I don't think May is nasty at all. I think she is what it says on the tin, a parochial daughter of a clergyman who possesses conservative instincts. I think Cameron and Osborne were not particularly nice, both arrogant public school bores.
I think May shares a number of traits with Gordon Brown though, both children of clergy....over thinking, indecision, control freakery and not being comfortable in their own skin. I think both are fundamentally good people though, people I would trust and personally warm to if I knew them.
Presumably under the Corbynite mindset, where failed institutions are taken into state ownership, the Labour party would be a candidate??
Surely replacing leaders would be the natural first step.
The evident vanity and stubbornness of this man in the face of national interest is, quite frankly, ugly.
Do you think JC should be (a) arrested, (b) jailed or (c) shot out of hand?
And would you like absolute power and eternal life, too?
No, his party should find some gumption. He could cease to be leader of the opposition by lunchtime if enough of Labour split and founded a different party.
Ha, ha - why on earth would a Tory wish for a split that, thanks to FPTP, would see both the rump Labour party and the new party almost entirely wiped out at the next general election?
Presumably under the Corbynite mindset, where failed institutions are taken into state ownership, the Labour party would be a candidate??
Surely replacing leaders would be the natural first step.
The evident vanity and stubbornness of this man in the face of national interest is, quite frankly, ugly.
Do you think JC should be (a) arrested, (b) jailed or (c) shot out of hand?
And would you like absolute power and eternal life, too?
No, his party should find some gumption. He could cease to be leader of the opposition by lunchtime if enough of Labour split and founded a different party.
Ha, ha - why on earth would a Tory wish for a split that, thanks to FPTP, would see both the rump Labour party and the new party almost entirely wiped out at the next general election?
So keen to view the motives of those with whom you disagree through partisan glasses - we'll all be better off if Corbyn is replaced.
Public service is not about winning, it is about doing the best for people. Incidentally the reason why I turned against Osborne...
Mr. Root, yet GP numbers are low and declining. I agree Alan Johnson's negotiation was more capitulation, but despite that there's a need for more GPs. Also, in small practices of one or two doctors, expecting a seven day service is not reasonable.
Lastly, public sentiment is naturally inclined towards doctors.
Mr. Observer, on some things. But she was spot on, and still is, on rights for British citizens in the EU needing to be considered alongside EU citizens in the UK.
Small practices can band together to provide that sort of service. It's not good enough to simply shut up shop at 5 (or 1.30 or whenever) on a Friday and leave care to the local hospitals. Primary care should be seen as an integral part of the NHS and treated as such.
That is pretty much what happens now. Out-of-hours cover is arranged on a group basis or subcontracted to private companies who chauffeur doctors around at night.
Mr. Root, yet GP numbers are low and declining. I agree Alan Johnson's negotiation was more capitulation, but despite that there's a need for more GPs. Also, in small practices of one or two doctors, expecting a seven day service is not reasonable.
Lastly, public sentiment is naturally inclined towards doctors.
Mr. Observer, on some things. But she was spot on, and still is, on rights for British citizens in the EU needing to be considered alongside EU citizens in the UK.
Small practices can band together to provide that sort of service. It's not good enough to simply shut up shop at 5 (or 1.30 or whenever) on a Friday and leave care to the local hospitals. Primary care should be seen as an integral part of the NHS and treated as such.
That is pretty much what happens now. Out-of-hours cover is arranged on a group basis or subcontracted to private companies who chauffeur doctors around at night.
Obviously not working, though, is it.
When Mum was badly ill and needed to see a doctor for a prescription a few years ago she was told she could have an OOH appointment. It was 25 miles away. Oh, and no, the Doctor wouldn't be able to come to her. Or even speak on the phone. Useless.
The basic NHS problem is that we have more old people than ever before. Social care, including care homes, has to be an integrated part of the solution. We also need politicians grown-up enough to put down tribal differences and to work on a long-term strategy for the NHS that might involve some unpalatable truths for all - higher taxes, some point of use charges, for example. It will, of course, never happen.
Why point of use charges? The evidence is pretty clear that they are a dreadful idea...
We don't spend much on health compared to other wealthy countries and so actually get a great deal from the NHS. If we want a world class health service we should be prepared to pay for it.
I think some point of use charges would help smooth the wheels so to speak and make people think twice about using services needlessly.
I also think there needs to be a fundamental shift from the GP to personal responsibility......ie if you do a routine blood test, you should pay for it, collect the results and take them to the GP. This is what Italians do and their health outcomes are the second best in the world.
Also, the Italian ambulance system is staffed mostly by volunteers....a real example of Cameron's big society
David Herdson effectively writing off Copeland for the Tories ! He is right. Labour, most likely, will choose a copy of Jamie Reed as their candidate but probably with lukewarm Brexit credentials.
The Liberals [ the Remainers ] could win both ! The wind is in their sails.
The basic NHS problem is that we have more old people than ever before. Social care, including care homes, has to be an integrated part of the solution. We also need politicians grown-up enough to put down tribal differences and to work on a long-term strategy for the NHS that might involve some unpalatable truths for all - higher taxes, some point of use charges, for example. It will, of course, never happen.
Why point of use charges? The evidence is pretty clear that they are a dreadful idea...
We don't spend much on health compared to other wealthy countries and so actually get a great deal from the NHS. If we want a world class health service we should be prepared to pay for it.
The benefit of point-of-use charges is that lefties wouldn't be able to afford them & so would die off younger (altho' not young enough for Tory Peebies, heigh-ho...)
Just heard Corbyn's USSR style take over of nursing homes. His answer to everything is take into state ownership. He is a dinosaur.
I don't follow politics that closely so I must have missed this. I am not a Marxist Lenninist but I don't think that private nursing homes are much of an advert for capitalism and it might be very sensible to have end of life care as part of the overall social system.
The basic NHS problem is that we have more old people than ever before. Social care, including care homes, has to be an integrated part of the solution. We also need politicians grown-up enough to put down tribal differences and to work on a long-term strategy for the NHS that might involve some unpalatable truths for all - higher taxes, some point of use charges, for example. It will, of course, never happen.
Or we can change Government policy and encourage smoking and drinking. Think of the increased revenue to handle those fewer people who reach 80+.
Presumably under the Corbynite mindset, where failed institutions are taken into state ownership, the Labour party would be a candidate??
Surely replacing leaders would be the natural first step.
The evident vanity and stubbornness of this man in the face of national interest is, quite frankly, ugly.
Do you think JC should be (a) arrested, (b) jailed or (c) shot out of hand?
And would you like absolute power and eternal life, too?
No, his party should find some gumption. He could cease to be leader of the opposition by lunchtime if enough of Labour split and founded a different party.
Ha, ha - why on earth would a Tory wish for a split that, thanks to FPTP, would see both the rump Labour party and the new party almost entirely wiped out at the next general election?
It depends on whether Labour is salvageable or not. I happen to think it is, so the right of the party just need to hold out for better times. Sense will return.
But if it's not. If the left has a new and permanent majority meaning that it's unelectable for decades, then a different solution would be needed. That solution is to reverse the changes of the interwar realignment and for the bulk of MPs to transfer back to the Liberals, leaving the country with what it had pre-WWI: a Tory Party and a Liberal Party competing for government, with a small Labour party on the far left and a bunch of nationalists playing games.
Presumably under the Corbynite mindset, where failed institutions are taken into state ownership, the Labour party would be a candidate??
Surely replacing leaders would be the natural first step.
The evident vanity and stubbornness of this man in the face of national interest is, quite frankly, ugly.
Do you think JC should be (a) arrested, (b) jailed or (c) shot out of hand?
And would you like absolute power and eternal life, too?
No, his party should find some gumption. He could cease to be leader of the opposition by lunchtime if enough of Labour split and founded a different party.
Ha, ha - why on earth would a Tory wish for a split that, thanks to FPTP, would see both the rump Labour party and the new party almost entirely wiped out at the next general election?
So keen to view the motives of those with whom you disagree through partisan glasses - we'll all be better off if Corbyn is replaced.
Public service is not about winning, it is about doing the best for people. Incidentally the reason why I turned against Osborne...
I was merely pointing out what would happen at the next general election if Labour split. Replacing Corbyn is, indeed, what the country as a whole needs. But thanks to our electoral system that will have to be as the result of him losing the Labour leadership.
Without the possibility of power it is very hard for a political party to serve the public because it can be ignored. Just as Labour under Corbyn is being ignored.
Sky seem to be getting considerable support for Theresa May's stance re GP surgeries
I'm sure Corbyn's policies to nationalise would get positive coverage too....
But unworkable, impractical policies are just that....unworkable and impractical. It is clear that May is simply playing the Gordon Brown hamfisted media manipulation card to distract from the real issues......
Presumably under the Corbynite mindset, where failed institutions are taken into state ownership, the Labour party would be a candidate??
Surely replacing leaders would be the natural first step.
The evident vanity and stubbornness of this man in the face of national interest is, quite frankly, ugly.
Do you think JC should be (a) arrested, (b) jailed or (c) shot out of hand?
And would you like absolute power and eternal life, too?
No, his party should find some gumption. He could cease to be leader of the opposition by lunchtime if enough of Labour split and founded a different party.
Ha, ha - why on earth would a Tory wish for a split that, thanks to FPTP, would see both the rump Labour party and the new party almost entirely wiped out at the next general election?
It depends on whether Labour is salvageable or not. I happen to think it is, so the right of the party just need to hold out for better times. Sense will return.
But if it's not. If the left has a new and permanent majority meaning that it's unelectable for decades, then a different solution would be needed. That solution is to reverse the changes of the interwar realignment and for the bulk of MPs to transfer back to the Liberals, leaving the country with what it had pre-WWI: a Tory Party and a Liberal Party competing for government, with a small Labour party on the far left and a bunch of nationalists playing games.
Yep, I largely agree. A split before the next GE would be the worst possible thing to do. Afterwards, it may well be different; though I am not sure the LDs would welcome a reverse takeover!
“No one will be attending,” Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks said in a statement to Bloomberg.
A senior member of Trump’s transition team said the president-elect thought it would betray his populist-fueled movement to have a presence at the gathering in the Swiss Alps.
Just heard Corbyn's USSR style take over of nursing homes. His answer to everything is take into state ownership. He is a dinosaur.
I don't follow politics that closely so I must have missed this. I am not a Marxist Lenninist but I don't think that private nursing homes are much of an advert for capitalism and it might be very sensible to have end of life care as part of the overall social system.
They are losing millions as a sector made worse by the rising national living wage. Taking them over is not the answer as you take over the loses.
However end of life care as part of the system is an aspiration but at £40,000 + per annum per person cannot just be paid for by taxes. It is hugely complex and needs the parties to get together and come to a consensus
“No one will be attending,” Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks said in a statement to Bloomberg.
A senior member of Trump’s transition team said the president-elect thought it would betray his populist-fueled movement to have a presence at the gathering in the Swiss Alps.
Some of the posts here seem to assume we're in the midsts of a third party surge of the sort we saw briefly in the early 1980s, when the third party vote rose almost everywhere and pretty much regardless of what the party did or didn't do by way of campaigning.
It isn't impossible, as Labour strives to become ever more irrelevant, that we might reach such a point - and a truly sensational by-election win somewhere unexpected could very well be the trigger.
But right now I suggest a more nuanced assessment of LibDem performance is appropriate - some of the local by-election results are sensational and many are pretty good, but many also remain abysmal, and more so than the party would have recorded before 2010.
My sense is that the current political environment - a government increasingly tied to Brexit and an opposition in crisis, all overlaid with a generous helping of disaffection, does present the LibDems with significant opportunities, but only where, allied with local circumstances, the party is able to make something of them. The politics of Stoke have tended towards a battle between moribund Labour and various flavours of right wing nationalism, and in Copeland are dominated by the nuclear issue, and in neither case do I see an obvious opening for the LibDems. In terms of 'coming through the middle' Stoke might appear to be the better bet, given the state of Labour, but the recent profiles of Stoke from John Harris and others don't exactly paint a picture of an area hungry for Liberalism to be thrust upon it. Personally I would see even a good second place in either by-election as a long shot.
Presumably under the Corbynite mindset, where failed institutions are taken into state ownership, the Labour party would be a candidate??
Surely replacing leaders would be the natural first step.
The evident vanity and stubbornness of this man in the face of national interest is, quite frankly, ugly.
Do you think JC should be (a) arrested, (b) jailed or (c) shot out of hand?
And would you like absolute power and eternal life, too?
No, his party should find some gumption. He could cease to be leader of the opposition by lunchtime if enough of Labour split and founded a different party.
Ha, ha - why on earth would a Tory wish for a split that, thanks to FPTP, would see both the rump Labour party and the new party almost entirely wiped out at the next general election?
It depends on whether Labour is salvageable or not. I happen to think it is, so the right of the party just need to hold out for better times. Sense will return.
But if it's not. If the left has a new and permanent majority meaning that it's unelectable for decades, then a different solution would be needed. That solution is to reverse the changes of the interwar realignment and for the bulk of MPs to transfer back to the Liberals, leaving the country with what it had pre-WWI: a Tory Party and a Liberal Party competing for government, with a small Labour party on the far left and a bunch of nationalists playing games.
Yep, I largely agree. A split before the next GE would be the worst possible thing to do. Afterwards, it may well be different; though I am not sure the LDs would welcome a reverse takeover!
The point of the Labour Parliamentary Party was to create a movement, funded essentially by the unions, capable of becoming a government. Moderation was key. I don't think Corbyn for all his supposed principles has the slightest idea of what the Parliamentary Labour party's objectives should be.
Just heard Corbyn's USSR style take over of nursing homes. His answer to everything is take into state ownership. He is a dinosaur.
I don't follow politics that closely so I must have missed this. I am not a Marxist Lenninist but I don't think that private nursing homes are much of an advert for capitalism and it might be very sensible to have end of life care as part of the overall social system.
How much would you be prepared to pay for that?
Some nursing homes are excellent, some are criminally poor, most are somewhere in between. But even in the private sector, they're expensive: £40k pa or more is the average for a resident. It'd be more in the public sector.
There does need to be better integration but if a private provider is prepared to deliver the service to an acceptable standard, why shouldn't they be able to do so?
Just heard Corbyn's USSR style take over of nursing homes. His answer to everything is take into state ownership. He is a dinosaur.
I don't follow politics that closely so I must have missed this. I am not a Marxist Lenninist but I don't think that private nursing homes are much of an advert for capitalism and it might be very sensible to have end of life care as part of the overall social system.
How much would you be prepared to pay for that?
Some nursing homes are excellent, some are criminally poor, most are somewhere in between. But even in the private sector, they're expensive: £40k pa or more is the average for a resident. It'd be more in the public sector.
There does need to be better integration but if a private provider is prepared to deliver the service to an acceptable standard, why shouldn't they be able to do so?
How will the Care Homes cope after Brexit when they lose access to Eastern European staff, predominately educated younger women, who are willing to wipe the arses of our increasingly ageing population for minimum wage?
However end of life care as part of the system is an aspiration but at £40,000 + per annum per person cannot just be paid for by taxes. It is hugely complex and needs the parties to get together and come to a consensus
It needs people that are able to, to make contributions to a fund to support their end of life care through their life, topped up by the government if the can't afford it. It needs everyone to pay something, so that people value it, or people making no contribution will feel no disincentive to take the piss.
The tricky bit in our system is stopping the government of the day raiding that fund at the first scent of fiscal gunpowder to bail out the problem du jour.
Mr. Root, yet GP numbers are low and declining. I agree Alan Johnson's negotiation was more capitulation, but despite that there's a need for more GPs. Also, in small practices of one or two doctors, expecting a seven day service is not reasonable.
Lastly, public sentiment is naturally inclined towards doctors.
Mr. Observer, on some things. But she was spot on, and still is, on rights for British citizens in the EU needing to be considered alongside EU citizens in the UK.
Small practices can band together to provide that sort of service. It's not good enough to simply shut up shop at 5 (or 1.30 or whenever) on a Friday and leave care to the local hospitals. Primary care should be seen as an integral part of the NHS and treated as such.
That is pretty much what happens now. Out-of-hours cover is arranged on a group basis or subcontracted to private companies who chauffeur doctors around at night.
Obviously not working, though, is it.
When Mum was badly ill and needed to see a doctor for a prescription a few years ago she was told she could have an OOH appointment. It was 25 miles away. Oh, and no, the Doctor wouldn't be able to come to her. Or even speak on the phone. Useless.
Yes that was a great idea , pay GP's ashedload more to only work 9-5 Mon-Fri and then pay someone else an arm and a leg to do the hours they used to work. It is criminal what the NHS gets away with. Ther eshould be local GP centres with either 24 hour access or GP callout. 50 years ago you could get a GP if really needed at any hour of the day, yet now with loads more of them on huge salaries they expect to work 9-5. GP's and teacher's the only cushy numbers left where you have more time off than you do working.
The EU’s chief negotiator in the Brexit talks has shown the first signs of backing away from his hardline, no-compromise approach after admitting he wants a deal with Britain that will guarantee the other 27 member states continued easy access to the City.
Michel Barnier wants a “special” relationship with the City of London after Britain has left the bloc, according to unpublished minutes seen by the Guardian that hint at unease about the costs of Brexit on continental Europe.
Just heard Corbyn's USSR style take over of nursing homes. His answer to everything is take into state ownership. He is a dinosaur.
I don't follow politics that closely so I must have missed this. I am not a Marxist Lenninist but I don't think that private nursing homes are much of an advert for capitalism and it might be very sensible to have end of life care as part of the overall social system.
How much would you be prepared to pay for that?
Some nursing homes are excellent, some are criminally poor, most are somewhere in between. But even in the private sector, they're expensive: £40k pa or more is the average for a resident. It'd be more in the public sector.
There does need to be better integration but if a private provider is prepared to deliver the service to an acceptable standard, why shouldn't they be able to do so?
How will the Care Homes cope after Brexit when they lose access to Eastern European staff, predominately educated younger women, who are willing to wipe the arses of our increasingly ageing population for minimum wage?
Because they won't. Nothing about BrExit prevents the government giving out visas to whoever for whatever purpose, providing it can justify that to the electorate.
Presumably under the Corbynite mindset, where failed institutions are taken into state ownership, the Labour party would be a candidate??
Surely replacing leaders would be the natural first step.
The evident vanity and stubbornness of this man in the face of national interest is, quite frankly, ugly.
Do you think JC should be (a) arrested, (b) jailed or (c) shot out of hand?
And would you like absolute power and eternal life, too?
No, his party should find some gumption. He could cease to be leader of the opposition by lunchtime if enough of Labour split and founded a different party.
Ha, ha - why on earth would a Tory wish for a split that, thanks to FPTP, would see both the rump Labour party and the new party almost entirely wiped out at the next general election?
It depends on whether Labour is salvageable or not. I happen to think it is, so the right of the party just need to hold out for better times. Sense will return.
But if it's not. If the left has a new and permanent majority meaning that it's unelectable for decades, then a different solution would be needed. That solution is to reverse the changes of the interwar realignment and for the bulk of MPs to transfer back to the Liberals, leaving the country with what it had pre-WWI: a Tory Party and a Liberal Party competing for government, with a small Labour party on the far left and a bunch of nationalists playing games.
I think that the focus on Corbyn personally, and Labour's internal battle, tends to obscure the more fundamental challenges that the party faces. After all, whilst personalities played a part in the Liberals' decline (Lloyd George v Asquith), at base a new class-based divide was emerging in British politics and the Liberals, stuck in the middle, were unable to be the champion of either side, in a system that pretty much forces two geographically-based potential governments.
The parallels with Labour's current problems are pretty obvious and already well discussed. The question is whether it would be possible for the LibDems to build a broad enough coalition around the 'open liberal society', in opposition to the conservative one, to become a principal contender.
The basic NHS problem is that we have more old people than ever before. Social care, including care homes, has to be an integrated part of the solution. We also need politicians grown-up enough to put down tribal differences and to work on a long-term strategy for the NHS that might involve some unpalatable truths for all - higher taxes, some point of use charges, for example. It will, of course, never happen.
Why point of use charges? The evidence is pretty clear that they are a dreadful idea...
We don't spend much on health compared to other wealthy countries and so actually get a great deal from the NHS. If we want a world class health service we should be prepared to pay for it.
And yet many countries in Europe already have point of use services [with some degree of later claimback and you simply don't see these recurring crisis stories as here. There are two important issues:
1. The NHS is very good overall but it is not the envy of the rest of the world and many countries do healthcare much better.
2. The NHS is highly politicized and has an interest in generating repeated crisis stories as a means of securing more funding and little real reform.
Overall it is very sad as there seems little real interest in being grown up about it's problems and a quite ridiculous tendency to sanctify health workers to a level way beyond Mother Theresa !
However end of life care as part of the system is an aspiration but at £40,000 + per annum per person cannot just be paid for by taxes. It is hugely complex and needs the parties to get together and come to a consensus
It needs people that are able to, to make contributions to a fund to support their end of life care through their life, topped up by the government if the can't afford it. It needs everyone to pay something, so that people value it, or people making no contribution will feel no disincentive to take the piss.
The tricky bit in our system is stopping the government of the day raiding that fund at the first scent of fiscal gunpowder to bail out the problem du jour.
Fascinating to see David, a Conservative activist, opining at length about the LDs and others asserting how (apparently) we are going to win both Stoke and Copeland.
Curious because little or nothing has been said about the Party who on paper ought to be the big challengers in both seats - the Conservatives. We are told ad nauseam how popular May's Government is, how Labour are unelectable, how UKIP are a busted flush and how the LDs are irrelevant.
Surely, on that basis, the Conservatives should be favourites to win BOTH seats and yet we hear next to nothing from the various Conservative activists on here about how their party is going to win yet they talk up the prospects of other parties.
So why can't the Conservatives win BOTH Copeland and Stoke with their double figure opinion poll leads ?They start a close second in one and a good third in the other and seem on paper a much more likely prospect than a party which lost its deposit in both contests last time.
The failure of the Conservatives to win either seat would be far more significant than the failure of the LDs to win either seat though no one seems willing to say that (except me).
The EU’s chief negotiator in the Brexit talks has shown the first signs of backing away from his hardline, no-compromise approach after admitting he wants a deal with Britain that will guarantee the other 27 member states continued easy access to the City.
Michel Barnier wants a “special” relationship with the City of London after Britain has left the bloc, according to unpublished minutes seen by the Guardian that hint at unease about the costs of Brexit on continental Europe.
Yep, I posted downthread. It's a hopeful sign that a deal might be doable. May will need to upset the swivel-eyed Brexiteers, though, as it will involve some concessions on both sides: financial services subject to European law, for example.
Sky seem to be getting considerable support for Theresa May's stance re GP surgeries
Obviously, it would. So there will be less coverage during days ? Or, are we asking GPs to work 7-days a week ?
Every other business manages to provide 7 day cover, you can get your TV or washing machine done no bother. It should not be beyond the wit of teh NHS to merge centres and provide a shift cover. The GP's get paid plenty, you never se a poor one. My surgery is open 9-5 Mon - Fri and closes for 1.5 hours for lunch, that is a pathetic service.
The current crisis is a huge problem, but what annoys me about the MSM coverage, is that it is going on in Wales and Scotland and it is a UK wide problem but the target is always England.
Yea, that's right, the media in Scotland never mentions any problems with the Scottish NHS.
The current crisis is a huge problem, but what annoys me about the MSM coverage, is that it is going on in Wales and Scotland and it is a UK wide problem but the target is always England.
Yea, that's right, the media in Scotland never mentions any problems with the Scottish NHS.
The Scot media will of course talk about it but the UK media only refer to English problems
Presumably under the Corbynite mindset, where failed institutions are taken into state ownership, the Labour party would be a candidate??
Surely replacing leaders would be the natural first step.
The evident vanity and stubbornness of this man in the face of national interest is, quite frankly, ugly.
Do you think JC should be (a) arrested, (b) jailed or (c) shot out of hand?
And would you like absolute power and eternal life, too?
No, his party should find some gumption. He could cease to be leader of the opposition by lunchtime if enough of Labour split and founded a different party.
Ha, ha - why on earth would a Tory wish for a split that, thanks to FPTP, would see both the rump Labour party and the new party almost entirely wiped out at the next general election?
It depends on whether Labour is salvageable or not. I happen to think it is, so the right of the party just need to hold out for better times. Sense will return.
But if it's not. If the left has a new and permanent majority meaning that it's unelectable for decades, then a different solution would be needed. That solution is to reverse the changes of the interwar realignment and for the bulk of MPs to transfer back to the Liberals, leaving the country with what it had pre-WWI: a Tory Party and a Liberal Party competing for government, with a small Labour party on the far left and a bunch of nationalists playing games.
Yep, I largely agree. A split before the next GE would be the worst possible thing to do. Afterwards, it may well be different; though I am not sure the LDs would welcome a reverse takeover!
There are two problems for the 'moderate' elements in playing wait and see, though. First, the longer they sit on their hands, the more they risk lasting reputational damage by association with Corbynism. Second, and more importantly, so many of them may be purged - through a combination of deselection battles (rumours have started circulating in the media re: Hilary Benn already,) followed by a rude encounter with the voters - that there might not be much of a centre-left surviving to walk out of Labour after 2020.
The current crisis is a huge problem, but what annoys me about the MSM coverage, is that it is going on in Wales and Scotland and it is a UK wide problem but the target is always England.
Yea, that's right, the media in Scotland never mentions any problems with the Scottish NHS.
Big surprise English media complain about English NHS. Include the fact that they think it is the only NHS. Now we have usual English whinging that they have not added ScotlandBAD as they do on every other topic.
The current crisis is a huge problem, but what annoys me about the MSM coverage, is that it is going on in Wales and Scotland and it is a UK wide problem but the target is always England.
Yea, that's right, the media in Scotland never mentions any problems with the Scottish NHS.
The Scot media will of course talk about it but the UK media only refer to English problems
I think you mean the English media, you are confusing English media with UK media. We get crappy supposed Scottish versions of the English media, no such thing as UK media
The basic NHS problem is that we have more old people than ever before. Social care, including care homes, has to be an integrated part of the solution. We also need politicians grown-up enough to put down tribal differences and to work on a long-term strategy for the NHS that might involve some unpalatable truths for all - higher taxes, some point of use charges, for example. It will, of course, never happen.
Why point of use charges? The evidence is pretty clear that they are a dreadful idea...
We don't spend much on health compared to other wealthy countries and so actually get a great deal from the NHS. If we want a world class health service we should be prepared to pay for it.
I think some point of use charges would help smooth the wheels so to speak and make people think twice about using services needlessly.
I also think there needs to be a fundamental shift from the GP to personal responsibility......ie if you do a routine blood test, you should pay for it, collect the results and take them to the GP. This is what Italians do and their health outcomes are the second best in the world.
Also, the Italian ambulance system is staffed mostly by volunteers....a real example of Cameron's big society
Fascinating that Italian ambulance service is volunteers...
User charges reduce necessary care just as much as they reduce unnecessary care.
And they particularly hit the poor and cause them to consume fewer health services.
The current crisis is a huge problem, but what annoys me about the MSM coverage, is that it is going on in Wales and Scotland and it is a UK wide problem but the target is always England.
Yea, that's right, the media in Scotland never mentions any problems with the Scottish NHS.
Big surprise English media complain about English NHS. Include the fact that they think it is the only NHS. Now we have usual English whinging that they have not added ScotlandBAD as they do on every other topic.
English whinging - in my case it is the Welsh whinging as Wales is far worse than England's NHS
Just heard Corbyn's USSR style take over of nursing homes. His answer to everything is take into state ownership. He is a dinosaur.
I don't follow politics that closely so I must have missed this. I am not a Marxist Lenninist but I don't think that private nursing homes are much of an advert for capitalism and it might be very sensible to have end of life care as part of the overall social system.
How much would you be prepared to pay for that?
Some nursing homes are excellent, some are criminally poor, most are somewhere in between. But even in the private sector, they're expensive: £40k pa or more is the average for a resident. It'd be more in the public sector.
There does need to be better integration but if a private provider is prepared to deliver the service to an acceptable standard, why shouldn't they be able to do so?
How will the Care Homes cope after Brexit when they lose access to Eastern European staff, predominately educated younger women, who are willing to wipe the arses of our increasingly ageing population for minimum wage?
The Tory/Brexiteer's dilemma. How do you retain your reputation for running a reasonably well ordered economy with your antipathy to foreigners? Very well summed up in tyson's typically pithy post.
Just heard Corbyn's USSR style take over of nursing homes. His answer to everything is take into state ownership. He is a dinosaur.
I don't follow politics that closely so I must have missed this. I am not a Marxist Lenninist but I don't think that private nursing homes are much of an advert for capitalism and it might be very sensible to have end of life care as part of the overall social system.
How much would you be prepared to pay for that?
Some nursing homes are excellent, some are criminally poor, most are somewhere in between. But even in the private sector, they're expensive: £40k pa or more is the average for a resident. It'd be more in the public sector.
There does need to be better integration but if a private provider is prepared to deliver the service to an acceptable standard, why shouldn't they be able to do so?
How will the Care Homes cope after Brexit when they lose access to Eastern European staff, predominately educated younger women, who are willing to wipe the arses of our increasingly ageing population for minimum wage?
The Tory/Brexiteer's dilemma. How do you retain your reputation for running a reasonably well ordered economy with your antipathy to foreigners? Very well summed up in tyson's typically pithy post.
and your ignorance.. how do you think we get all those nice Filipino nurses at the moment ?
Just heard Corbyn's USSR style take over of nursing homes. His answer to everything is take into state ownership. He is a dinosaur.
I don't follow politics that closely so I must have missed this. I am not a Marxist Lenninist but I don't think that private nursing homes are much of an advert for capitalism and it might be very sensible to have end of life care as part of the overall social system.
How much would you be prepared to pay for that?
Some nursing homes are excellent, some are criminally poor, most are somewhere in between. But even in the private sector, they're expensive: £40k pa or more is the average for a resident. It'd be more in the public sector.
There does need to be better integration but if a private provider is prepared to deliver the service to an acceptable standard, why shouldn't they be able to do so?
How will the Care Homes cope after Brexit when they lose access to Eastern European staff, predominately educated younger women, who are willing to wipe the arses of our increasingly ageing population for minimum wage?
The Tory/Brexiteer's dilemma. How do you retain your reputation for running a reasonably well ordered economy with your antipathy to foreigners? Very well summed up in tyson's typically pithy post.
Interesting that Remoaners like yourselves seem to think the economy can only be run well with low wages and importing more people willing to work on low wages.
The basic NHS problem is that we have more old people than ever before. Social care, including care homes, has to be an integrated part of the solution. We also need politicians grown-up enough to put down tribal differences and to work on a long-term strategy for the NHS that might involve some unpalatable truths for all - higher taxes, some point of use charges, for example. It will, of course, never happen.
Why point of use charges? The evidence is pretty clear that they are a dreadful idea...
We don't spend much on health compared to other wealthy countries and so actually get a great deal from the NHS. If we want a world class health service we should be prepared to pay for it.
I think some point of use charges would help smooth the wheels so to speak and make people think twice about using services needlessly.
I also think there needs to be a fundamental shift from the GP to personal responsibility......ie if you do a routine blood test, you should pay for it, collect the results and take them to the GP. This is what Italians do and their health outcomes are the second best in the world.
Also, the Italian ambulance system is staffed mostly by volunteers....a real example of Cameron's big society
Fascinating that Italian ambulance service is volunteers...
User charges reduce necessary care just as much as they reduce unnecessary care.
And they particularly hit the poor and cause them to consume fewer health services.
Anything free is not appreciated or valued and lots of morons will just abuse it and care not a jot about the cost. You see same thing where they get free houses , you can normally tell them by the pile of rubbish in front garden in most cases. Give things away free and most people will not value or respect them and jsut expect more and more freebies. There are of course some exceptions but not in general. Add in the self serving monster that is the NHS and you have the failing moneypit we have now.
Just heard Corbyn's USSR style take over of nursing homes. His answer to everything is take into state ownership. He is a dinosaur.
I don't follow politics that closely so I must have missed this. I am not a Marxist Lenninist but I don't think that private nursing homes are much of an advert for capitalism and it might be very sensible to have end of life care as part of the overall social system.
How much would you be prepared to pay for that?
Some nursing homes are excellent, some are criminally poor, most are somewhere in between. But even in the private sector, they're expensive: £40k pa or more is the average for a resident. It'd be more in the public sector.
There does need to be better integration but if a private provider is prepared to deliver the service to an acceptable standard, why shouldn't they be able to do so?
How will the Care Homes cope after Brexit when they lose access to Eastern European staff, predominately educated younger women, who are willing to wipe the arses of our increasingly ageing population for minimum wage?
Because they won't. Nothing about BrExit prevents the government giving out visas to whoever for whatever purpose, providing it can justify that to the electorate.
Tell me how that works for a small family run. Care Home?
Have you tried sorting out work permits for non EU staff? Cumbersome, bureaucratic, and problematic...and that was when I had access to a professional HR dept.
As a Care Home Provider you'd want to see potential staff in the eye before appointing. Justifying in the first instance why we haven't a local British national with the skills to arse wipe would be hard enough, especially somewhere like Blackpool where you've got high unemployment.
Then you'd have to recruit someone online...they are hardly going to fly to an interview for a minimum wage job.
Care Homes are going to have massively increase salaries to attract the right local staff after Brexit....this could be a good thing IMO, but we need to be realistic about what the costs are.
Just heard Corbyn's USSR style take over of nursing homes. His answer to everything is take into state ownership. He is a dinosaur.
I don't follow politics that closely so I must have missed this. I am not a Marxist Lenninist but I don't think that private nursing homes are much of an advert for capitalism and it might be very sensible to have end of life care as part of the overall social system.
How much would you be prepared to pay for that?
Some nursing homes are excellent, some are criminally poor, most are somewhere in between. But even in the private sector, they're expensive: £40k pa or more is the average for a resident. It'd be more in the public sector.
There does need to be better integration but if a private provider is prepared to deliver the service to an acceptable standard, why shouldn't they be able to do so?
There have been a number of scandals concerning quality of care in the private sector. It is no magic bullet.
If you didnt see it, then catch up with this on iplayer. It is how things work on the ground in a bed crisis. Surgical teams idle while arguments rage over whetber to cancel the cancer patient because there is no bed. Not a GP problem (though the next episode seems to include a failure to discharge because of issues with social care).
Hospital, Episode 1: www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b088rp75 via @bbciplayer
The current crisis is a huge problem, but what annoys me about the MSM coverage, is that it is going on in Wales and Scotland and it is a UK wide problem but the target is always England.
Yea, that's right, the media in Scotland never mentions any problems with the Scottish NHS.
Big surprise English media complain about English NHS. Include the fact that they think it is the only NHS. Now we have usual English whinging that they have not added ScotlandBAD as they do on every other topic.
English whinging - in my case it is the Welsh whinging as Wales is far worse than England's NHS
We have plenty whinging from right wing rags ( they print anything Tories and Labour spout verbatim) but at present seem to be a bit better off than you , though very far from good.
PS: I am surprised that you expect the English media to care a jot about Wales, they will be wondering why you have any NHS at all.
I don't think May is nasty at all. I think she is what it says on the tin, a parochial daughter of a clergyman who possesses conservative instincts. I think Cameron and Osborne were not particularly nice, both arrogant public school bores.
I think May shares a number of traits with Gordon Brown though, both children of clergy....over thinking, indecision, control freakery and not being comfortable in their own skin. I think both are fundamentally good people though, people I would trust and personally warm to if I knew them.
I think SO & Fox project their own sense of powerlessness on May & conclude the only reason she's in charge is because she's 'nasty'. The Police Federation certainly thought so.....
On 'not being comfortable in her own skin' - I knew her at University and while it may appear to be the case in public its simply not true - agree on your assessment of Cameron - though I suspect Osborne may not be quite as bad. If I was told I'd be sitting next to one of them at a dinner party I know I'd enjoy sitting next to May, with Cameron I've no doubt I'd enjoy watching him holding forth to all & sundry, tho I suspect Osborne would be interesting....
Just heard Corbyn's USSR style take over of nursing homes. His answer to everything is take into state ownership. He is a dinosaur.
I don't follow politics that closely so I must have missed this. I am not a Marxist Lenninist but I don't think that private nursing homes are much of an advert for capitalism and it might be very sensible to have end of life care as part of the overall social system.
How much would you be prepared to pay for that?
Some nursing homes are excellent, some are criminally poor, most are somewhere in between. But even in the private sector, they're expensive: £40k pa or more is the average for a resident. It'd be more in the public sector.
There does need to be better integration but if a private provider is prepared to deliver the service to an acceptable standard, why shouldn't they be able to do so?
How will the Care Homes cope after Brexit when they lose access to Eastern European staff, predominately educated younger women, who are willing to wipe the arses of our increasingly ageing population for minimum wage?
The Tory/Brexiteer's dilemma. How do you retain your reputation for running a reasonably well ordered economy with your antipathy to foreigners? Very well summed up in tyson's typically pithy post.
and your ignorance.. how do you think we get all those nice Filipino nurses at the moment ?
And your ignorance comrade too....through well resourced HR departments whose primary job is it is to staff hospitals and are fully versed in the procedures of getting VISAS.
Do you expect our Care Homes, many family run, to start setting up HR departments?
I don't think May is nasty at all. I think she is what it says on the tin, a parochial daughter of a clergyman who possesses conservative instincts. I think Cameron and Osborne were not particularly nice, both arrogant public school bores.
I think May shares a number of traits with Gordon Brown though, both children of clergy....over thinking, indecision, control freakery and not being comfortable in their own skin. I think both are fundamentally good people though, people I would trust and personally warm to if I knew them.
I think SO & Fox project their own sense of powerlessness on May & conclude the only reason she's in charge is because she's 'nasty'. The Police Federation certainly thought so.....
On 'not being comfortable in her own skin' - I knew her at University and while it may appear to be the case in public its simply not true - agree on your assessment of Cameron - though I suspect Osborne may not be quite as bad. If I was told I'd be sitting next to one of them at a dinner party I know I'd enjoy sitting next to May, with Cameron I've no doubt I'd enjoy watching him holding forth to all & sundry, tho I suspect Osborne would be interesting....
Where is my bucket , have not read anything so vomit inducing in years. The thought of sitting next to any of that bunch of absolute bellends is enough to make you run for the service revolver.
Fascinating to see David, a Conservative activist, opining at length about the LDs and others asserting how (apparently) we are going to win both Stoke and Copeland.
Curious because little or nothing has been said about the Party who on paper ought to be the big challengers in both seats - the Conservatives. We are told ad nauseam how popular May's Government is, how Labour are unelectable, how UKIP are a busted flush and how the LDs are irrelevant.
Surely, on that basis, the Conservatives should be favourites to win BOTH seats and yet we hear next to nothing from the various Conservative activists on here about how their party is going to win yet they talk up the prospects of other parties.
So why can't the Conservatives win BOTH Copeland and Stoke with their double figure opinion poll leads ?They start a close second in one and a good third in the other and seem on paper a much more likely prospect than a party which lost its deposit in both contests last time.
The failure of the Conservatives to win either seat would be far more significant than the failure of the LDs to win either seat though no one seems willing to say that (except me).
That's a good point. Before I came on here I concluded that the Tories were in with a good chance in both. That would be the obvious consequence of even a relatively small flow of voters from Labour to the Lib Dems. And Labour losing safe seats to the Tories with a Tory government in power is a pretty astonishing thing to be considering even as a possibility.
The basic NHS problem is that we have more old people than ever before. Social care, including care homes, has to be an integrated part of the solution. We also need politicians grown-up enough to put down tribal differences and to work on a long-term strategy for the NHS that might involve some unpalatable truths for all - higher taxes, some point of use charges, for example. It will, of course, never happen.
Why point of use charges? The evidence is pretty clear that they are a dreadful idea...
We don't spend much on health compared to other wealthy countries and so actually get a great deal from the NHS. If we want a world class health service we should be prepared to pay for it.
And yet many countries in Europe already have point of use services [with some degree of later claimback and you simply don't see these recurring crisis stories as here. There are two important issues:
1. The NHS is very good overall but it is not the envy of the rest of the world and many countries do healthcare much better.
2. The NHS is highly politicized and has an interest in generating repeated crisis stories as a means of securing more funding and little real reform.
Overall it is very sad as there seems little real interest in being grown up about it's problems and a quite ridiculous tendency to sanctify health workers to a level way beyond Mother Theresa !
The NHS is not the best healthcare in the world.... But its failings are not that it is too expensive, that doctors are lazy or that it needs to have user fees. It needs either more money, lower expectations or people accepting a post code lottery that it will be much better in some areas/for some people than for others.
Health workers are not saints but they are right to expect to be paid a decent wage. When we have a situation that we pay our doctors less than they could earn in US, Canada, Australia... Something is up... (and IMO mother Theresa isn't the morally pure figure people make he out to be either).
Just heard Corbyn's USSR style take over of nursing homes. His answer to everything is take into state ownership. He is a dinosaur.
I don't follow politics that closely so I must have missed this. I am not a Marxist Lenninist but I don't think that private nursing homes are much of an advert for capitalism and it might be very sensible to have end of life care as part of the overall social system.
How much would you be prepared to pay for that?
Some nursing homes are excellent, some are criminally poor, most are somewhere in between. But even in the private sector, they're expensive: £40k pa or more is the average for a resident. It'd be more in the public sector.
There does need to be better integration but if a private provider is prepared to deliver the service to an acceptable standard, why shouldn't they be able to do so?
There have been a number of scandals concerning quality of care in the private sector. It is no magic bullet.
If you didnt see it, then catch up with this on iplayer. It is how things work on the ground in a bed crisis. Surgical teams idle while arguments rage over whetber to cancel the cancer patient because there is no bed. Not a GP problem (though the next episode seems to include a failure to discharge because of issues with social care).
Hospital, Episode 1: www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b088rp75 via @bbciplayer
Outcome was crap though after he got the operation, pity bed was not blocked a lot longer in his case. I liked the way they said he died 5 weeks later after a life threatening syndrome due to his cancer appeared, I presume that was shorthand for an MRSA picked up in the operation. He left looking well and lasted 4 weeks.
Fascinating to see David, a Conservative activist, opining at length about the LDs and others asserting how (apparently) we are going to win both Stoke and Copeland.
Curious because little or nothing has been said about the Party who on paper ought to be the big challengers in both seats - the Conservatives. We are told ad nauseam how popular May's Government is, how Labour are unelectable, how UKIP are a busted flush and how the LDs are irrelevant.
Surely, on that basis, the Conservatives should be favourites to win BOTH seats and yet we hear next to nothing from the various Conservative activists on here about how their party is going to win yet they talk up the prospects of other parties.
So why can't the Conservatives win BOTH Copeland and Stoke with their double figure opinion poll leads ?They start a close second in one and a good third in the other and seem on paper a much more likely prospect than a party which lost its deposit in both contests last time.
The failure of the Conservatives to win either seat would be far more significant than the failure of the LDs to win either seat though no one seems willing to say that (except me).
The problem is that governments don't easily win by-elections - as you already know. Polling predicated on a GE doesn't always translate to local elections or by-elections. It is fairly odd enough that the Tories are even being considered as possible winners by some.
Sky seem to be getting considerable support for Theresa May's stance re GP surgeries
Obviously, it would. So there will be less coverage during days ? Or, are we asking GPs to work 7-days a week ?
Every other business manages to provide 7 day cover, you can get your TV or washing machine done no bother. It should not be beyond the wit of teh NHS to merge centres and provide a shift cover. The GP's get paid plenty, you never se a poor one. My surgery is open 9-5 Mon - Fri and closes for 1.5 hours for lunch, that is a pathetic service.
The problem is the NHS has for too long been run in the interests of the staff - especially GPs who happen to be among the highest paid. unfortunately to say so is akin to worship of the devil for far too many people.
Some of the posts here seem to assume we're in the midsts of a third party surge of the sort we saw briefly in the early 1980s, when the third party vote rose almost everywhere and pretty much regardless of what the party did or didn't do by way of campaigning.
It isn't impossible, as Labour strives to become ever more irrelevant, that we might reach such a point - and a truly sensational by-election win somewhere unexpected could very well be the trigger.
But right now I suggest a more nuanced assessment of LibDem performance is appropriate - some of the local by-election results are sensational and many are pretty good, but many also remain abysmal, and more so than the party would have recorded before 2010.
My sense is that the current political environment - a government increasingly tied to Brexit and an opposition in crisis, all overlaid with a generous helping of disaffection, does present the LibDems with significant opportunities, but only where, allied with local circumstances, the party is able to make something of them. The politics of Stoke have tended towards a battle between moribund Labour and various flavours of right wing nationalism, and in Copeland are dominated by the nuclear issue, and in neither case do I see an obvious opening for the LibDems. In terms of 'coming through the middle' Stoke might appear to be the better bet, given the state of Labour, but the recent profiles of Stoke from John Harris and others don't exactly paint a picture of an area hungry for Liberalism to be thrust upon it. Personally I would see even a good second place in either by-election as a long shot.
That's an interesting point. It does make assumptions about what "Liberalism" is, though. Depending on the moment in time in the last 20 years, the Liberal Democrats have been either a force for traditional liberalism (freedom, small state, etc.), a radical left-wing anti-war movement or a moderate reinforcement for established conserrvatism. A trivial example is that the LibDem frontbench Home Office spokesman and lots of his colleagues voted for ID cards (on a Bill that I proposed) a couple of years before it became a major LD policy to oppose them, and nobody thought it was especially worthy of note, because the party lacked a clear profile - or, to be precise, they had different clear profiles over a short period of time.
Most voters don't really bother with these details - they vote for a general tendency, and the LibDems are well placed to pick up vaguely disgruntled Tory and Labour support merely by looking like a centrist alternative. MPs, though, do tend to want to know what they're embracing, and I can't think of many former colleagues who really seemed to have any potential interest in becoming LibDems. In some cases I can rather imagine them becoming independent or simply calling it a day and doing something else, like Tristram.
Most voters don't really bother with these details - they vote for a general tendency, and the LibDems are well placed to pick up vaguely disgruntled Tory and Labour support merely by looking like a centrist alternative. MPs, though, do tend to want to know what they're embracing, and I can't think of many former colleagues who really seemed to have any potential interest in becoming LibDems. In some cases I can rather imagine them becoming independent or simply calling it a day and doing something else, like Tristram.
Just heard Corbyn's USSR style take over of nursing homes. His answer to everything is take into state ownership. He is a dinosaur.
I don't follow politics that closely so I must have missed this. I am not a Marxist Lenninist but I don't think that private nursing homes are much of an advert for capitalism and it might be very sensible to have end of life care as part of the overall social system.
How much would you be prepared to pay for that?
Some nursing homes are excellent, some are criminally poor, most are somewhere in between. But even in the private sector, they're expensive: £40k pa or more is the average for a resident. It'd be more in the public sector.
There does need to be better integration but if a private provider is prepared to deliver the service to an acceptable standard, why shouldn't they be able to do so?
There have been a number of scandals concerning quality of care in the private sector. It is no magic bullet.
If you didnt see it, then catch up with this on iplayer. It is how things work on the ground in a bed crisis. Surgical teams idle while arguments rage over whetber to cancel the cancer patient because there is no bed. Not a GP problem (though the next episode seems to include a failure to discharge because of issues with social care).
Hospital, Episode 1: www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b088rp75 via @bbciplayer
Outcome was crap though after he got the operation, pity bed was not blocked a lot longer in his case. I liked the way they said he died 5 weeks later after a life threatening syndrome due to his cancer appeared, I presume that was shorthand for an MRSA picked up in the operation. He left looking well and lasted 4 weeks.
From the description it sounded a para-neoplastic syndrome. The tumour excision was complete.
MRSA control is now good. We had a handful of cases in my Trust last year, all community rather than hospital required.
Perhaps a GP cpuld have cured his cancer on a 10 minute Sunday appointment, or possibly you are a turnip headed idiot.
I don't think May is nasty at all. I think she is what it says on the tin, a parochial daughter of a clergyman who possesses conservative instincts. I think Cameron and Osborne were not particularly nice, both arrogant public school bores.
I think May shares a number of traits with Gordon Brown though, both children of clergy....over thinking, indecision, control freakery and not being comfortable in their own skin. I think both are fundamentally good people though, people I would trust and personally warm to if I knew them.
I think SO & Fox project their own sense of powerlessness on May & conclude the only reason she's in charge is because she's 'nasty'. The Police Federation certainly thought so.....
On 'not being comfortable in her own skin' - I knew her at University and while it may appear to be the case in public its simply not true - agree on your assessment of Cameron - though I suspect Osborne may not be quite as bad. If I was told I'd be sitting next to one of them at a dinner party I know I'd enjoy sitting next to May, with Cameron I've no doubt I'd enjoy watching him holding forth to all & sundry, tho I suspect Osborne would be interesting....
Actually, I specifically said she is not nasty. I said she is totally out of her depth. That is very different.
Sky seem to be getting considerable support for Theresa May's stance re GP surgeries
Obviously, it would. So there will be less coverage during days ? Or, are we asking GPs to work 7-days a week ?
Every other business manages to provide 7 day cover, you can get your TV or washing machine done no bother. It should not be beyond the wit of teh NHS to merge centres and provide a shift cover. The GP's get paid plenty, you never se a poor one. My surgery is open 9-5 Mon - Fri and closes for 1.5 hours for lunch, that is a pathetic service.
The problem is the NHS has for too long been run in the interests of the staff - especially GPs who happen to be among the highest paid. unfortunately to say so is akin to worship of the devil for far too many people.
Obviously, saying this makes you feel better; but it is, of course, nonsense. Do you know what pay nurses get, for example, and the hours they work?
Of course May will crush Corbyn. In a battle between a patriotic mediocrity and a fool who winces in the presence of the Union Jack the mediocrity will win every single time.
Your other pronouncement is somewhat bolder. The centre left will win again. Perhaps not under the Labour name. But who cares about that?
I do actually care about having a progressive/liberal force in our politics - call it what you will - to face off against the Conservatives, but one which isn't saturated by the stench of the Far Left. Labour isn't capable of providing that, as events post-GE2015 have demonstrated.
Tony Blair's biggest mistake was, arguably, not to have had habitual rebels against his Government (exhibit A: Jeremy Corbyn) thrown out. A Far Left splinter party would have had scant resources, been riven by faction, and had a very low ceiling of support - and would consequently have been barely more threatening to Labour than Arthur Scargill's outfit, or TUSC. As it is, his party is now being wrecked by the consequences of this oversight (along with Labour's second biggest mistake - its astonishing incompetence with respect to the structure of devolution, which is almost entirely responsible for the meteoric rise of radical Scottish Nationalism.)
The stupidity of a succession of Labour leaders has brought the United Kingdom to the brink of rupture, and has now knocked our Parliamentary system off balance by leaving the Government effectively unopposed. Something may still be salvageable from this fiasco, but the sane fraction of Labour seems to have given up trying, hence the fact that two of the more prominent Corbyn refuseniks have thrown in the towel and walked away, and other MPs are abandoning Parliament to become metro-mayors.
A "too weak to lead, too strong to die" Labour Party is a wrench thrown into the machinery of the state. It's entirely logical to wish for it to be removed.
That's a good point. Before I came on here I concluded that the Tories were in with a good chance in both. That would be the obvious consequence of even a relatively small flow of voters from Labour to the Lib Dems. And Labour losing safe seats to the Tories with a Tory government in power is a pretty astonishing thing to be considering even as a possibility.
Agreed and in "normal" times these would be comfortable Labour holds. The other aspect is that Corbyn's Labour Party isn't universally unpopular. There have been some stunningly good Labour by-election holds on his watch, notably in parts of London and of course Oldham.
The problem is that governments don't easily win by-elections - as you already know. Polling predicated on a GE doesn't always translate to local elections or by-elections. It is fairly odd enough that the Tories are even being considered as possible winners by some.
It's also strange that a party that finished fourth and lost its deposit is being considered as a possible winner whereas a party that finished a close second or a strong third has supporters willing to write off its chances.
Just heard Corbyn's USSR style take over of nursing homes. His answer to everything is take into state ownership. He is a dinosaur.
I don't follow politics that closely so I must have missed this. I am not a Marxist Lenninist but I don't think that private nursing homes are much of an advert for capitalism and it might be very sensible to have end of life care as part of the overall social system.
How much would you be prepared to pay for that?
Some nursing homes are excellent, some are criminally poor, most are somewhere in between. But even in the private sector, they're expensive: £40k pa or more is the average for a resident. It'd be more in the public sector.
There does need to be better integration but if a private provider is prepared to deliver the service to an acceptable standard, why shouldn't they be able to do so?
How will the Care Homes cope after Brexit when they lose access to Eastern European staff, predominately educated younger women, who are willing to wipe the arses of our increasingly ageing population for minimum wage?
Because they won't. Nothing about BrExit prevents the government giving out visas to whoever for whatever purpose, providing it can justify that to the electorate.
Exactly. Leaving the EU doesn't mean that immigration comes to end, but it means that politicians - that we can vote out - are in charge of it. If we have a shortage of 10,000 care workers or nurses then no problem to hand out visas for immigrants.
The point is that we only need immigrants that will contribute, either with a high salary or a skill for which there's a shortage. But you know that as much as I do, it's how every other country outside the EU works already!
The current crisis is a huge problem, but what annoys me about the MSM coverage, is that it is going on in Wales and Scotland and it is a UK wide problem but the target is always England.
Yea, that's right, the media in Scotland never mentions any problems with the Scottish NHS.
The Scot media will of course talk about it but the UK media only refer to English problems
Just heard Corbyn's USSR style take over of nursing homes. His answer to everything is take into state ownership. He is a dinosaur.
I don't follow politics that closely so I must have missed this. I am not a Marxist Lenninist but I don't think that private nursing homes are much of an advert for capitalism and it might be very sensible to have end of life care as part of the overall social system.
How much would you be prepared to pay for that?
Some nursing homes are excellent, some are criminally poor, most are somewhere in between. But even in the private sector, they're expensive: £40k pa or more is the average for a resident. It'd be more in the public sector.
There does need to be better integration but if a private provider is prepared to deliver the service to an acceptable standard, why shouldn't they be able to do so?
There have been a number of scandals concerning quality of care in the private sector. It is no magic bullet.
If you didnt see it, then catch up with this on iplayer. It is how things work on the ground in a bed crisis. Surgical teams idle while arguments rage over whetber to cancel the cancer patient because there is no bed. Not a GP problem (though the next episode seems to include a failure to discharge because of issues with social care).
Hospital, Episode 1: www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b088rp75 via @bbciplayer
Outcome was crap though after he got the operation, pity bed was not blocked a lot longer in his case. I liked the way they said he died 5 weeks later after a life threatening syndrome due to his cancer appeared, I presume that was shorthand for an MRSA picked up in the operation. He left looking well and lasted 4 weeks.
From the description it sounded a para-neoplastic syndrome. The tumour excision was complete.
MRSA control is now good. We had a handful of cases in my Trust last year, all community rather than hospital required.
Perhaps a GP cpuld have cured his cancer on a 10 minute Sunday appointment, or possibly you are a turnip headed idiot.
Better than being an overpaid pompous ass. We will never know what caused it as per normal medics never speak much about the ones they lose , just a few measly "rare syndrome" words but love to blow their trumpets if it goes the other way. It was so obvious the way they gave that out, big licks about the others and then a quick screen show on the not so good outcome. The programme showed they could not run a bath, any fool could plan to put extra care beds in there and get rid of a few of the hardly used ones to stop the rot.
Just heard Corbyn's USSR style take over of nursing homes. His answer to everything is take into state ownership. He is a dinosaur.
I don't follow politics that closely so I must have missed this. I am not a Marxist Lenninist but I don't think that private nursing homes are much of an advert for capitalism and it might be very sensible to have end of life care as part of the overall social system.
How much would you be prepared to pay for that?
Some nursing homes are excellent, some are criminally poor, most are somewhere in between. But even in the private sector, they're expensive: £40k pa or more is the average for a resident. It'd be more in the public sector.
There does need to be better integration but if a private provider is prepared to deliver the service to an acceptable standard, why shouldn't they be able to do so?
How will the Care Homes cope after Brexit when they lose access to Eastern European staff, predominately educated younger women, who are willing to wipe the arses of our increasingly ageing population for minimum wage?
The Tory/Brexiteer's dilemma. How do you retain your reputation for running a reasonably well ordered economy with your antipathy to foreigners? Very well summed up in tyson's typically pithy post.
Interesting that Remoaners like yourselves seem to think the economy can only be run well with low wages and importing more people willing to work on low wages.
In or out of the EU, the supply of people willing to work for low wages is not infinite. Sooner or later, people want higher wages.
I don't think May is nasty at all. I think she is what it says on the tin, a parochial daughter of a clergyman who possesses conservative instincts. I think Cameron and Osborne were not particularly nice, both arrogant public school bores.
I think May shares a number of traits with Gordon Brown though, both children of clergy....over thinking, indecision, control freakery and not being comfortable in their own skin. I think both are fundamentally good people though, people I would trust and personally warm to if I knew them.
I think SO & Fox project their own sense of powerlessness on May & conclude the only reason she's in charge is because she's 'nasty'. The Police Federation certainly thought so.....
On 'not being comfortable in her own skin' - I knew her at University and while it may appear to be the case in public its simply not true - agree on your assessment of Cameron - though I suspect Osborne may not be quite as bad. If I was told I'd be sitting next to one of them at a dinner party I know I'd enjoy sitting next to May, with Cameron I've no doubt I'd enjoy watching him holding forth to all & sundry, tho I suspect Osborne would be interesting....
Where is my bucket , have not read anything so vomit inducing in years. The thought of sitting next to any of that bunch of absolute bellends is enough to make you run for the service revolver.
Sky seem to be getting considerable support for Theresa May's stance re GP surgeries
Obviously, it would. So there will be less coverage during days ? Or, are we asking GPs to work 7-days a week ?
Every other business manages to provide 7 day cover, you can get your TV or washing machine done no bother. It should not be beyond the wit of teh NHS to merge centres and provide a shift cover. The GP's get paid plenty, you never se a poor one. My surgery is open 9-5 Mon - Fri and closes for 1.5 hours for lunch, that is a pathetic service.
The problem is the NHS has for too long been run in the interests of the staff - especially GPs who happen to be among the highest paid. unfortunately to say so is akin to worship of the devil for far too many people.
Obviously, saying this makes you feel better; but it is, of course, nonsense. Do you know what pay nurses get, for example, and the hours they work?
In England it is £15K to £100K, Wales similar, Scotland £16K to £103K RN’s that work 8 or 10 hour days typically work about 40 hours or so per week, however nurses that work 12 hour days may end up working around 36 hours per week.
In either case both the 36 hour and 40 hour work weeks are generally considered full-time work for registered nurses.
I don't think May is nasty at all. I think she is what it says on the tin, a parochial daughter of a clergyman who possesses conservative instincts. I think Cameron and Osborne were not particularly nice, both arrogant public school bores.
I think May shares a number of traits with Gordon Brown though, both children of clergy....over thinking, indecision, control freakery and not being comfortable in their own skin. I think both are fundamentally good people though, people I would trust and personally warm to if I knew them.
I think SO & Fox project their own sense of powerlessness on May & conclude the only reason she's in charge is because she's 'nasty'. The Police Federation certainly thought so.....
On 'not being comfortable in her own skin' - I knew her at University and while it may appear to be the case in public its simply not true - agree on your assessment of Cameron - though I suspect Osborne may not be quite as bad. If I was told I'd be sitting next to one of them at a dinner party I know I'd enjoy sitting next to May, with Cameron I've no doubt I'd enjoy watching him holding forth to all & sundry, tho I suspect Osborne would be interesting....
Actually, I specifically said she is not nasty. I said she is totally out of her depth. That is very different.
Apologies I only read Tyson's comment.
On May being 'out of her depth' I think it may be 'too soon to say'.
Interesting that not a cheep of the Hunt resignation leaked, which shows some discipline at least.
Which of our former PMs would you rather have in position?
Fascinating to see David, a Conservative activist, opining at length about the LDs and others asserting how (apparently) we are going to win both Stoke and Copeland.
Curious because little or nothing has been said about the Party who on paper ought to be the big challengers in both seats - the Conservatives. We are told ad nauseam how popular May's Government is, how Labour are unelectable, how UKIP are a busted flush and how the LDs are irrelevant.
Surely, on that basis, the Conservatives should be favourites to win BOTH seats and yet we hear next to nothing from the various Conservative activists on here about how their party is going to win yet they talk up the prospects of other parties.
So why can't the Conservatives win BOTH Copeland and Stoke with their double figure opinion poll leads ?They start a close second in one and a good third in the other and seem on paper a much more likely prospect than a party which lost its deposit in both contests last time.
The failure of the Conservatives to win either seat would be far more significant than the failure of the LDs to win either seat though no one seems willing to say that (except me).
The last time a government gained a seat from the opposition in a byelection was Brighouse & Spenborough in 1960.
That byelection took place only five months after the previous general election at which the seat was won by a total of 47 (that's forty-seven) votes.
The swing at that byelection was still only 0.8%.
Now we have in Copeland and Stoke Central two constituencies which have been safely Labour from 1935 onwards and which have majorities two orders of magnitude greater.
Now if we want to compare with what were thought of as possible byelection gains of other popular governments only these are options:
Darlington 1983 - Labour majority of 1,052 increases to 2,412 Uxbridge 1997 - Conservative majority of 724 increases to 3,766 Beckenham 1997 - Conservative majority of 4,953 reduces to 1,227 Eddisbury 1999 - Conservative majority of 1,185 increases to 1,606
I don't think May is nasty at all. I think she is what it says on the tin, a parochial daughter of a clergyman who possesses conservative instincts. I think Cameron and Osborne were not particularly nice, both arrogant public school bores.
I think May shares a number of traits with Gordon Brown though, both children of clergy....over thinking, indecision, control freakery and not being comfortable in their own skin. I think both are fundamentally good people though, people I would trust and personally warm to if I knew them.
I think SO & Fox project their own sense of powerlessness on May & conclude the only reason she's in charge is because she's 'nasty'. The Police Federation certainly thought so.....
On 'not being comfortable in her own skin' - I knew her at University and while it may appear to be the case in public its simply not true - agree on your assessment of Cameron - though I suspect Osborne may not be quite as bad. If I was told I'd be sitting next to one of them at a dinner party I know I'd enjoy sitting next to May, with Cameron I've no doubt I'd enjoy watching him holding forth to all & sundry, tho I suspect Osborne would be interesting....
Where is my bucket , have not read anything so vomit inducing in years. The thought of sitting next to any of that bunch of absolute bellends is enough to make you run for the service revolver.
Just heard Corbyn's USSR style take over of nursing homes. His answer to everything is take into state ownership. He is a dinosaur.
I don't follow politics that closely so I must have missed this. I am not a Marxist Lenninist but I don't think that private nursing homes are much of an advert for capitalism and it might be very sensible to have end of life care as part of the overall social system.
How much would you be prepared to pay for that?
Some nursing homes are excellent, some are criminally poor, most are somewhere in between. But even in the private sector, they're expensive: £40k pa or more is the average for a resident. It'd be more in the public sector.
There does need to be better integration but if a private provider is prepared to deliver the service to an acceptable standard, why shouldn't they be able to do so?
There have been a number of scandals concerning
Outcome was crap though after he got the operation, pity bed was not
From the description it sounded a para-neoplastic syndrome. The tumour excision was complete.
MRSA control is now good. We had a handful of cases in my Trust last year, all community rather than hospital required.
Perhaps a GP cpuld have cured his cancer on a 10 minute Sunday appointment, or possibly you are a turnip headed idiot.
Better than being an overpaid pompous ass. We will never know what caused it as per normal medics never speak much about the ones they lose , just a few measly "rare syndrome" words but love to blow their trumpets if it goes the other way. It was so obvious the way they gave that out, big licks about the others and then a quick screen show on the not so good outcome. The programme showed they could not run a bath, any fool could plan to put extra care beds in there and get rid of a few of the hardly used ones to stop the rot.
Er. Tbere were no beds at all at one point in the programme, and the shortage was of an intensive care bed. Britain has about half the number of intensive care beds of other countries, and the problem is both money and staffing (which is the expensive bit). There are simply not enough specialist staff even if the money was there. There are no quick fixes, and international recruitment just got harder due to the devaluation of Sterling, and our Health minister saying that foreign doctors will be given their marching orders in a few years.
That May thinks GPs opening on a Sunday would help shows how out of touch she is.
I don't think May is nasty at all. I think she is what it says on the tin, a parochial daughter of a clergyman who possesses conservative instincts. I think Cameron and Osborne were not particularly nice, both arrogant public school bores.
I think May shares a number of traits with Gordon Brown though, both children of clergy....over thinking, indecision, control freakery and not being comfortable in their own skin. I think both are fundamentally good people though, people I would trust and personally warm to if I knew them.
I think SO & Fox project their own sense of powerlessness on May & conclude the only reason she's in charge is because she's 'nasty'. The Police Federation certainly thought so.....
On 'not being comfortable in her own skin' - I knew her at University and while it may appear to be the case in public its simply not true - agree on your assessment of Cameron - though I suspect Osborne may not be quite as bad. If I was told I'd be sitting next to one of them at a dinner party I know I'd enjoy sitting next to May, with Cameron I've no doubt I'd enjoy watching him holding forth to all & sundry, tho I suspect Osborne would be interesting....
Actually, I specifically said she is not nasty. I said she is totally out of her depth. That is very different.
Apologies I only read Tyson's comment.
On May being 'out of her depth' I think it may be 'too soon to say'.
Interesting that not a cheep of the Hunt resignation leaked, which shows some discipline at least.
Which of our former PMs would you rather have in position?
Do people, especially immigrants, know that they should register with a doctor and that a doctor is the first point of call for most diagnosis and treatment not Accident and Emergency?
Just heard Corbyn's USSR style take over of nursing homes. His answer to everything is take into state ownership. He is a dinosaur.
I don't follow politics that closely so I must have missed this. I am not a Marxist Lenninist but I don't think that private nursing homes are much of an advert for capitalism and it might be very sensible to have end of life care as part of the overall social system.
How much would you be prepared to pay for that?
Some nursing homes are excellent, some are criminally poor, most are somewhere in between. But even in the private sector, they're expensive: £40k pa or more is the average for a resident. It'd be more in the public sector.
There does need to be better integration but if a private provider is prepared to deliver the service to an acceptable standard, why shouldn't they be able to do so?
There have been a number of scandals concerning
Outcome was crap though after he got the operation, pity bed was not
From the description it sounded a para-neoplastic syndrome. The tumour excision was complete.
MRSA control is now good. We had a handful of cases in my Trust last year, all community rather than hospital required.
Perhaps a GP cpuld have cured his cancer on a 10 minute Sunday appointment, or possibly you are a turnip headed idiot.
It still showed how poor the organisation is being run,. Why do you have a trauma centre that only has a handful of ICU beds out of 310. It cannot be beyond the wit of politicians or NHS to change the use of some of teh beds/units there or not have it as a trauma centre. They brought an old woman by ambulance from Norfolk to the centre where they had no beds, what a shambles the NHS must be if they have nothing within a 3 hour radius of London that has a doctor capable of handling that patient. It sounded like the usual London crap where everything is centred there and then you get crap service for everybody, locals cannot get in and people are shunted dangerously from all over the country to teh London facility. Worst of both world's for everybody.
David Herdson effectively writing off Copeland for the Tories ! He is right. Labour, most likely, will choose a copy of Jamie Reed as their candidate but probably with lukewarm Brexit credentials.
The Liberals [ the Remainers ] could win both ! The wind is in their sails.
I wasn't writing it off by any means. I don't think there's any value in the Tory odds however.
FWIW, I don't expect the Lib Dems to come any higher than third and they may not even do that. However, they do have a path to victory if they can seize the chance (and if that chance remains open) and for that reason, I think there's value in the odds.
Just heard Corbyn's USSR style take over of nursing homes. His answer to everything is take into state ownership. He is a dinosaur.
I don't follow politics that closely so I must have missed this. I am not a Marxist Lenninist but I don't think that private nursing homes are much of an advert for capitalism and it might be very sensible to have end of life care as part of the overall social system.
How much would you be prepared to pay for that?
Some nursing homes are excellent, some are criminally poor, most are somewhere in between. But even in the private sector, they're expensive: £40k pa or more is the average for a resident. It'd be more in the public sector.
There does need to be better integration but if a private provider is prepared to deliver the service to an acceptable standard, why shouldn't they be able to do so?
How will the Care Homes cope after Brexit when they lose access to Eastern European staff, predominately educated younger women, who are willing to wipe the arses of our increasingly ageing population for minimum wage?
The Tory/Brexiteer's dilemma. How do you retain your reputation for running a reasonably well ordered economy with your antipathy to foreigners? Very well summed up in tyson's typically pithy post.
and your ignorance.. how do you think we get all those nice Filipino nurses at the moment ?
And your ignorance comrade too....through well resourced HR departments whose primary job is it is to staff hospitals and are fully versed in the procedures of getting VISAS.
Do you expect our Care Homes, many family run, to start setting up HR departments?
No, they will get an agency to do it. Where there's demand, the market will meet it. Stop creating drama where none exists.
The problem is that governments don't easily win by-elections - as you already know. Polling predicated on a GE doesn't always translate to local elections or by-elections. It is fairly odd enough that the Tories are even being considered as possible winners by some.
It's also strange that a party that finished fourth and lost its deposit is being considered as a possible winner whereas a party that finished a close second or a strong third has supporters willing to write off its chances.
Havent Paris and Copenhagen had lots of immigration too?
Have they had as much as London and Newham in particular , how do their rates compare. I am no doctor but assume the crap air quality could also have an affect. What normally would cause you to contract TB.
Fascinating to see David, a Conservative activist, opining at length about the LDs and others asserting how (apparently) we are going to win both Stoke and Copeland.
Curious because little or nothing has been said about the Party who on paper ought to be the big challengers in both seats - the Conservatives. We are told ad nauseam how popular May's Government is, how Labour are unelectable, how UKIP are a busted flush and how the LDs are irrelevant.
Surely, on that basis, the Conservatives should be favourites to win BOTH seats and yet we hear next to nothing from the various Conservative activists on here about how their party is going to win yet they talk up the prospects of other parties.
So why can't the Conservatives win BOTH Copeland and Stoke with their double figure opinion poll leads ?They start a close second in one and a good third in the other and seem on paper a much more likely prospect than a party which lost its deposit in both contests last time.
The failure of the Conservatives to win either seat would be far more significant than the failure of the LDs to win either seat though no one seems willing to say that (except me)."
In Copeland the Tories certainly have a chance of winning the seat, they start second and on present polling it would be neck and neck. I have already done a little phoning in the seat and the likely Tory vote is solid and more enthusiastic than the likely Labour vote, there are a handful of UKIP voters too the Tories need to squeeze and the LDs had only 1 or 2 supporters of those that I contacted and if any increase in their vote reflects the polling and most of the recent post-referendum by elections it will come mainly from Labour.
In Stoke the Tories have no chance, they start in third place for starters and even on current polling Labour would win it with a clear majority. The best the blues can hope for is to take second from UKIP with UKIP and the LDs also challenging for the runner up spot (UKIP were second in 2015 and the LDs in 2010)
Ha, ha - why on earth would a Tory wish for a split that, thanks to FPTP, would see both the rump Labour party and the new party almost entirely wiped out at the next general election?
It depends on whether Labour is salvageable or not. I happen to think it is, so the right of the party just need to hold out for better times. Sense will return.
But if it's not. If the left has a new and permanent majority meaning that it's unelectable for decades, then a different solution would be needed. That solution is to reverse the changes of the interwar realignment and for the bulk of MPs to transfer back to the Liberals, leaving the country with what it had pre-WWI: a Tory Party and a Liberal Party competing for government, with a small Labour party on the far left and a bunch of nationalists playing games.
I think that the focus on Corbyn personally, and Labour's internal battle, tends to obscure the more fundamental challenges that the party faces. After all, whilst personalities played a part in the Liberals' decline (Lloyd George v Asquith), at base a new class-based divide was emerging in British politics and the Liberals, stuck in the middle, were unable to be the champion of either side, in a system that pretty much forces two geographically-based potential governments.
The parallels with Labour's current problems are pretty obvious and already well discussed. The question is whether it would be possible for the LibDems to build a broad enough coalition around the 'open liberal society', in opposition to the conservative one, to become a principal contender.
I disagree that it was inevitable that the Liberals would decline. It's something that looks a lot more certain in retrospect, after the events.
However, Lloyd George was perfectly placed to position the Liberals as the party of the working man post-1918, given what he'd done before the war. If any party should have been doomed to defeat with the extension of the franchise, you'd have thought it would be the Tories, who were after all a relic of the pre-1832 era (so were the Liberals of course, but their position allowed them to widen their appeal to the left more readily).
And had not Asquith selfishly held on to the leadership, so forcing LG to pal up with the Tories in an election and so also splitting the party, that might have been the case. Labour - pacifist Labour, remember - could have been wiped out in 1918 but for a few ideological stalwarts and a few on the extreme left (remember, Britain didn't have a Communist Party as such until 1920). LG, with a united party behind him, with the prestige of the war victory and with his radical record pre-war might have won 400 seats. He didn't have that unity and the rest is history.
I can't remember a time when we've had three less inspiring parties or leaders.
Why would anyone go out on a drizzly evening in Stoke to vote for a party led by Corbyn-by a distance the worst Labour leader ever-or May the most feeble PM since John Major?
The two protest parties UKIP and the Lib Dems have to be in with a good chance. UKIP have a glass ceiling of around 30% so I fancy the Lib Dems
Major in retrospect is seen as a far better PM than he was at the time. He won an election and left a prosperous economy, unlike Brown and he got crucial opt outs for the UK in EU negotiations unlike Cameron (who he also outlasted in Number 10 by a year) and unlike Blair he led a successful Gulf War campaign not the disaster that was the one he left in 2003. There are worse PMs for May to follow than John Major, he was no Thatcher or Attlee but many others have been far worse
Sky seem to be getting considerable support for Theresa May's stance re GP surgeries
Obviously, it would. So there will be less coverage during days ? Or, are we asking GPs to work 7-days a week ?
Every other business manages to provide 7 day cover, you can get your TV or washing machine done no bother. It should not be beyond the wit of teh NHS to merge centres and provide a shift cover. The GP's get paid plenty, you never se a poor one. My surgery is open 9-5 Mon - Fri and closes for 1.5 hours for lunch, that is a pathetic service.
The problem is the NHS has for too long been run in the interests of the staff - especially GPs who happen to be among the highest paid. unfortunately to say so is akin to worship of the devil for far too many people.
Obviously, saying this makes you feel better; but it is, of course, nonsense. Do you know what pay nurses get, for example, and the hours they work?
Obviously you missed my reference to GPs. As it happens nurses are not badly paid comparatively - the SE problem is not the whole of the UK. if talking about the NHS was enough to make one 'feel better' perhaps they should try doing it in the waiting rooms.
Ha, ha - why on earth would a Tory wish for a split that, thanks to FPTP, would see both the rump Labour party and the new party almost entirely wiped out at the next general election?
It depends on whether Labour is salvageable or not. I happen to think it is, so the right of the party just need to hold out for better times. competing for government, with a small Labour party on the far left and a bunch of nationalists playing games.
I think that the focus on Corbyn personally, and Labour's internal battle, tends to obscure the more fundamental challenges that the party faces. After all, whilst personalities played a part in the Liberals' decline (Lloyd George v Asquith), at base a new class-based divide was emerging in British politics and the Liberals, stuck in the middle, were unable to be the champion of either side, in a system that pretty much forces two geographically-based potential governments.
The parallels with Labour's current problems are pretty obvious and already well discussed. The question is whether it would be possible for the LibDems to build a broad enough coalition around the 'open liberal society', in opposition to the conservative one, to become a principal contender.
I disagree that it was inevitable that the Liberals would decline. It's something that looks a lot more certain in retrospect, after the events.
However, Lloyd George was perfectly placed to position the Liberals as the party of the working man post-1918, given what he'd done before the war. If any party should have been doomed to defeat with the extension of the franchise, you'd have thought it would be the Tories, who were after all a relic of the pre-1832 era (so were the Liberals of course, but their position allowed them to widen their appeal to the left more readily).
And had not Asquith selfishly held on to the leadership, so forcing LG to pal up with the Tories in an election and so also splitting the party, that might have been the case. Labour - pacifist Labour, remember - could have been wiped out in 1918 but for a few ideological stalwarts and a few on the extreme left (remember, Britain didn't have a Communist Party as such until 1920). LG, with a united party behind him, with the prestige of the war victory and with his radical record pre-war might have won 400 seats. He didn't have that unity and the rest is history.
The Liberals spent the whole period 1916-1935 forming a circular firing squad.
Something like 300 constituencies returned a Liberal MP at least once during that period - suggesting that the party was potentially viable, as you say.
Ha, ha - why on earth would a Tory wish for a split that, thanks to FPTP, would see both the rump Labour party and the new party almost entirely wiped out at the next general election?
It depends on whether Labour is salvageable or not. I happen to think it is, so the right of the party just need to hold out for better times. Sense will return.
But if it's not. If the left has a new and permanent majority meaning that it's unelectable for decades, then a different solution would be needed. That solution is to reverse the changes of the interwar realignment and for the bulk of MPs to transfer back to the Liberals, leaving the country with what it had pre-WWI: a Tory Party and a Liberal Party competing for government, with a small Labour party on the far left and a bunch of nationalists playing games.
I
I disagree that it was inevitable that the Liberals would decline. It's something that looks a lot more certain in retrospect, after the events.
However, Lloyd George was perfectly placed to position the Liberals as the party of the working man post-1918, given what he'd done before the war. If any party should have been doomed to defeat with the extension of the franchise, you'd have thought it would be the Tories, who were after all a relic of the pre-1832 era (so were the Liberals of course, but their position allowed them to widen their appeal to the left more readily).
And had not Asquith selfishly held on to the leadership, so forcing LG to pal up with the Tories in an election and so also splitting the party, that might have been the case. Labour - pacifist Labour, remember - could have been wiped out in 1918 but for a few ideological stalwarts and a few on the extreme left (remember, Britain didn't have a Communist Party as such until 1920). LG, with a united party behind him, with the prestige of the war victory and with his radical record pre-war might have won 400 seats. He didn't have that unity and the rest is history.
Yes, Tories v. Liberals like Canada, or a much lighter touch Labor Party like in Australia. Or even like the Democrats in the US.
We all experienced a much more left-wing form of British politics as a consequence of what you describe.
The basic NHS problem is that we have more old people than ever before. Social care, including care homes, has to be an integrated part of the solution. We also need politicians grown-up enough to put down tribal differences and to work on a long-term strategy for the NHS that might involve some unpalatable truths for all - higher taxes, some point of use charges, for example. It will, of course, never happen.
Why point of use charges? The evidence is pretty clear that they are a dreadful idea...
We don't spend much on health compared to other wealthy countries and so actually get a great deal from the NHS. If we want a world class health service we should be prepared to pay for it.
And yet many countries in Europe already have point of use services [with some degree of later claimback and you simply don't see these recurring crisis stories as here. There are two important issues:
1. The NHS is very good overall but it is not the envy of the rest of the world and many countries do healthcare much better.
2. The NHS is highly politicized and has an interest in generating repeated crisis stories as a means of securing more funding and little real reform.
Overall it is very sad as there seems little real interest in being grown up about it's problems and a quite ridiculous tendency to sanctify health workers to a level way beyond Mother Theresa !
The NHS is not the best healthcare in the world.... But its failings are not that it is too expensive, that doctors are lazy or that it needs to have user fees. It needs either more money, lower expectations or people accepting a post code lottery that it will be much better in some areas/for some people than for others.
Health workers are not saints but they are right to expect to be paid a decent wage. When we have a situation that we pay our doctors less than they could earn in US, Canada, Australia... Something is up... (and IMO mother Theresa isn't the morally pure figure people make he out to be either).
I can think of no valid reason why we should pay NHS staff more than the US which is much richer or Australia where the system is partly private and the cost of living quite a bit higher. Canada I know little about.
However end of life care as part of the system is an aspiration but at £40,000 + per annum per person cannot just be paid for by taxes. It is hugely complex and needs the parties to get together and come to a consensus
It needs people that are able to, to make contributions to a fund to support their end of life care through their life, topped up by the government if the can't afford it. It needs everyone to pay something, so that people value it, or people making no contribution will feel no disincentive to take the piss.
The tricky bit in our system is stopping the government of the day raiding that fund at the first scent of fiscal gunpowder to bail out the problem du jour.
By 2020 it is a manifesto commitment of the government that the maximum any individual will have to pay is £75 000 for their care before the local authority take over
Sky seem to be getting considerable support for Theresa May's stance re GP surgeries
Obviously, it would. So there will be less coverage during days ? Or, are we asking GPs to work 7-days a week ?
Every other business manages to provide 7 day cover, you can get your TV or washing machine done no bother. It should not be beyond the wit of teh NHS to merge centres and provide a shift cover. The GP's get paid plenty, you never se a poor one. My surgery is open 9-5 Mon - Fri and closes for 1.5 hours for lunch, that is a pathetic service.
The problem is the NHS has for too long been run in the interests of the staff - especially GPs who happen to be among the highest paid. unfortunately to say so is akin to worship of the devil for far too many people.
Obviously, saying this makes you feel better; but it is, of course, nonsense. Do you know what pay nurses get, for example, and the hours they work?
In England it is £15K to £100K, Wales similar, Scotland £16K to £103K RN’s that work 8 or 10 hour days typically work about 40 hours or so per week, however nurses that work 12 hour days may end up working around 36 hours per week.
In either case both the 36 hour and 40 hour work weeks are generally considered full-time work for registered nurses.
Just catching up on posts - sex, traitors and Enoch... what a colourful start to my day.
Sex, Traitors and Enoch is a normal start for any red blooded PBer.
Hope all enjoyed the sex part.
I've found that I am incapable of doing anything about the excessive length of my posts. How SeanF in particular squeezes so much into so few words - despite being a lawyer! - I can just stand back and admire. As I seem unable to emulate that style, I have been working on my prose to try to reduce the insipidity if not the wordcount, so at least some folk might battle through it...
Just catching up on posts - sex, traitors and Enoch... what a colourful start to my day.
Sex, Traitors and Enoch is a normal start for any red blooded PBer.
Hope all enjoyed the sex part.
I've found that I am incapable of doing anything about the excessive length of my posts. How SeanF in particular squeezes so much into so few words - despite being a lawyer! - I can just stand back and admire. As I seem unable to emulate that style, I have been working on my prose to try to reduce the insipidity if not the wordcount, so at least some folk might battle through it...
I love your posts - always something left-field. The classroom discipline one reminded me that 50yrs old battle axes ruled without demure in mine.
To be clear: these are two seats where the Lib Dems lost their deposits at the last election. If they get into double digits in vote share in both, that would be solid progress. A victory in either would be truly sensational. Both of these should be easy Labour holds. The fact that both are seen as interesting means either that we've all got too febrile or that politics has got too febrile. For the moment, I'm taking the view that it's basically us.
Spot on. I think Labour are superb value in each.
I also think UKIP are totally dysfunctional, and a paper tiger at the moment: I see no evidence Nuttal has made any progress. So I am laying them in both at current odds.
I have put a fiver on the LDs at 50/1 in Copeland, because it'd be silly not to at those odds.
Comments
I don't think May is nasty at all. I think she is what it says on the tin, a parochial daughter of a clergyman who possesses conservative instincts. I think Cameron and Osborne were not particularly nice, both arrogant public school bores.
I think May shares a number of traits with Gordon Brown though, both children of clergy....over thinking, indecision, control freakery and not being comfortable in their own skin. I think both are fundamentally good people though, people I would trust and personally warm to if I knew them.
Public service is not about winning, it is about doing the best for people. Incidentally the reason why I turned against Osborne...
When Mum was badly ill and needed to see a doctor for a prescription a few years ago she was told she could have an OOH appointment. It was 25 miles away. Oh, and no, the Doctor wouldn't be able to come to her. Or even speak on the phone. Useless.
I also think there needs to be a fundamental shift from the GP to personal responsibility......ie if you do a routine blood test, you should pay for it, collect the results and take them to the GP. This is what Italians do and their health outcomes are the second best in the world.
Also, the Italian ambulance system is staffed mostly by volunteers....a real example of Cameron's big society
Labour, most likely, will choose a copy of Jamie Reed as their candidate but probably with lukewarm Brexit credentials.
The Liberals [ the Remainers ] could win both ! The wind is in their sails.
But if it's not. If the left has a new and permanent majority meaning that it's unelectable for decades, then a different solution would be needed. That solution is to reverse the changes of the interwar realignment and for the bulk of MPs to transfer back to the Liberals, leaving the country with what it had pre-WWI: a Tory Party and a Liberal Party competing for government, with a small Labour party on the far left and a bunch of nationalists playing games.
Without the possibility of power it is very hard for a political party to serve the public because it can be ignored. Just as Labour under Corbyn is being ignored.
I'm sure Corbyn's policies to nationalise would get positive coverage too....
But unworkable, impractical policies are just that....unworkable and impractical. It is clear that May is simply playing the Gordon Brown hamfisted media manipulation card to distract from the real issues......
However end of life care as part of the system is an aspiration but at £40,000 + per annum per person cannot just be paid for by taxes. It is hugely complex and needs the parties to get together and come to a consensus
It isn't impossible, as Labour strives to become ever more irrelevant, that we might reach such a point - and a truly sensational by-election win somewhere unexpected could very well be the trigger.
But right now I suggest a more nuanced assessment of LibDem performance is appropriate - some of the local by-election results are sensational and many are pretty good, but many also remain abysmal, and more so than the party would have recorded before 2010.
My sense is that the current political environment - a government increasingly tied to Brexit and an opposition in crisis, all overlaid with a generous helping of disaffection, does present the LibDems with significant opportunities, but only where, allied with local circumstances, the party is able to make something of them. The politics of Stoke have tended towards a battle between moribund Labour and various flavours of right wing nationalism, and in Copeland are dominated by the nuclear issue, and in neither case do I see an obvious opening for the LibDems. In terms of 'coming through the middle' Stoke might appear to be the better bet, given the state of Labour, but the recent profiles of Stoke from John Harris and others don't exactly paint a picture of an area hungry for Liberalism to be thrust upon it. Personally I would see even a good second place in either by-election as a long shot.
Some nursing homes are excellent, some are criminally poor, most are somewhere in between. But even in the private sector, they're expensive: £40k pa or more is the average for a resident. It'd be more in the public sector.
There does need to be better integration but if a private provider is prepared to deliver the service to an acceptable standard, why shouldn't they be able to do so?
The tricky bit in our system is stopping the government of the day raiding that fund at the first scent of fiscal gunpowder to bail out the problem du jour.
I am thinking of something modelled on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Provident_Fund
It is criminal what the NHS gets away with. Ther eshould be local GP centres with either 24 hour access or GP callout.
50 years ago you could get a GP if really needed at any hour of the day, yet now with loads more of them on huge salaries they expect to work 9-5. GP's and teacher's the only cushy numbers left where you have more time off than you do working.
The EU’s chief negotiator in the Brexit talks has shown the first signs of backing away from his hardline, no-compromise approach after admitting he wants a deal with Britain that will guarantee the other 27 member states continued easy access to the City.
Michel Barnier wants a “special” relationship with the City of London after Britain has left the bloc, according to unpublished minutes seen by the Guardian that hint at unease about the costs of Brexit on continental Europe.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/13/eu-negotiator-wants-special-deal-over-access-to-city-post-brexit
The parallels with Labour's current problems are pretty obvious and already well discussed. The question is whether it would be possible for the LibDems to build a broad enough coalition around the 'open liberal society', in opposition to the conservative one, to become a principal contender.
1. The NHS is very good overall but it is not the envy of the rest of the world and many countries do healthcare much better.
2. The NHS is highly politicized and has an interest in generating repeated crisis stories as a means of securing more funding and little real reform.
Overall it is very sad as there seems little real interest in being grown up about it's problems and a quite ridiculous tendency to sanctify health workers to a level way beyond Mother Theresa !
Fascinating to see David, a Conservative activist, opining at length about the LDs and others asserting how (apparently) we are going to win both Stoke and Copeland.
Curious because little or nothing has been said about the Party who on paper ought to be the big challengers in both seats - the Conservatives. We are told ad nauseam how popular May's Government is, how Labour are unelectable, how UKIP are a busted flush and how the LDs are irrelevant.
Surely, on that basis, the Conservatives should be favourites to win BOTH seats and yet we hear next to nothing from the various Conservative activists on here about how their party is going to win yet they talk up the prospects of other parties.
So why can't the Conservatives win BOTH Copeland and Stoke with their double figure opinion poll leads ?They start a close second in one and a good third in the other and seem on paper a much more likely prospect than a party which lost its deposit in both contests last time.
The failure of the Conservatives to win either seat would be far more significant than the failure of the LDs to win either seat though no one seems willing to say that (except me).
My surgery is open 9-5 Mon - Fri and closes for 1.5 hours for lunch, that is a pathetic service.
User charges reduce necessary care just as much as they reduce unnecessary care.
And they particularly hit the poor and cause them to consume fewer health services.
Give things away free and most people will not value or respect them and jsut expect more and more freebies.
There are of course some exceptions but not in general.
Add in the self serving monster that is the NHS and you have the failing moneypit we have now.
Have you tried sorting out work permits for non EU staff? Cumbersome, bureaucratic, and problematic...and that was when I had access to a professional HR dept.
As a Care Home Provider you'd want to see potential staff in the eye before appointing. Justifying in the first instance why we haven't a local British national with the skills to arse wipe would be hard enough, especially somewhere like Blackpool where you've got high unemployment.
Then you'd have to recruit someone online...they are hardly going to fly to an interview for a minimum wage job.
Care Homes are going to have massively increase salaries to attract the right local staff after Brexit....this could be a good thing IMO, but we need to be realistic about what the costs are.
If you didnt see it, then catch up with this on iplayer. It is how things work on the ground in a bed crisis. Surgical teams idle while arguments rage over whetber to cancel the cancer patient because there is no bed. Not a GP problem (though the next episode seems to include a failure to discharge because of issues with social care).
Hospital, Episode 1: www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b088rp75 via @bbciplayer
PS: I am surprised that you expect the English media to care a jot about Wales, they will be wondering why you have any NHS at all.
I think SO & Fox project their own sense of powerlessness on May & conclude the only reason she's in charge is because she's 'nasty'. The Police Federation certainly thought so.....
On 'not being comfortable in her own skin' - I knew her at University and while it may appear to be the case in public its simply not true - agree on your assessment of Cameron - though I suspect Osborne may not be quite as bad. If I was told I'd be sitting next to one of them at a dinner party I know I'd enjoy sitting next to May, with Cameron I've no doubt I'd enjoy watching him holding forth to all & sundry, tho I suspect Osborne would be interesting....
Do you expect our Care Homes, many family run, to start setting up HR departments?
Health workers are not saints but they are right to expect to be paid a decent wage. When we have a situation that we pay our doctors less than they could earn in US, Canada, Australia... Something is up... (and IMO mother Theresa isn't the morally pure figure people make he out to be either).
Most voters don't really bother with these details - they vote for a general tendency, and the LibDems are well placed to pick up vaguely disgruntled Tory and Labour support merely by looking like a centrist alternative. MPs, though, do tend to want to know what they're embracing, and I can't think of many former colleagues who really seemed to have any potential interest in becoming LibDems. In some cases I can rather imagine them becoming independent or simply calling it a day and doing something else, like Tristram.
Most voters don't really bother with these details - they vote for a general tendency, and the LibDems are well placed to pick up vaguely disgruntled Tory and Labour support merely by looking like a centrist alternative. MPs, though, do tend to want to know what they're embracing, and I can't think of many former colleagues who really seemed to have any potential interest in becoming LibDems. In some cases I can rather imagine them becoming independent or simply calling it a day and doing something else, like Tristram.
@NickPalmer
Your post strikes an unusually pessimistic tone for you; if folk like you are losing spirit, then that really is pretty serious.
Do you see any potential way forward to Labour becoming a party of government,. or is the road to obscurity and irrelevance now set ion stone?
MRSA control is now good. We had a handful of cases in my Trust last year, all community rather than hospital required.
Perhaps a GP cpuld have cured his cancer on a 10 minute Sunday appointment, or possibly you are a turnip headed idiot.
Tony Blair's biggest mistake was, arguably, not to have had habitual rebels against his Government (exhibit A: Jeremy Corbyn) thrown out. A Far Left splinter party would have had scant resources, been riven by faction, and had a very low ceiling of support - and would consequently have been barely more threatening to Labour than Arthur Scargill's outfit, or TUSC. As it is, his party is now being wrecked by the consequences of this oversight (along with Labour's second biggest mistake - its astonishing incompetence with respect to the structure of devolution, which is almost entirely responsible for the meteoric rise of radical Scottish Nationalism.)
The stupidity of a succession of Labour leaders has brought the United Kingdom to the brink of rupture, and has now knocked our Parliamentary system off balance by leaving the Government effectively unopposed. Something may still be salvageable from this fiasco, but the sane fraction of Labour seems to have given up trying, hence the fact that two of the more prominent Corbyn refuseniks have thrown in the towel and walked away, and other MPs are abandoning Parliament to become metro-mayors.
A "too weak to lead, too strong to die" Labour Party is a wrench thrown into the machinery of the state. It's entirely logical to wish for it to be removed.
The point is that we only need immigrants that will contribute, either with a high salary or a skill for which there's a shortage. But you know that as much as I do, it's how every other country outside the EU works already!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/27/five-avoidable-baby-deaths-another-scottish-maternity-unit/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/12/scotlands-largest-hospital-turns-away-pregnant-women-nicola/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/12/scottish-breast-cancer-patients-denied-drug-approved-english/
I'm sure you'll find even more lurid reports in the Mail & Express.
The programme showed they could not run a bath, any fool could plan to put extra care beds in there and get rid of a few of the hardly used ones to stop the rot.
RN’s that work 8 or 10 hour days typically work about 40 hours or so per week, however nurses that work 12 hour days may end up working around 36 hours per week.
In either case both the 36 hour and 40 hour work weeks are generally considered full-time work for registered nurses.
Apologies I only read Tyson's comment.
On May being 'out of her depth' I think it may be 'too soon to say'.
Interesting that not a cheep of the Hunt resignation leaked, which shows some discipline at least.
Which of our former PMs would you rather have in position?
London tuberculosis rates 'worst in western Europe'
"The capital has a "worrying" rate of 42 per 100,000 people, compared with a national figure of 14 per 100,000.
In total there were 3,426 cases of the lung disease in the city in 2012, making up nearly 40% of the UK total.
The worst affected area was Newham in east London with a rate of 119 cases per 100,000 people.
Other European capitals have much lower rates, such as Paris at 23 and Copenhagen at 17.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-23777685
That byelection took place only five months after the previous general election at which the seat was won by a total of 47 (that's forty-seven) votes.
The swing at that byelection was still only 0.8%.
Now we have in Copeland and Stoke Central two constituencies which have been safely Labour from 1935 onwards and which have majorities two orders of magnitude greater.
Now if we want to compare with what were thought of as possible byelection gains of other popular governments only these are options:
Darlington 1983 - Labour majority of 1,052 increases to 2,412
Uxbridge 1997 - Conservative majority of 724 increases to 3,766
Beckenham 1997 - Conservative majority of 4,953 reduces to 1,227
Eddisbury 1999 - Conservative majority of 1,185 increases to 1,606
That May thinks GPs opening on a Sunday would help shows how out of touch she is.
FWIW, I don't expect the Lib Dems to come any higher than third and they may not even do that. However, they do have a path to victory if they can seize the chance (and if that chance remains open) and for that reason, I think there's value in the odds.
Fascinating to see David, a Conservative activist, opining at length about the LDs and others asserting how (apparently) we are going to win both Stoke and Copeland.
Curious because little or nothing has been said about the Party who on paper ought to be the big challengers in both seats - the Conservatives. We are told ad nauseam how popular May's Government is, how Labour are unelectable, how UKIP are a busted flush and how the LDs are irrelevant.
Surely, on that basis, the Conservatives should be favourites to win BOTH seats and yet we hear next to nothing from the various Conservative activists on here about how their party is going to win yet they talk up the prospects of other parties.
So why can't the Conservatives win BOTH Copeland and Stoke with their double figure opinion poll leads ?They start a close second in one and a good third in the other and seem on paper a much more likely prospect than a party which lost its deposit in both contests last time.
The failure of the Conservatives to win either seat would be far more significant than the failure of the LDs to win either seat though no one seems willing to say that (except me)."
In Copeland the Tories certainly have a chance of winning the seat, they start second and on present polling it would be neck and neck. I have already done a little phoning in the seat and the likely Tory vote is solid and more enthusiastic than the likely Labour vote, there are a handful of UKIP voters too the Tories need to squeeze and the LDs had only 1 or 2 supporters of those that I contacted and if any increase in their vote reflects the polling and most of the recent post-referendum by elections it will come mainly from Labour.
In Stoke the Tories have no chance, they start in third place for starters and even on current polling Labour would win it with a clear majority. The best the blues can hope for is to take second from UKIP with UKIP and the LDs also challenging for the runner up spot (UKIP were second in 2015 and the LDs in 2010)
However, Lloyd George was perfectly placed to position the Liberals as the party of the working man post-1918, given what he'd done before the war. If any party should have been doomed to defeat with the extension of the franchise, you'd have thought it would be the Tories, who were after all a relic of the pre-1832 era (so were the Liberals of course, but their position allowed them to widen their appeal to the left more readily).
And had not Asquith selfishly held on to the leadership, so forcing LG to pal up with the Tories in an election and so also splitting the party, that might have been the case. Labour - pacifist Labour, remember - could have been wiped out in 1918 but for a few ideological stalwarts and a few on the extreme left (remember, Britain didn't have a Communist Party as such until 1920). LG, with a united party behind him, with the prestige of the war victory and with his radical record pre-war might have won 400 seats. He didn't have that unity and the rest is history.
Something like 300 constituencies returned a Liberal MP at least once during that period - suggesting that the party was potentially viable, as you say.
We all experienced a much more left-wing form of British politics as a consequence of what you describe.
I've found that I am incapable of doing anything about the excessive length of my posts. How SeanF in particular squeezes so much into so few words - despite being a lawyer! - I can just stand back and admire. As I seem unable to emulate that style, I have been working on my prose to try to reduce the insipidity if not the wordcount, so at least some folk might battle through it...
I also think UKIP are totally dysfunctional, and a paper tiger at the moment: I see no evidence Nuttal has made any progress. So I am laying them in both at current odds.
I have put a fiver on the LDs at 50/1 in Copeland, because it'd be silly not to at those odds.