in Park Village East. https://goo.gl/maps/zp7FAeNzzQr London has some islands of beauty amongst the dross.
But the official verdict is in, from the Royal Town Planning Institute.
Having a couple of breaks in Liverpool in 2013 - my first stay ever in the city - I was bowled over by that waterfront (+ St. George's Hall + the park with the statues + Walker Art Gallery** + Port Sunlight/Lever Art Gallery + Liverpool Cathedral) - and, unlike Birmingham, it doesn't feel like a foreign country.
** 'When Did You Last See Your Father?' + some other favourites ...
Liverpool really is a sensational place if you care to dig a little - and ignore the 30-year old jokes, which are palpably out of date now.
The only city that could plausibly step up as an alternative capital to London [and it beats it in some ways].
Objectively, one of the most innovative cities in the world.
If you are interested in architecture, infrastructure, transportation, the arts, sports or social reform, the odds are Liverpool was first in the world in those categories.
I'd disagree with "not foreign" though. (^_-). It's Dublin, New York, Hamburg, Rome, before most places in England (except perhaps Victorian London - Sherlock Holmes, anyone?)
Personally I find right wing frothers proclaiming their support for the NHS one of the more bizarre features of the campaign.
...
Do you recall Dan Hannan on the subject?
Who in Vote.Leave has advocated increased funding for the NHS in the past? First IDS on disability cuts and now others joining in. I like a bit of Blue on Blue. Popcorn time!
The entire Conservative Party - see the manifestos from 2015. Only us Tories promised the 8bn demanded by the head of the NHS.
That link says Stevens denies that the figure was fiddled and its an after the fact claim by a
I love it when Tories get all hot for the NHS. It always rings so true. Just like kippers fighting the bedroom tax!
Again the Tories proposed the NHS, the Tories have managed the NHS for most of its life and the Tories have increased NHS spending to record levels and the Tories have proposed more NHS spending than any other party in the last two general elections in a row. The Tories are the party of the NHS.
It shouldn't be too surprising either. Who are the main beneficiaries of NHS spending? Other than the staff it's the elderly who benefit the most. Who are the main Tory target voters? The elderly. It is logical for the Tories to manage the NHS well, though in the interest of those whom the NHS treats rather than the staff.
Say it like you believe it...
Great marshalling of sniffy words against fact there.
Are you referring to me or to vote.leave? It is them that are claiming that the government has starved the NHS of cash.
Few people relish having things which they will never have flaunted in their faces by people who they deem have done nothing to deserves said things.
This becomes even more annoying when it is believed that the government is more interested in pandering to the flaunters than it is in helping 'people like me'.
So that covers envy, though I said other than envy what is the problem?
As for "flaunting in their faces" I've not seen any of that in my face, though I've seen it in the media. Probably because I don't live in the same area as these people so why would I see it in real life? Those who have seen it in real life will mainly be those whose jobs depend upon taking money from these flaunters. So the problem is the media not the flaunters, if you don't like it then maybe stop looking at that media, problem solved.
But people LIKE to resent others and believe their victims and to have someone to blame.
They LIKE to see people different to themselves have their reputations blacked and their things taken from them and redistributed.
And they get ANGRY when those things aren't then done.
OK I get that entirely. Some people love the politics of envy. Having said that why should we deprive them of the opportunity to enjoy getting angry?
Because that anger then gets refocused on governments who don't take action against the cause of the anger.
How many times has the phrase 'the government should do something' been uttered.
Too many to mention. Doesn't make it right every time though, does it? A sensible position of any government (Tory governments especially) is to know when to be masterly inactive.
Certainly but we have governments which want to meddle with everything.
And when people then get inconvenienced by government meddling they demand that the government also go and meddle with 'people like them'.
To bring the discussion back to the original issue if the government wants to impose a 'sugar tax' here or 'plebibition' there or to tell you what you can or can't put in your rubbish bin then people will in turn say "go and do something about those oligarchs and their cars/houses/wags".
No western nation can avoid this. Western political hegemony, and our easy economic superiority, is at an end. The Renaissance and the industrial revolution have run their course.
Doubt that's true. In fact it's probably the reverse. The revolution is spreading across the globe and with technologies like CRISPR it's getting deeper and more interesting. Worth thinking that 10 years ago a decent touch screen phone was still some way off. Best is yet to come.
Personally I find right wing frothers proclaiming their support for the NHS one of the more bizarre features of the campaign.
I think the NHS is a great organisation to provide the needs of 1950s to 1980s. Totally useless to provide the need we have now.
Not totally useless, Mr. H, on the whole the NHS does a bloody good job, especially given the demands being made upon it. In fact, I'd say it's efficiency was stunningly good and I doubt any private business could have done as well as the NHS has in recent years.
However, the model of the NHS designed in the 1940s and tweaked but not substantially changed since, is time expired and really no longer fit for purpose. What we change it to is a very complex issue but change has to come because, good and efficient though it is and as excellent as some of its staff are, it is imploding.
HMG needs to start hosting a grown up-debate about how health services should be delivered in the future.
Personally I find right wing frothers proclaiming their support for the NHS one of the more bizarre features of the campaign.
I think the NHS is a great organisation to provide the needs of 1950s to 1980s. Totally useless to provide the need we have now.
Not totally useless, Mr. H, on the whole the NHS does a bloody good job, especially given the demands being made upon it. In fact, I'd say it's efficiency was stunningly good and I doubt any private business could have done as well as the NHS has in recent years.
However, the model of the NHS designed in the 1940s and tweaked but not substantially changed since, is time expired and really no longer fit for purpose. What we change it to is a very complex issue but change has to come because, good and efficient though it is and as excellent as some of its staff are, it is imploding.
HMG needs to start hosting a grown up-debate about how health services should be delivered in the future.
'Free' to Brits - cash on entry to hospital for foreigners.
The Telegraph may eventually have an article about how the UK infrastructure will collapse in the next 20 years due to increased immigration.
Personally I find right wing frothers proclaiming their support for the NHS one of the more bizarre features of the campaign.
I think the NHS is a great organisation to provide the needs of 1950s to 1980s. Totally useless to provide the need we have now.
Not totally useless, Mr. H, on the whole the NHS does a bloody good job, especially given the demands being made upon it. In fact, I'd say it's efficiency was stunningly good and I doubt any private business could have done as well as the NHS has in recent years.
However, the model of the NHS designed in the 1940s and tweaked but not substantially changed since, is time expired and really no longer fit for purpose. What we change it to is a very complex issue but change has to come because, good and efficient though it is and as excellent as some of its staff are, it is imploding.
HMG needs to start hosting a grown up-debate about how health services should be delivered in the future.
Ahoy there, Mr Llama!
Permission to paraphrase you:
However, the model of the EU designed in the 1950s and tweaked but not substantially changed since, is time expired and really no longer fit for purpose.
Personally I find right wing frothers proclaiming their support for the NHS one of the more bizarre features of the campaign.
I think the NHS is a great organisation to provide the needs of 1950s to 1980s. Totally useless to provide the need we have now.
Not totally useless, Mr. H, on the whole the NHS does a bloody good job, especially given the demands being made upon it. In fact, I'd say it's efficiency was stunningly good and I doubt any private business could have done as well as the NHS has in recent years.
However, the model of the NHS designed in the 1940s and tweaked but not substantially changed since, is time expired and really no longer fit for purpose. What we change it to is a very complex issue but change has to come because, good and efficient though it is and as excellent as some of its staff are, it is imploding.
HMG needs to start hosting a grown up-debate about how health services should be delivered in the future.
Ahoy there, Mr Llama!
Permission to paraphrase you:
However, the model of the EU designed in the 1950s and tweaked but not substantially changed since, is time expired and really no longer fit for purpose.
Avast, Cap'n Sunil,
I agree wholeheartedly. However I swore a terrible oath that I would never again indulge in a any debate about the EU on this site. So I shall say no more.
Belike, else.
P.S. Lost track of your career. Are you still doing things in the Midlands? Also I hope your family are well and your mum is still enjoying her gardening.
I mostly agree, the costs of an ageing population (a problem of success!) are certainly daunting.
There does need to be more money (though not nessicarily from the state - there is a lot to be said for co-payment), but the limiting factor is increasingly personnel. We do not train enough doctors, nurses or technical staff and we do not train them well enough in the conditions that we face. Retention is very poor with near 50% not continuing in GP or Specialist training 2 years post qualification (govt figures). 10% of nursing posts are vacant and 5% of medical ones.
The governments response? Impose a contract that cuts pay for those in the front line, forces women out of practice and reduces supervision of training. For Nurses they have cut bursaries so that prospective student Nurses pay full University fees. Its just as well we can fill the gaps by importing EU staff...
No western nation can avoid this. Western political hegemony, and our easy economic superiority, is at an end. The Renaissance and the industrial revolution have run their course.
Doubt that's true. In fact it's probably the reverse. The revolution is spreading across the globe and with technologies like CRISPR it's getting deeper and more interesting. Worth thinking that 10 years ago a decent touch screen phone was still some way off. Best is yet to come.
Indeed western hegemony is only ending as the West has won and the rest are westernising.
For all the premature talk of Chinese dominance that is only due to the sheer number of China's population. The Chinese are not overtaking Americans or Brits or even Greeks. They remain impoverished and developing by our standards.
Personally I find right wing frothers proclaiming their support for the NHS one of the more bizarre features of the campaign.
I think the NHS is a great organisation to provide the needs of 1950s to 1980s. Totally useless to provide the need we have now.
Not totally useless, Mr. H, on the whole the NHS does a bloody good job, especially given the demands being made upon it. In fact, I'd say it's efficiency was stunningly good and I doubt any private business could have done as well as the NHS has in recent years.
However, the model of the NHS designed in the 1940s and tweaked but not substantially changed since, is time expired and really no longer fit for purpose. What we change it to is a very complex issue but change has to come because, good and efficient though it is and as excellent as some of its staff are, it is imploding.
HMG needs to start hosting a grown up-debate about how health services should be delivered in the future.
'Free' to Brits - cash on entry to hospital for foreigners.
The Telegraph may eventually have an article about how the UK infrastructure will collapse in the next 20 years due to increased immigration.
Mr. Jonnie, the current scale of immigration as per the official figures, nevermind what is really happening, means we need to produce 150 FTE more qualified GPS p.a. just to cope with the population increase. That is to say on to of the regular number to replace attrition through retirement etc.. Dr, Sox, medicus and bon oeuf of this parish, will have better figures than I but I believe the number of GPs in practice is actually falling.
Of course GPs are only the gatekeepers of the system and there has to be a whole range of specialists behind them. Training places for those posts have in recent years been cut.
The system is as I said imploding. No politician seems to want to talk about what we should do about it.
I mostly agree, the costs of an ageing population (a problem of success!) are certainly daunting.
There does need to be more money (though not nessicarily from the state - there is a lot to be said for co-payment), but the limiting factor is increasingly personnel. We do not train enough doctors, nurses or technical staff and we do not train them well enough in the conditions that we face. Retention is very poor with near 50% not continuing in GP or Specialist training 2 years post qualification (govt figures). 10% of nursing posts are vacant and 5% of medical ones.
The governments response? Impose a contract that cuts pay for those in the front line, forces women out of practice and reduces supervision of training. For Nurses they have cut bursaries so that prospective student Nurses pay full University fees. Its just as well we can fill the gaps by importing EU staff...
It almost looks like deliberate wrecking...
Alternatively it is managing the NHS for the public and not the staff. The NHS exists to provide for the sick, not so that doctors get a 50% pay rise if they work a Saturday daytime.
From your figures more than 50% do continue in GP or specialist training 2 years post qualification. Do you know how that compares to other industries considering you seem to think it's important?
As for cutting bursaries that seems entirely logical if half those who got bursaries aren't sticking to the NHS.
Not totally useless, Mr. H, on the whole the NHS does a bloody good job, especially given the demands being made upon it. In fact, I'd say it's efficiency was stunningly good and I doubt any private business could have done as well as the NHS has in recent years.
However, the model of the NHS designed in the 1940s and tweaked but not substantially changed since, is time expired and really no longer fit for purpose. What we change it to is a very complex issue but change has to come because, good and efficient though it is and as excellent as some of its staff are, it is imploding.
HMG needs to start hosting a grown up-debate about how health services should be delivered in the future.
Ahoy there, Mr Llama!
Permission to paraphrase you:
However, the model of the EU designed in the 1950s and tweaked but not substantially changed since, is time expired and really no longer fit for purpose.
Avast, Cap'n Sunil,
I agree wholeheartedly. However I swore a terrible oath that I would never again indulge in a any debate about the EU on this site. So I shall say no more.
Belike, else.
P.S. Lost track of your career. Are you still doing things in the Midlands? Also I hope your family are well and your mum is still enjoying her gardening.
Yes, I'm still in the Midlands, during the working week, but just for a change stayed up there during Easter Weekend, and showed mum around, given that it was her first visit to Brum and environs.
On Good Friday, we visited the Birmingham Library, the canal area, and gate-crashed the NASUWT conference (after a fashion!) because the conference centre was the nearest place with loos!
On Saturday, visited Birmingham University and Cadbury World
On Sunday, visited Warwick Castle, and revisted the Brum canal area to ride on a narrow-boat
And then on Monday, visited Coventry Transport Museum and Warwick University before returning to London.
Mum reckoned the Midlands were "much better than [she] had envisaged". BTW She still enjoys gardening - she won Redbridge in Bloom for her front garden last season.
And then I had a bit of "me" time on Tuesday and Wednesday, visiting the picturesque Derwent Valley Line to Matlock and the Peak Railway in Derbyshire (needed two attempts to do the Peak Rail, as the Derwent Valley train going up hill was delayed on Tuesday, thereby rendering useless my attempt to catch the last round-trip on the Peak - but better luck on Wednesday!).
I mostly agree, the costs of an ageing population (a problem of success!) are certainly daunting.
There does need to be more money (though not nessicarily from the state - there is a lot to be said for co-payment), but the limiting factor is increasingly personnel. We do not train enough doctors, nurses or technical staff and we do not train them well enough in the conditions that we face. Retention is very poor with near 50% not continuing in GP or Specialist training 2 years post qualification (govt figures). 10% of nursing posts are vacant and 5% of medical ones.
The governments response? Impose a contract that cuts pay for those in the front line, forces women out of practice and reduces supervision of training. For Nurses they have cut bursaries so that prospective student Nurses pay full University fees. Its just as well we can fill the gaps by importing EU staff...
It almost looks like deliberate wrecking...
Doc, I am very hesitant to believe conspiracy when incompetence is still an option.
Now on the subject of personnel, which I agree is the critical issue, how many of those nurses from the Philippines and elsewhere that we employ have nursing degrees? That they are competent I am prepared to take for granted but how many of them went through the sort of foundation degree that we insist on for our home grown staff?
I mostly agree, the costs of an ageing population (a problem of success!) are certainly daunting.
There does need to be more money (though not nessicarily from the state - there is a lot to be said for co-payment), but the limiting factor is increasingly personnel. We do not train enough doctors, nurses or technical staff and we do not train them well enough in the conditions that we face. Retention is very poor with near 50% not continuing in GP or Specialist training 2 years post qualification (govt figures). 10% of nursing posts are vacant and 5% of medical ones.
The governments response? Impose a contract that cuts pay for those in the front line, forces women out of practice and reduces supervision of training. For Nurses they have cut bursaries so that prospective student Nurses pay full University fees. Its just as well we can fill the gaps by importing EU staff...
It almost looks like deliberate wrecking...
Alternatively it is managing the NHS for the public and not the staff. The NHS exists to provide for the sick, not so that doctors get a 50% pay rise if they work a Saturday daytime.
From your figures more than 50% do continue in GP or specialist training 2 years post qualification. Do you know how that compares to other industries considering you seem to think it's important?
As for cutting bursaries that seems entirely logical if half those who got bursaries aren't sticking to the NHS.
No, but I think retention of teachers is pretty poor too.
As recently as 4 years ago 73% of British medical graduates were in Specialist Training or General Practice training 2 years post qualification. The drop over the last few years has been dramatic.
Whether private or publically funded, a healthcare system needs well trained and motivated staff.
I mostly agree, the costs of an ageing population (a problem of success!) are certainly daunting.
There does need to be more money (though not nessicarily from the state - there is a lot to be said for co-payment), but the limiting factor is increasingly personnel. We do not train enough doctors, nurses or technical staff and we do not train them well enough in the conditions that we face. Retention is very poor with near 50% not continuing in GP or Specialist training 2 years post qualification (govt figures). 10% of nursing posts are vacant and 5% of medical ones.
The governments response? Impose a contract that cuts pay for those in the front line, forces women out of practice and reduces supervision of training. For Nurses they have cut bursaries so that prospective student Nurses pay full University fees. Its just as well we can fill the gaps by importing EU staff...
It almost looks like deliberate wrecking...
Alternatively it is managing the NHS for the public and not the staff. The NHS exists to provide for the sick, not so that doctors get a 50% pay rise if they work a Saturday daytime.
From your figures more than 50% do continue in GP or specialist training 2 years post qualification. Do you know how that compares to other industries considering you seem to think it's important?
As for cutting bursaries that seems entirely logical if half those who got bursaries aren't sticking to the NHS.
No, but I think retention of teachers is pretty poor too.
As recently as 4 years ago 73% of British medical graduates were in Specialist Training or General Practice training 2 years post qualification. The drop over the last few years has been dramatic.
Whether private or publically funded, a healthcare system needs well trained and motivated staff.
If we continue to pay our doctors crap, the posts will still be filled - from abroad !
I enjoy the ride out of Euston. I always crane to catch a glimpse of the house my grandfather was brought up in, in Park Village East. https://goo.gl/maps/zp7FAeNzzQr London has some islands of beauty amongst the dross.
But the official verdict is in, from the Royal Town Planning Institute.
** 'When Did You Last See Your Father?' + some other favourites ... Well, it is the only National collection outside of London. Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, Charles II?
I do love St. John's Gardens, aka "Liverpool's alfresco Valhalla", especially the Little Drummer Boy.
I mostly agree, the costs of an ageing population (a problem of success!) are certainly daunting.
There does need to be more money (though not nessicarily from the state - there is a lot to be said for co-payment), but the limiting factor is increasingly personnel. We do not train enough doctors, nurses or technical staff and we do not train them well enough in the conditions that we face. Retention is very poor with near 50% not continuing in GP or Specialist training 2 years post qualification (govt figures). 10% of nursing posts are vacant and 5% of medical ones.
The governments response? Impose a contract that cuts pay for those in the front line, forces women out of practice and reduces supervision of training. For Nurses they have cut bursaries so that prospective student Nurses pay full University fees. Its just as well we can fill the gaps by importing EU staff...
It almost looks like deliberate wrecking...
Doc, I am very hesitant to believe conspiracy when incompetence is still an option.
Now on the subject of personnel, which I agree is the critical issue, how many of those nurses from the Philippines and elsewhere that we employ have nursing degrees? That they are competent I am prepared to take for granted but how many of them went through the sort of foundation degree that we insist on for our home grown staff?
I think Phillipino training is better than our own. Certainly the professionalism of our Phillipino Nurses is impeccable. Excellent English too, which is why we now get so many migrants from the Phillipines, a country that we have no historic links with.
The Spanish and Portuguese Nurses are all at degree level, and their degrees cover a number of skills considered postgraduate in the UK. Mind you, I think that British Nurse training leaves a lot to be desired!
Yes, I'm still in the Midlands, during the working week, but just for a change stayed up there during Easter Weekend, and showed mum around, given that it was her first visit to Brum and environs.
On Good Friday, we visited the Birmingham Library, the canal area, and gate-crashed the NASUWT conference (after a fashion!) because the conference centre was the nearest place with loos!
On Saturday, visited Birmingham University and Cadbury World
On Sunday, visited Warwick Castle, and revisted the Brum canal area to ride on a narrow-boat
And then on Monday, visited Coventry Transport Museum and Warwick University before returning to London.
Mum reckoned the Midlands were "much better than [she] had envisaged". BTW She still enjoys gardening - she won Redbridge in Bloom for her front garden last season.
And then I had a bit of "me" time on Tuesday and Wednesday, visiting the picturesque Derwent Valley Line to Matlock and the Peak Railway in Derbyshire (needed two attempts to do the Peak Rail, as the Derwent Valley train going up hill was delayed on Tuesday, thereby rendering useless my attempt to catch the last round-trip on the Peak - but better luck on Wednesday!).
Great stuff, Cap'n Doc. I am struggling to picture your mum gatecrashing the NASUWT conference but I am sure she did it with style and lovely to hear that she won a prize with her garden.
Oh, Sunil did you really take your mum to a transport museum? Respect!
I mostly agree, the costs of an ageing population (a problem of success!) are certainly daunting.
There does need to be more money (though not nessicarily from the state - there is a lot to be said for co-payment), but the limiting factor is increasingly personnel. We do not train enough doctors, nurses or technical staff and we do not train them well enough in the conditions that we face. Retention is very poor with near 50% not continuing in GP or Specialist training 2 years post qualification (govt figures). 10% of nursing posts are vacant and 5% of medical ones.
The governments response? Impose a contract that cuts pay for those in the front line, forces women out of practice and reduces supervision of training. For Nurses they have cut bursaries so that prospective student Nurses pay full University fees. Its just as well we can fill the gaps by importing EU staff...
It almost looks like deliberate wrecking...
Doc, I am very hesitant to believe conspiracy when incompetence is still an option.
Now on the subject of personnel, which I agree is the critical issue, how many of those nurses from the Philippines and elsewhere that we employ have nursing degrees? That they are competent I am prepared to take for granted but how many of them went through the sort of foundation degree that we insist on for our home grown staff?
I think Phillipino training is better than our own. Certainly the professionalism of our Phillipino Nurses is impeccable. Excellent English too, which is why we now get so many migrants from the Phillipines, a country that we have no historic links with.
The Spanish and Portuguese Nurses are all at degree level, and their degrees cover a number of skills considered postgraduate in the UK. Mind you, I think that British Nurse training leaves a lot to be desired!
I mostly agree, the costs of an ageing population (a problem of success!) are certainly daunting.
There does need to be more money (though not nessicarily from the state - there is a lot to be said for co-payment), but the limiting factor is increasingly personnel. We do not train enough doctors, nurses or technical staff and we do not train them well enough in the conditions that we face. Retention is very poor with near 50% not continuing in GP or Specialist training 2 years post qualification (govt figures). 10% of nursing posts are vacant and 5% of medical ones.
The governments response? Impose a contract that cuts pay for those in the front line, forces women out of practice and reduces supervision of training. For Nurses they have cut bursaries so that prospective student Nurses pay full University fees. Its just as well we can fill the gaps by importing EU staff...
It almost looks like deliberate wrecking...
Doc, I am very hesitant to believe conspiracy when incompetence is still an option.
Now on the subject of personnel, which I agree is the critical issue, how many of those nurses from the Philippines and elsewhere that we employ have nursing degrees? That they are competent I am prepared to take for granted but how many of them went through the sort of foundation degree that we insist on for our home grown staff?
I think Phillipino training is better than our own. Certainly the professionalism of our Phillipino Nurses is impeccable. Excellent English too
We have American imperialism to thank for that .... it always amazes me the speed and extent to which this happened.
Comments
How well it was managed and invested in by Tata I don't know.
But things have changed beyond its control - see the change in steel production around the world:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_steel_production
I've asked before how in a globalised world economy when competing against peoples who are as intelligent and educated as us but who are willing to work harder, for less pay and under fewer restrictions does the UK maintain its higher standard of living.
In the case of the Port Talbot steelworkers and previously the Redcar steelworkers the answer is that they wont maintain their standard of living.
Yes, I believe they were worse - and according to this article, packed less people in as well: http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/03/high-rise-housing-is-hellish-its-time-to-bring-back-terraces/
This is a Victorian high rise: https://www.edlets.com/accommodation/self_catering/luxury_q_mile_apartment/images/default_image
All you have to do is build something worth the money.
This becomes even more annoying when it is believed that the government is more interested in pandering to the flaunters than it is in helping 'people like me'.
Anyhow, both are now on the Sunday Times list of best places to live in the UK...
The problem is Britain has more in common with Woolworths or BHS.
We can't compete on cost, there's not enough quality and brand loyalty is fading fast.
Is a blast furnace based on the process developed by Henry Bessemer which I think was all about using additional oxygen to burn impurities from the iron.
Thanks in advance and how of education.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/01/senior-tories-brexit-vote-leave-attacks-david-cameron-letter-nhs-staff?CMP=share_btn_fb
Personally I find right wing frothers proclaiming their support for the NHS one of the more bizarre features of the campaign.
As for "flaunting in their faces" I've not seen any of that in my face, though I've seen it in the media. Probably because I don't live in the same area as these people so why would I see it in real life? Those who have seen it in real life will mainly be those whose jobs depend upon taking money from these flaunters. So the problem is the media not the flaunters, if you don't like it then maybe stop looking at that media, problem solved.
Why might that be?
A converted structure is in many ways not the same structure. In many cases it is only a hollow shell of what was there before.
What is the end game of those anti restrictions on immigration from MENA?
That you find the right incompatible with the NHS says more about your prejudices than it does the right in this country.
"China has said it will levy 46% duties on a type of high tech steel produced by Tata Steel in Wales, Sky News has learned. The Chinese Government argues that European Union exports of "grain oriented electrical steel" are causing "substantial damage" and "material injury" to China's industry.mThis form of steel is manufactured in Newport by Tata Steel's Cogent subsidiary - one of just 16 global producers of the highly specialised product "
http://news.sky.com/story/1671109/china-hits-steel-made-in-uk-with-46-percent-levy
They LIKE to see people different to themselves have their reputations blacked and their things taken from them and redistributed.
And they get ANGRY when those things aren't then done.
Who in Vote.Leave has advocated increased funding for the NHS in the past? First IDS on disability cuts and now others joining in. I like a bit of Blue on Blue. Popcorn time!
2015. Only us Tories promised the 8bn demanded by the head of the NHS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_oxygen_steelmaking
This sad accident report has details of Port Talbot's furnaces:
http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/web34.pdf
Since when at least one was recently updated:
http://www.maintenanceonline.co.uk/article.asp?id=7706
Have you got anything other than envy or "this shouldn't go" that is a problem here?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3500845/The-Tory-8billion-save-NHS-election-Number-10-KNEW-16bn-needed-black-hole-fiddled-sums-manifesto-reveals-bombshell-book-ex-Lib-Dem-minister-David-Laws.html
Germany arguably but they've rigorously kept their costs controlled and invested and worked hard.
But are France and Italy or Spain or many others doing any better ?
Strikers and silent on strikes. The silent ones are the majority. My call that middle class professionals will not move their families because of a tiny contract tweak seems to be the right one...
I enjoy the ride out of Euston. I always crane to catch a glimpse of the house my grandfather was brought up in, in Park Village East.
https://goo.gl/maps/zp7FAeNzzQr
London has some islands of beauty amongst the dross.
But the official verdict is in, from the Royal Town Planning Institute.
England's "Greatest Place" is in Liverpool....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-35117849
Having a couple of breaks in Liverpool in 2013 - my first stay ever in the city - I was bowled over by that waterfront (+ St. George's Hall + the park with the statues + Walker Art Gallery**
+ Port Sunlight/Lever Art Gallery + Liverpool Cathedral) - and, unlike Birmingham, it doesn't feel like a foreign country.
** 'When Did You Last See Your Father?' + some other favourites ...
Surely you should be trying to find an article in the canary? That seems to be the last refuge of anti-Tories at the moment.
How many times has the phrase 'the government should do something' been uttered.
Though even if its true it doesn't explain why did Labour pledge to spend even less than the Tories? Nor does it change the fact the Tories pledged increased funding which was your question.
It shouldn't be too surprising either. Who are the main beneficiaries of NHS spending? Other than the staff it's the elderly who benefit the most. Who are the main Tory target voters? The elderly. It is logical for the Tories to manage the NHS well, though in the interest of those whom the NHS treats rather than the staff.
Pop quiz, which is the only party to have cut NHS spending?
Italy though does produce things which are in demand and viewed as high quality and brandworthy. France and Spain less so.
And the overall health of the Italian, French and Spanish economies is not good.
https://goo.gl/maps/zp7FAeNzzQr
London has some islands of beauty amongst the dross.
But the official verdict is in, from the Royal Town Planning Institute.
England's "Greatest Place" is in Liverpool....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-35117849
Having a couple of breaks in Liverpool in 2013 - my first stay ever in the city - I was bowled over by that waterfront (+ St. George's Hall + the park with the statues + Walker Art Gallery**
+ Port Sunlight/Lever Art Gallery + Liverpool Cathedral) - and, unlike Birmingham, it doesn't feel like a foreign country.
** 'When Did You Last See Your Father?' + some other favourites ...
Liverpool really is a sensational place if you care to dig a little - and ignore the 30-year old jokes, which are palpably out of date now.
The only city that could plausibly step up as an alternative capital to London [and it beats it in some ways].
Objectively, one of the most innovative cities in the world.
If you are interested in architecture, infrastructure, transportation, the arts, sports or social reform, the odds are Liverpool was first in the world in those categories.
I'd disagree with "not foreign" though. (^_-). It's Dublin, New York, Hamburg, Rome, before most places in England (except perhaps Victorian London - Sherlock Holmes, anyone?)
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/01/senior-tories-brexit-vote-leave-attacks-david-cameron-letter-nhs-staff?CMP=share_btn_fb
It is life affirming to see sinners repent and see the light. First IDS then vote.leave...
And when people then get inconvenienced by government meddling they demand that the government also go and meddle with 'people like them'.
To bring the discussion back to the original issue if the government wants to impose a 'sugar tax' here or 'plebibition' there or to tell you what you can or can't put in your rubbish bin then people will in turn say "go and do something about those oligarchs and their cars/houses/wags".
The oldest Black and Chinese communities in the UK/Europe respectively.
Virtually no-one here has pure British/English ancestry.
Irish/Welsh/Scottish/Black/Chinese/Scandinavian/German/Jewish/Italian are the main ingredients.
I'm three-quarters Irish, for example...
http://www.nature.com/news/crispr-the-disruptor-1.17673
However, the model of the NHS designed in the 1940s and tweaked but not substantially changed since, is time expired and really no longer fit for purpose. What we change it to is a very complex issue but change has to come because, good and efficient though it is and as excellent as some of its staff are, it is imploding.
HMG needs to start hosting a grown up-debate about how health services should be delivered in the future.
The Telegraph may eventually have an article about how the UK infrastructure will collapse in the next 20 years due to increased immigration.
Permission to paraphrase you:
However, the model of the EU designed in the 1950s and tweaked but not substantially changed since, is time expired and really no longer fit for purpose.
I agree wholeheartedly. However I swore a terrible oath that I would never again indulge in a any debate about the EU on this site. So I shall say no more.
Belike, else.
P.S. Lost track of your career. Are you still doing things in the Midlands? Also I hope your family are well and your mum is still enjoying her gardening.
I mostly agree, the costs of an ageing population (a problem of success!) are certainly daunting.
There does need to be more money (though not nessicarily from the state - there is a lot to be said for co-payment), but the limiting factor is increasingly personnel. We do not train enough doctors, nurses or technical staff and we do not train them well enough in the conditions that we face. Retention is very poor with near 50% not continuing in GP or Specialist training 2 years post qualification (govt figures). 10% of nursing posts are vacant and 5% of medical ones.
The governments response? Impose a contract that cuts pay for those in the front line, forces women out of practice and reduces supervision of training. For Nurses they have cut bursaries so that prospective student Nurses pay full University fees. Its just as well we can fill the gaps by importing EU staff...
It almost looks like deliberate wrecking...
For all the premature talk of Chinese dominance that is only due to the sheer number of China's population. The Chinese are not overtaking Americans or Brits or even Greeks. They remain impoverished and developing by our standards.
Of course GPs are only the gatekeepers of the system and there has to be a whole range of specialists behind them. Training places for those posts have in recent years been cut.
The system is as I said imploding. No politician seems to want to talk about what we should do about it.
From your figures more than 50% do continue in GP or specialist training 2 years post qualification. Do you know how that compares to other industries considering you seem to think it's important?
As for cutting bursaries that seems entirely logical if half those who got bursaries aren't sticking to the NHS.
On Good Friday, we visited the Birmingham Library, the canal area, and gate-crashed the NASUWT conference (after a fashion!) because the conference centre was the nearest place with loos!
On Saturday, visited Birmingham University and Cadbury World
On Sunday, visited Warwick Castle, and revisted the Brum canal area to ride on a narrow-boat
And then on Monday, visited Coventry Transport Museum and Warwick University before returning to London.
Mum reckoned the Midlands were "much better than [she] had envisaged". BTW She still enjoys gardening - she won Redbridge in Bloom for her front garden last season.
And then I had a bit of "me" time on Tuesday and Wednesday, visiting the picturesque Derwent Valley Line to Matlock and the Peak Railway in Derbyshire (needed two attempts to do the Peak Rail, as the Derwent Valley train going up hill was delayed on Tuesday, thereby rendering useless my attempt to catch the last round-trip on the Peak - but better luck on Wednesday!).
Now on the subject of personnel, which I agree is the critical issue, how many of those nurses from the Philippines and elsewhere that we employ have nursing degrees? That they are competent I am prepared to take for granted but how many of them went through the sort of foundation degree that we insist on for our home grown staff?
As recently as 4 years ago 73% of British medical graduates were in Specialist Training or General Practice training 2 years post qualification. The drop over the last few years has been dramatic.
Whether private or publically funded, a healthcare system needs well trained and motivated staff.
https://goo.gl/maps/zp7FAeNzzQr
London has some islands of beauty amongst the dross.
But the official verdict is in, from the Royal Town Planning Institute.
England's "Greatest Place" is in Liverpool....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-35117849
the park with the statues + Walker Art Gallery**
** 'When Did You Last See Your Father?' + some other favourites ...
Well, it is the only National collection outside of London. Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, Charles II?
I do love St. John's Gardens, aka "Liverpool's alfresco Valhalla", especially the Little Drummer Boy.
The Spanish and Portuguese Nurses are all at degree level, and their degrees cover a number of skills considered postgraduate in the UK. Mind you, I think that British Nurse training leaves a lot to be desired!
Oh, Sunil did you really take your mum to a transport museum? Respect!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_invasion_of_Manila
BTW English is an official language in the Philippines, by virtue of US control from 1898 to 1946.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_English
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filipinos_in_the_United_Kingdom?wprov=sfla1