It is not simple cutting senior management, unless you get rid of the targets and CQC and similar things that they have to report on. I do not see an easy solution.
As a system grows it becomes less and susceptible to be managed. The required complexity is simply beyond human control. There's the famous story of a Russian diplomat in London in the early 70s being amazed at the offering in a local bakery and asking who was in charge of bread in London - getting the astonishing answer 'nobody - it's a free market'. The health needs of a country of 60m people is a tad more complex than the London bread market! It's literally not manageable. Unfortunately the NHS has also morphed into a religion. Labour drones line up to promise no more privatisation. we need to accept that if managed as a Stalinist central blob we'll get a Stalinist central blob, with the quality and efficiency that implies. The only way the health system can really hum and be efficient is as a market. Paid for by tax but a market for delivery. Even the bloody French have worked this out. But not us in NHS religionland.
I think you're pretty much right there.
My view is that the letters "NHS" are the biggest barrier to improving healthcare in this country, for two reasons:
1) Far too much effort is put into "saving the NHS", when we shouldn't care about the NHS, we should care about the standard of healthcare people receive when they need it.
2) Political control of the whole system is a bad idea - despite common belief, politicians are not cleverer than anyone else and don't know what another person wants or needs better than that person themselves. Any change to the NHS results in campaigns to prevent it, and means that things go in circles - see fundholding going away then coming back as choose and book.
The NHS needs re-naming as a matter of urgency, just to break the spell. And someone needs to be brave enough to say that it doesn't work, it isn't the envy of the world and there is a better way possible. It is quite possible to have the taxpayer paying for healthcare without also running every hospital.
That's back to front. Just about any reform could be pushed through *providing* that the name NHS is kept.
On point 2, there has to be political control because there has to be political accountability for the spending of over £100bn pa and the policy choices that come with that.
The government spends £160bn pa on welfare. Are you arguing that there should be political control of what the recipients spend the money on?
Where on earth do I say anything remotely equivalent to that straw man?
But the government should be accountable for how it distributes that welfare budget.
Farron, whilst contemptible, is indicative that there are still some who want to deny, ignore and reverse the referendum result. Don't be complacent, fellow Brexiteers. We have not left yet.
Is it so unreasonable to ask for a second referendum before the 2-year period of Article 50 expires?
Yes, if the Article 50 notification is irrevocable- which it seems to be.
'Is it so unreasonable to ask for a second referendum before the 2-year period of Article 50 expires?'
A pity we were not warned before we voted on 23 June that if the elite didn't like the result it would overturn the result,at least we would have known that the entire exercise was a sham.
If we ever get another referendum on voting reform and PR is approved, we can relax in the knowledge it can be ignored and overturned.
Even the Labour Party managed not to fall into this Heffalump Trap.
The referendum he proposes is impossible.
It wouldn't be impossible; it would be absurd.
I think a Noel Edmonds referendum would be absurd. But a deal-or-stay-in? How can Parliament call that referendum when one option is literally not an option?
That would be impossible but isn't, as I understand it, what the Lib Dems will press for (or maybe I'm just giving them too much credit).
The reports of "Go home!" "Speak English!" incidents in America have started.
Because they've never happened before?
Well the Latino New York Times reporter whose account I saw - and tried but failed to find a way to put into a post on here - said that in all her years in the US nothing like that had happened to her before. As did a lot of the post-Brexit victims of similarly abusive public remarks.
I honestly don't believe a word about this from anyone. When it's on video or subject to police scrutiny - then I'll pay attention.
That isn't really helpful. In the UK (where there are plenty of videos on YouTube of such incidents) I have met several such people and see no reason not to believe their accounts.
You really don't need to read that much history to understand how the peddling of certain views by prominent politicians can legitimise unpleasant actions from a minority of a population.
Piffle - a Muslim lady claimed she had her hijab pulled off by Trumpers - and later said she lied to police. Another woman said Trump raped her at 13yrs old and then confessed it was all made up.
Politically motivated make-believe is endemic.
Don't spoil things, Plato, just when your stock is riding so high.
The fact that a few bandwagon-jumpers have been exposed doesn't nullify what was undoubtedly an unpleasant after-effect of our Brexit vote.
Farron, whilst contemptible, is indicative that there are still some who want to deny, ignore and reverse the referendum result. Don't be complacent, fellow Brexiteers. We have not left yet.
Is it so unreasonable to ask for a second referendum before the 2-year period of Article 50 expires? Then, at least, we'll know what we'd be getting and can offer a proper choice. Imagine that we are heading towards the hardest of Brexits, the economy is faltering badly and many are having second thoughts. Would it really make sense to press on regardless under such circumstances?
Yes. The Government has been told by the voters of the UK to Leave. So it will go get a deal to Leave. We Leave. If the deal we have left upon is shite, the voters can take their revenge and boot the Government out.
Failure to comply with the instructions of the voters would be far worse for democracy in this country. It would most likely result in a rather dodgy Govt. being elected to do the job this one had failed to deliver. Can you imagine a Govt. of 380 UKIP MPs? Is that what you want? Really?
Farron, whilst contemptible, is indicative that there are still some who want to deny, ignore and reverse the referendum result. Don't be complacent, fellow Brexiteers. We have not left yet.
Is it so unreasonable to ask for a second referendum before the 2-year period of Article 50 expires?
Yes, if the Article 50 notification is irrevocable- which it seems to be.
The reports of "Go home!" "Speak English!" incidents in America have started.
Because they've never happened before?
Well the Latino New York Times reporter whose account I saw - and tried but failed to find a way to put into a post on here - said that in all her years in the US nothing like that had happened to her before. As did a lot of the post-Brexit victims of similarly abusive public remarks.
I honestly don't believe a word about this from anyone. When it's on video or subject to police scrutiny - then I'll pay attention.
Funny how that standard doesn't apply to the most of what you retweet
Still sniping? Learnt anything?
HINT: Plato was demonstrably correct in assessing the level of incoherent anger that was fuelling the US election. And posting it, for you to assess its impact ON THE US ELECTION. So there was some stuff that was patently bonkers (Hillary body-doubles etc.). The point you should have been taking from her tweets was not that you believed it, but that a swathe of American opinion was so poisoned, IT was prepared to believe it.
Hell, these folk were so riled up, they might even do something REALLY stupid. Like vote in Trump as President...
Quite. The #SpiritCooking stuff freaked a load of Latino Catholics and Black Evangelicals out - it looked like witchcraft/voodoo.
Personally, I think it's immensely creepy - and deliberately designed to suck wannabes into something quite vile to show their commitment/blackmail opportunity.
The reports of "Go home!" "Speak English!" incidents in America have started.
Because they've never happened before?
Well the Latino New York Times reporter whose account I saw - and tried but failed to find a way to put into a post on here - said that in all her years in the US nothing like that had happened to her before. As did a lot of the post-Brexit victims of similarly abusive public remarks.
I honestly don't believe a word about this from anyone. When it's on video or subject to police scrutiny - then I'll pay attention.
That isn't really helpful. In the UK (where there are plenty of videos on YouTube of such incidents) I have met several such people and see no reason not to believe their accounts.
You really don't need to read that much history to understand how the peddling of certain views by prominent politicians can legitimise unpleasant actions from a minority of a population.
Piffle - a Muslim lady claimed she had her hijab pulled off by Trumpers - and later said she lied to police. Another woman said Trump raped her at 13yrs old and then confessed it was all made up.
Politically motivated make-believe is endemic.
Don't spoil things, Plato, just when your stock is riding so high.
The fact that a few bandwagon-jumpers have been exposed doesn't nullify what was undoubtedly an unpleasant after-effect of our Brexit vote.
I think scepticism is the right view to take though. The whole "listen, believe" approach is completely discredited, not just for hate crimes either tbh.
That's back to front. Just about any reform could be pushed through *providing* that the name NHS is kept.
On point 2, there has to be political control because there has to be political accountability for the spending of over £100bn pa and the policy choices that come with that.
But we shouldn't be trying to push through necessary changes by pretending we're not doing them, and keeping the name keeps the rallying point. Look at Stafford - a hospital was killing people, subsequent protests in the town weren't against the hospital, they were against the whistleblower and the people trying to stop any more needless deaths happening. "Save our NHS"
On point 2, I probably didn't explain myself properly. There definitely needs to be democratic control of what is spent. The decisions about whether varicose veins, tonsillectomies or 2nd cataract operations are paid for should have more political control than they do now. But there shouldn't be political control of HOW it is spent - whether the patient goes to one hospital, another hospital or a single operation production line should have nothing to do with politicians.
How can you be sure that chucking more money in isn't the solution?
Given that we spend a lower proportion of GDP per capita on healthcare than most other first world countries (especially those offering good healthcare), the obvious conclusion would be that chucking more money in is exactly what we need to do!
I can't, but we've increased spending a lot already and gone from a very cheap mediocre health system to a moderately expensive mediocre health system. More money would clearly help in the short term, but it won't fix it for the longer term. And where is that money coming from?
Farron, whilst contemptible, is indicative that there are still some who want to deny, ignore and reverse the referendum result. Don't be complacent, fellow Brexiteers. We have not left yet.
Is it so unreasonable to ask for a second referendum before the 2-year period of Article 50 expires?
Yes, if the Article 50 notification is irrevocable- which it seems to be.
But is Article 50 really irrevocable?
According to the courts, yes. That was the basis on why the government should not be able to use the royal prerogative to trigger it.
Farron, whilst contemptible, is indicative that there are still some who want to deny, ignore and reverse the referendum result. Don't be complacent, fellow Brexiteers. We have not left yet.
Is it so unreasonable to ask for a second referendum before the 2-year period of Article 50 expires? Then, at least, we'll know what we'd be getting and can offer a proper choice. Imagine that we are heading towards the hardest of Brexits, the economy is faltering badly and many are having second thoughts. Would it really make sense to press on regardless under such circumstances?
Yes. The Government has been told by the voters of the UK to Leave. So it will go get a deal to Leave. We Leave. If the deal we have left upon is shite, the voters can take their revenge and boot the Government out.
Failure to comply with the instructions of the voters would be far worse for democracy in this country. It would most likely result in a rather dodgy Govt. being elected to do the job this one had failed to deliver. Can you imagine a Govt. of 380 UKIP MPs? Is that what you want? Really?
I don't think it's unreasonable or undemocratic to ask the voters to confirm their instructions when it is clearer what the consequences of those instructions will be.
Farron, whilst contemptible, is indicative that there are still some who want to deny, ignore and reverse the referendum result. Don't be complacent, fellow Brexiteers. We have not left yet.
Is it so unreasonable to ask for a second referendum before the 2-year period of Article 50 expires?
Yes, if the Article 50 notification is irrevocable- which it seems to be.
But is Article 50 really irrevocable?
Legally - *shrug*.
Politically - absolutely irrevocable. Because otherwise, it would be an admission that our political class has already wound the UK so tightly into the EU, that it was in practical terms impossible to Leave. Good luck to any politician having to admit that to the voters.
Farron, whilst contemptible, is indicative that there are still some who want to deny, ignore and reverse the referendum result. Don't be complacent, fellow Brexiteers. We have not left yet.
Is it so unreasonable to ask for a second referendum before the 2-year period of Article 50 expires? Then, at least, we'll know what we'd be getting and can offer a proper choice. Imagine that we are heading towards the hardest of Brexits, the economy is faltering badly and many are having second thoughts. Would it really make sense to press on regardless under such circumstances?
Yes. The Government has been told by the voters of the UK to Leave. So it will go get a deal to Leave. We Leave. If the deal we have left upon is shite, the voters can take their revenge and boot the Government out.
Failure to comply with the instructions of the voters would be far worse for democracy in this country. It would most likely result in a rather dodgy Govt. being elected to do the job this one had failed to deliver. Can you imagine a Govt. of 380 UKIP MPs? Is that what you want? Really?
I don't think it's unreasonable or undemocratic to ask the voters to confirm their instructions when it is clearer what the consequences of those instructions will be.
That's fine - as long as the 48% who didn't vote to Leave are excluded from that Referendum. You would have to admit, that would be fair?
Remain had its shot to convince the voters. They blew it. Now they have to sit it out on the sidelines. Or become Rejoiners. Euro and all.
Farron, whilst contemptible, is indicative that there are still some who want to deny, ignore and reverse the referendum result. Don't be complacent, fellow Brexiteers. We have not left yet.
Is it so unreasonable to ask for a second referendum before the 2-year period of Article 50 expires?
Yes, if the Article 50 notification is irrevocable- which it seems to be.
But is Article 50 really irrevocable?
According to the courts, yes. That was the basis on why the government should not be able to use the royal prerogative to trigger it.
The courts didn't express a view. Both sides based their arguments on the basis that it was for their own reasons.
I suppose that one would have to be determined by the ECJ?
Farron, whilst contemptible, is indicative that there are still some who want to deny, ignore and reverse the referendum result. Don't be complacent, fellow Brexiteers. We have not left yet.
Is it so unreasonable to ask for a second referendum before the 2-year period of Article 50 expires?
Yes, if the Article 50 notification is irrevocable- which it seems to be.
But is Article 50 really irrevocable?
According to the courts, yes. That was the basis on why the government should not be able to use the royal prerogative to trigger it.
The courts didn't express a view. Both sides based their arguments on the basis that it was for their own reasons.
I suppose that one would have to be determined by the ECJ?
Farron, whilst contemptible, is indicative that there are still some who want to deny, ignore and reverse the referendum result. Don't be complacent, fellow Brexiteers. We have not left yet.
Is it so unreasonable to ask for a second referendum before the 2-year period of Article 50 expires?
Yes, if the Article 50 notification is irrevocable- which it seems to be.
But is Article 50 really irrevocable?
According to the courts, yes. That was the basis on why the government should not be able to use the royal prerogative to trigger it.
If that really is the case, then no, it wouldn't make sense to have a second referendum. I find it improbable, though, that no way could be found for us to remain in the EU following Article 50 declaration, even if we and the other EU members all desired this.
Number 3 for movement towards the GOP was Iowa (no surprise there), but 4 & 5 were Rhode Island and Maine. Four of top five not midwest.
The GOP is becoming the party of whites. I posted a 2020 strategy based on that idea, Trump has started something the Dems may not be able to stop.
Max, I wrote something to that effect in 2010 here on PB when Carville's book '40 More Years' came out. My point was that, if the ry of that was that, apart from special interest groups and ultra liberals, the white vote would increasingly go to the GOP.
Absolutey. The Dems are reaping what they have sowed by playing the identity politics game. If white voters start to vote as a block for the GOP how do the Dems ever get back into power without alienating their ultra liberal base or theit black and Hispanic base?
Trump lost white college educated women, Romney won them. Unless he effectively ends immigration completely the Hispanic population in the US will also continue to grow even if the rate of growth slows down. If a few more out and increased voteshare in that demographic compared to 2012 which won it for Trump
Even more important is WHERE the growth is. If most of the Hispanic growth is concentrated in uncompetitive states like CA and TX then it won't change anything.
Arizona could go Dem as could even Texas in a decade or two even as the Midwest turns increasingly red, both states saw Trump do worse than Romney did, that would change things significantly
Texas is in play next election.
Certainly, by 2030 Ohio may no longer be a swing state but safe GOP, Texas may no longer be safe GOP but a swing state
& Maine safe GOP !
Maine is now a swing state, as is Arizona and Minnesota. Trump won Ohio by 9%, the same percentage he won Texas. Iowa is no longer a swing state as Trump won there by even more
'I don't think it's unreasonable or undemocratic to ask the voters to confirm their instructions when it is clearer what the consequences of those instructions will be.'
So you would agree that if we had a referendum that approved PR,followed by an election with PR that produced a hung parliament that 48% of voters didn't like, we could then have another referendum to annul the election and revert back to FPTP ?
Maine is now a swing state, as is Arizona and Minnesota. Trump won Ohio by 9%, the same percentage he won Texas. Iowa is no longer a swing state as Trump won there by even more
There's a fascinating thread to be written on the changing face of the swing states as a result of this election - temporary outliers or permanently changed?
EDIT: and how that impacts the choice of future candidates - for both parties.
Farron, whilst contemptible, is indicative that there are still some who want to deny, ignore and reverse the referendum result. Don't be complacent, fellow Brexiteers. We have not left yet.
Is it so unreasonable to ask for a second referendum before the 2-year period of Article 50 expires?
Yes, if the Article 50 notification is irrevocable- which it seems to be.
Article 50 TEU does not set down any substantive conditions for a Member State to be able to exercise its right to withdraw... It provides for the negotiation of a withdrawal agreement between the EU and the withdrawing state, defining in particular the latter's future relationship with the Union. If no agreement is concluded within two years, that state's membership ends automatically, unless the European Council and the Member State concerned decide jointly to extend this period.
Notice how it says 'extend this period' and not 'withdraw the notification'. If the notification wasn't irrevocable, there would be nothing stopping a state withdrawing its notification if the negotiations weren't going its way, then trying again in a year or so- and doing this as many times as it wanted.
Farron, whilst contemptible, is indicative that there are still some who want to deny, ignore and reverse the referendum result. Don't be complacent, fellow Brexiteers. We have not left yet.
Is it so unreasonable to ask for a second referendum before the 2-year period of Article 50 expires? Then, at least, we'll know what we'd be getting and can offer a proper choice. Imagine that we are heading towards the hardest of Brexits, the economy is faltering badly and many are having second thoughts. Would it really make sense to press on regardless under such circumstances?
Yes. The Government has been told by the voters of the UK to Leave. So it will go get a deal to Leave. We Leave. If the deal we have left upon is shite, the voters can take their revenge and boot the Government out.
Failure to comply with the instructions of the voters would be far worse for democracy in this country. It would most likely result in a rather dodgy Govt. being elected to do the job this one had failed to deliver. Can you imagine a Govt. of 380 UKIP MPs? Is that what you want? Really?
I don't think it's unreasonable or undemocratic to ask the voters to confirm their instructions when it is clearer what the consequences of those instructions will be.
If such a referendum were to take place what do you think the question should be?
Ooh Still just under £700 to come in from Laddies on Clinton 0-5% and wrong winner.
Sadly £1455 due OUT to SPIN on the Trump sell
On the bright side, I think we can all agree - you won't need to trouble the "DONATE" button....
Well I quite like SPIN, and its the only bookie I've lost at this election - so I'm quite happy for them to have Ladbrokes, Spreadex and other Betfair punter's money
IBD Editorials The left wants to believe racists elected Trump, but it's upright citizens tired of being called racists that did. https://t.co/Md1bi0JtCn
Maine is now a swing state, as is Arizona and Minnesota. Trump won Ohio by 9%, the same percentage he won Texas. Iowa is no longer a swing state as Trump won there by even more
There's a fascinating thread to be written on the changing face of the swing states as a result of this election - temporary outliers or permanently changed?
EDIT: and how that impacts the choice of future candidates - for both parties.
The biggest shift was in the Midwest and rustbelt to Trump and in the West to Clinton
Farron, whilst contemptible, is indicative that there are still some who want to deny, ignore and reverse the referendum result. Don't be complacent, fellow Brexiteers. We have not left yet.
Is it so unreasonable to ask for a second referendum before the 2-year period of Article 50 expires?
Yes, if the Article 50 notification is irrevocable- which it seems to be.
Article 50 TEU does not set down any substantive conditions for a Member State to be able to exercise its right to withdraw... It provides for the negotiation of a withdrawal agreement between the EU and the withdrawing state, defining in particular the latter's future relationship with the Union. If no agreement is concluded within two years, that state's membership ends automatically, unless the European Council and the Member State concerned decide jointly to extend this period.
Notice how it says 'extend this period' and not 'withdraw the notification'. If the notification wasn't irrevocable, there would be nothing stopping a state withdrawing its notification if the negotiations weren't going its way, then trying again in a year or so- and doing this as many times as it wanted.
If the EU wants to hang onto us, all things are possible. If not, then not.
Farron, whilst contemptible, is indicative that there are still some who want to deny, ignore and reverse the referendum result. Don't be complacent, fellow Brexiteers. We have not left yet.
Is it so unreasonable to ask for a second referendum before the 2-year period of Article 50 expires?
Yes, if the Article 50 notification is irrevocable- which it seems to be.
But is Article 50 really irrevocable?
Up to the European Courts, I would imagine - certainly both parties in the recent court case here seemed to believe it was.
"Have a look at this for a good laugh, Pennsylvania.
The result outside the MoE of EVERY single poll. "
Nope, Trafalgar Group - Clinton 47% actual 47.6%, Trump 48% actual 48.8%, Gary's Johnson 2% actual 2.4%, Crazy Plant Lady 1% actual 0.8%. The MoE on that one was 2.68%.
Harper Polling had 46/46/2/1 on a MoE of 4.4%, so that was perfectly ok too.
Comments
But the government should be accountable for how it distributes that welfare budget.
'Is it so unreasonable to ask for a second referendum before the 2-year period of Article 50 expires?'
A pity we were not warned before we voted on 23 June that if the elite didn't like the result it would overturn the result,at least we would have known that the entire exercise was a sham.
If we ever get another referendum on voting reform and PR is approved, we can relax in the knowledge it can be ignored and overturned.
What goes around comes around !
The fact that a few bandwagon-jumpers have been exposed doesn't nullify what was undoubtedly an unpleasant after-effect of our Brexit vote.
Minnesota, New Hampshire both saved me £210.
Failure to comply with the instructions of the voters would be far worse for democracy in this country. It would most likely result in a rather dodgy Govt. being elected to do the job this one had failed to deliver. Can you imagine a Govt. of 380 UKIP MPs? Is that what you want? Really?
Personally, I think it's immensely creepy - and deliberately designed to suck wannabes into something quite vile to show their commitment/blackmail opportunity.
On point 2, I probably didn't explain myself properly. There definitely needs to be democratic control of what is spent. The decisions about whether varicose veins, tonsillectomies or 2nd cataract operations are paid for should have more political control than they do now. But there shouldn't be political control of HOW it is spent - whether the patient goes to one hospital, another hospital or a single operation production line should have nothing to do with politicians. I can't, but we've increased spending a lot already and gone from a very cheap mediocre health system to a moderately expensive mediocre health system. More money would clearly help in the short term, but it won't fix it for the longer term. And where is that money coming from?
Politically - absolutely irrevocable. Because otherwise, it would be an admission that our political class has already wound the UK so tightly into the EU, that it was in practical terms impossible to Leave. Good luck to any politician having to admit that to the voters.
Remain had its shot to convince the voters. They blew it. Now they have to sit it out on the sidelines. Or become Rejoiners. Euro and all.
I suppose that one would have to be determined by the ECJ?
'I don't think it's unreasonable or undemocratic to ask the voters to confirm their instructions when it is clearer what the consequences of those instructions will be.'
So you would agree that if we had a referendum that approved PR,followed by an election with PR that produced a hung parliament that 48% of voters didn't like, we could then have another referendum to annul the election and revert back to FPTP ?
EDIT: and how that impacts the choice of future candidates - for both parties.
Article 50 TEU does not set down any substantive conditions for a Member State to be able to exercise its right to withdraw... It provides for the negotiation of a withdrawal agreement between the EU and the withdrawing state, defining in particular the latter's future
relationship with the Union. If no agreement is concluded within two years, that state's membership ends automatically, unless the European Council and the Member State concerned decide jointly to extend this period.
Notice how it says 'extend this period' and not 'withdraw the notification'. If the notification wasn't irrevocable, there would be nothing stopping a state withdrawing its notification if the negotiations weren't going its way, then trying again in a year or so- and doing this as many times as it wanted.
The left wants to believe racists elected Trump, but it's upright citizens tired of being called racists that did. https://t.co/Md1bi0JtCn
Arizona has just called:
Trump: 1,016,877 - 49%
Clinton: 933,442 - 45%
20 year winning streak for Republicans in the state of Arizona.
The result outside the MoE of EVERY single poll.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2016#Pennsylvania
Charlie Kirk
#TrumpRiot people say Trump hates blacks gays & women
Thiel running Trump transition - gay
Carson to serve - black
Conway won - woman https://t.co/GPmQcP5ZDn
Fox
A journalist has called for a 'presidential assassination' https://t.co/NHn6XEkTs9
The result outside the MoE of EVERY single poll.
"
Nope, Trafalgar Group - Clinton 47% actual 47.6%, Trump 48% actual 48.8%, Gary's Johnson 2% actual 2.4%, Crazy Plant Lady 1% actual 0.8%. The MoE on that one was 2.68%.
Harper Polling had 46/46/2/1 on a MoE of 4.4%, so that was perfectly ok too.