I'm not clear about Bercow being able to block Trump. Past convention appears to require both Speakers to agree, but I can't find an example of HoC Speaker blocking before.
c) People think those whose problems are self induced should be charged;
The public are moving the same way with healthcare that they did with immigration and welfare. They are in 'enough is enough' mode.
OK - start with smokers. Smoking is a well-known form of self-induced harm and simple to spot in hospital.
Don't some people have lung cancer even though they have never smoked.
Not always easy to attribute cause and effect.
Indeed. I am not supporting the argument, just pointing out its absurdities and wondering how many people agree with the proposition that "...those whose problems are self induced should be charged..." whilst believing that it does not apply to them
Just imagine two queues in A&E - one queue with a payment terminal for everyone who is foreign, fat, drunk of smelling or smoke and the other queue for everyone else.
What could go wrong?
Why would there be two queues? You come in, take a breath test at the counter and either pay or don't
Bercow said in his speech that 'ordinarily the three keyholders would agree'.
He said so himself, and yet he's not had so much as a digestive biscuit with the Lords Speaker over the issue. I wonder if he didn't expect to get called out on such a breach of convention and protocol; which is simply amazing when his entire position is due to constitutional nuance and unwritten convention.
Andrew Mitchell spoke up for the Speaker this morning. I expect John Bercow is safe enough.
My next thread is on the Speaker surviving, so far I've written one thread saying he's safe as houses, then I've rewritten it by saying he's toast.
Then I was back to my original view, now I'm not so sure.
To mis-quote Bella Swan, in the greatest love story ever told, My mood swings are giving me whiplash
Anyway, the whole debate about foreign patients, self-inflicted injuries and missed appointments is a complete sideshow. What's driving up the costs of the NHS is a steadily ageing population.
Charging patients for bungee-jumping may make voters feel better but it does the square root of f all towards dealing with the underlying problem.
The underlying problem is the undying problem. We can now take a notional patient and fix most things now bar the brain - but at huge cost in surgery and ongoing medication. And everyone expects to be that nominal patient under the NHS.
It is an area where no politician will wade in. But at some point this century, I expect we are going to be taking a radically different view on quality of life and end of life. Are we really going to have the state look after 5 million dementia patients? 10 million?
In amongst all the reporting of the BBC, their Ipsos polling on the NHS tells us:
a) People do not want to pay more tax for it; b) People think foreign patients should be charged; c) People think those whose problems are self induced should be charged; d) People think those who waste the NHS' time by missing appointments etc should be charged;
I wonder which politician is actually listening rather than engaging in NHS ideology.
The public are moving the same way with healthcare that they did with immigration and welfare. They are in 'enough is enough' mode.
So if you are walking along the road and fall down a pot hole or walk into a tree you should get a freebie from the NHS. Otherwise you should be charged?
Does it say that?
I think once you head down the "self induced" road there are many potholes waiting for you.
It might be wise to consult the public on what they mean. They obviously have some things in mind.
If someone fell over while drunk or high on drugs and required A&E, it would take a hard hearted and selfish person to think they were as deserving of free treatment as an elderly person or toddler that had incurred the same injury while sober
But you can't ask clinicians to make a moral judgment like that. It's not their job, they haven't got time to do it and it's not what they are trained for.
In any event they can get it wrong. I have personal experience of this. I had my first grand mal fit on a Saturday evening, and ended up in casualty. I was treated as a drunk (ie given a bowl to throw up in and left to sober up) despite being stone cold sober and in a pretty bad way. (This sort of thing happens to epileptics a lot). It took about 12 hours for a consultant to look at me and work out what was actually going on. If there were a policy of prioritising "deserving" patients, God knows how I'd have ended up.
Gosh that sounds terrible. Why didn't the person that took you in explain what had happened?
They probably did. It was A&E on a Saturday night, I doubt anybody was listening.
Saturday night - when all the medical students are out on the lash.
Whatever your religion or none - this isn't good. Attacks on Christian churches up 245%
"While racist, anti-Muslim, and anti-Semitic attacks have seen a huge fall since 2008, those on Christian places of worship more than doubled in this period of time, France’s interior ministry reported last week.
Having documented a record number of anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim attacks in 2015, the French government spent €100 million on a huge anti-populist campaign to reduce Islamophobia, racism, and anti-Semitism.
Subsequently, racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-Muslim attacks fell sharply in 2016 with the former seeing a decline of 58.5 per cent and the latter a drop of 57.6 per cent. These attacks are defined as being fires, violence, degradation, and threats — comments, inscriptions, insulting letters.
In this year, attacks on Christian places of worship have increased by 17.4 per cent in 2016 compared to 2015. Racist attacks, meanwhile, dropped by 23.7 per cent (608 versus 797).
The sharp drop in incidents of an Islamophobic or anti-Semitic nature was welcomed by the French government, who credited the figures as the “fruit of the government’s action plan...
Le Figaro reported that acts which target Christians now account for 90 per cent assaults on places of worship.
The newspaper points out that, while it is to be expected that attacks on churches are the most plentiful because they exist in the largest number, cases in which Christian places of worship were defiled saw a huge rise between 2008 and 2016.
In the spirit of winkling out fake news, no numbers for attacks on christian places of worship is given, only racist attacks. If the number of 'christian' attacks went from 2 to 7 then it would have less impact than the percentage figure
Nebraska Democrats. Right now the popular vote is meaningless because voters from the losing side frequently don't bother in 'can't win' states such as CA.
Given that is the case?
Not sure. has no significance whatever.
I agree - but I am just wondering how many people do not vote in uncompetitive states who would do so otherwise. If they are not even responding to opinion polls then clearly they are completely cut off from the entire political process. Or it could be that states like California and Mississippi really are essentially one party.
I think the electoral college makes sense for a federal country such as the US. It's what it leads to that can be the problem. When a right win (or left wing) president who has received millions of votes less than his opponent can get Supreme Court nominations through a Senate in which the party with the majority has received fewer votes than the one with the minority, then a way of looking at the US constitution is being imposed by a minority on a majority. And that cannot just be corrected, given that SCOTUS judges are for life not just for a certain period of time.
Mr. Eagles, the Speaker's safe. He can count on partisan support from the reds and SNP, and there are enough Conservatives who'd back him for him to stay.
He shouldn't be. But I'd be very surprised if he went over this.
Mr. Meeks, I agree, and yet, he shouldn't be. He's politicised his office and it seems his people are now claiming the Speaker has no duty of neutrality on foreign matters, which is high grade horseshit.
Mr. Patrick, no, to stop drinking and start smoking. The taxes smokers pay cover their treatment and more. Drinkers are the reverse. If everyone stopped smoking there'd be billions of pounds gone from the budget. If everyone stopped drinking, the budget would grow (effectively) enormously.
It appears that John Bercow has expressed an opinion that has majority support in the House of Commons. Isn't that his job?
It is not for the executive to dictate to the legislature how to run itself. If the government had been less focused on scampering after the new president and abasing itself before him, it might have noticed the gross mistake it was making.
Bercow said in his speech that 'ordinarily the three keyholders would agree'.
He said so himself, and yet he's not had so much as a digestive biscuit with the Lords Speaker over the issue. I wonder if he didn't expect to get called out on such a breach of convention and protocol; which is simply amazing when his entire position is due to constitutional nuance and unwritten convention.
Who is the third keyholder if the Speakers in the Lords and HoC are the first two?
In amongst all the reporting of the BBC, their Ipsos polling on the NHS tells us:
aitician is actually listening rather than engaging in NHS ideology.
The public are moving the same way with healthcare that they did with immigration and welfare. They are in 'enough is enough' mode.
So if you are walking along the road and fall down a pot hole or walk into a tree you should get a freebie from the NHS. Otherwise you should be charged?
Does it say that?
I think once you head down the "self induced" road there are many potholes waiting for you.
It might be wise to consult the public on what they mean. They obviously have some things in mind.
If someone fell over while drunk or high on drugs and required A&E, it would take a hard hearted and selfish person to think they were as deserving of free treatment as an elderly person or toddler that had incurred the same injury while sober
But you can't ask clinicians to make a moral judgment like that. It's not their job, they haven't got time to do it and it's not what they are trained for.
Id up.
Breath test and if you're over the DD limit you have to pay
Would you expect them to pay for the entire cost of the treatment?
It is possible to be drunk and not be in the slightest bit responsible for the medical problem that you face.
And do you really want to discourage injured people from going to hospital?
Another way of looking at it would be encouraging people not to get so drunk
No, not the entire cost. I'd say anyone in A&E over the DD limit or under the influence of illegal drugs pays a tenner
You think a ten pound fine will discourage people from getting drunk?
It's not a fine it's a charge for being seen in A&E
Okay call it a charge. It still is not going to change anyone's decision about whether they get drunk and it's also not going to raise very much money particularly when you think about the cost of enforcement.
Bercow said in his speech that 'ordinarily the three keyholders would agree'.
He said so himself, and yet he's not had so much as a digestive biscuit with the Lords Speaker over the issue. I wonder if he didn't expect to get called out on such a breach of convention and protocol; which is simply amazing when his entire position is due to constitutional nuance and unwritten convention.
Who is the third keyholder if the Speakers in the Lords and HoC are the first two?
If I am at home, have had a couple of beers and glass of wine with my dinner and my appendix then bursts, do I wait until I can pass a breath test before calling the ambulance?
Mr. Meeks, how can we assess that? There was no vote on the matter. You're guessing he has majority support. Moreover, his job is to be neutral, not wade into diplomatic affairs.
It is not for the referee to try and score goals.
As others have quoted: May it please your majesty, I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place but as this house is pleased to direct me whose servant I am here; and humbly beg your majesty's pardon that I cannot give any other answer than this is to what your majesty is pleased to demand of me.
Anyway, the whole debate about foreign patients, self-inflicted injuries and missed appointments is a complete sideshow. What's driving up the costs of the NHS is a steadily ageing population.
Charging patients for bungee-jumping may make voters feel better but it does the square root of f all towards dealing with the underlying problem.
The underlying problem is the undying problem. We can now take a notional patient and fix most things now bar the brain - but at huge cost in surgery and ongoing medication. And everyone expects to be that nominal patient under the NHS.
It is an area where no politician will wade in. But at some point this century, I expect we are going to be taking a radically different view on quality of life and end of life. Are we really going to have the state look after 5 million dementia patients? 10 million?
We've moved to a Catholic interpretation of life- never mind the width, feel the length- with very little thought about the consequences. Our elected (and unelected) representives do little except evade the issue.
In amongst all the reporting of the BBC, their Ipsos polling on the NHS tells us:
aitician is actually listening rather than engaging in NHS ideology.
The public are moving the same way with healthcare that they did with immigration and welfare. They are in 'enough is enough' mode.
So if you are walking along the road and fall down a pot hole or walk into a tree you should get a freebie from the NHS. Otherwise you should be charged?
Does it say that?
I think once you head down the "self induced" road there are many potholes waiting for you.
It might be wise to consult the public on what they mean. They obviously have some things in mind.
If someone fell over while drunk or high on drugs and required A&E, it would take a hard hearted and selfish person to think they were as deserving of free treatment as an elderly person or toddler that had incurred the same injury while sober
But you can't ask clinicians to make a moral judgment like that. It's not their job, they haven't got time to do it and it's not what they are trained for.
Id up.
Breath test and if you're over the DD limit you have to pay
Would you expect them to pay for the entire cost of the treatment?
It is possible to be drunk and not be in the slightest bit responsible for the medical problem that you face.
And do you really want to discourage injured people from going to hospital?
Another way of looking at it would be encouraging people not to get so drunk
No, not the entire cost. I'd say anyone in A&E over the DD limit or under the influence of illegal drugs pays a tenner
You think a ten pound fine will discourage people from getting drunk?
It's not a fine it's a charge for being seen in A&E
Okay call it a charge. It still is not going to change anyone's decision about whether they get drunk and it's also not going to raise very much money particularly when you think about the cost of enforcement.
The DD limit is a bit arbitrary isn't it? Given that you can be over the limit after a single drink, and not in the slightest bit incapacitated.
Anyway, the whole debate about foreign patients, self-inflicted injuries and missed appointments is a complete sideshow. What's driving up the costs of the NHS is a steadily ageing population.
Charging patients for bungee-jumping may make voters feel better but it does the square root of f all towards dealing with the underlying problem.
The underlying problem is the undying problem. We can now take a notional patient and fix most things now bar the brain - but at huge cost in surgery and ongoing medication. And everyone expects to be that nominal patient under the NHS.
It is an area where no politician will wade in. But at some point this century, I expect we are going to be taking a radically different view on quality of life and end of life. Are we really going to have the state look after 5 million dementia patients? 10 million?
There's going to need to be a proper debate about end of live care and control as well. I think living wills and allowing someone to have control over their life and the right to end it is needed.
In amongst all the reporting of the BBC, their Ipsos polling on the NHS tells us:
aitician is actually listening rather than engaging in NHS ideology.
The public are moving the same way with healthcare that they did with immigration and welfare. They are in 'enough is enough' mode.
So if you are walking along the road and fall down a pot hole or walk into a tree you should get a freebie from the NHS. Otherwise you should be charged?
Does it say that?
I think once you head down the "self induced" road there are many potholes waiting for you.
It might be wise to consult the public on what they mean. They obviously have some things in mind.
If someone fell over while drunk or high on drugs and required A&E, it would take a hard hearted and selfish person to think they were as deserving of free treatment as an elderly person or toddler that had incurred the same injury while sober
But you can't ask clinicians to make a moral judgment like that. It's not their job, they haven't got time to do it and it's not what they are trained for.
Id up.
Breath test and if you're over the DD limit you have to pay
Would you expect them to pay for the entire cost of the treatment?
It is possible to be drunk and not be in the slightest bit responsible for the medical problem that you face.
And do you really want to discourage injured people from going to hospital?
Another way of looking at it would be encouraging people not to get so drunk
No, not the entire cost. I'd say anyone in A&E over the DD limit or under the influence of illegal drugs pays a tenner
You think a ten pound fine will discourage people from getting drunk?
It's not a fine it's a charge for being seen in A&E
Okay call it a charge. It still is not going to change anyone's decision about whether they get drunk and it's also not going to raise very much money particularly when you think about the cost of enforcement.
Well it might give some people pause for thought. I think it is a moral issue actually, it might wake people up to the fact that the onus is on them to take care of themselves not the state to keep looking after them
In amongst all the reporting of the BBC, their Ipsos polling on the NHS tells us:
aitician is actually listening rather than engaging in NHS ideology.
The public are moving the same way with healthcare that they did with immigration and welfare. They are in 'enough is enough' mode.
So if you are walking along the road and fall down a pot hole or walk into a tree you should get a freebie from the NHS. Otherwise you should be charged?
Does it say that?
I think once you head down the "self induced" road there are many potholes waiting for you.
It might be wise to consult the public on what they mean. They obviously have some things in mind.
If someone fell over while drunk or high on drugs and required A&E, it would take a hard hearted and selfish person to think they were as deserving of free treatment as an elderly person or toddler that had incurred the same injury while sober
But you can't ask clinicians to make a moral judgment like that. It's not their job, they haven't got time to do it and it's not what they are trained for.
Id up.
Breath test and if you're over the DD limit you have to pay
Would you expect them to pay for the entire cost of the treatment?
It is possible to be drunk and not be in the slightest bit responsible for the medical problem that you face.
And do you really want to discourage injured people from going to hospital?
Another way of looking at it would be encouraging people not to get so drunk
No, not the entire cost. I'd say anyone in A&E over the DD limit or under the influence of illegal drugs pays a tenner
You think a ten pound fine will discourage people from getting drunk?
It's not a fine it's a charge for being seen in A&E
Okay call it a charge. It still is not going to change anyone's decision about whether they get drunk and it's also not going to raise very much money particularly when you think about the cost of enforcement.
The DD limit is a bit arbitrary isn't it? Given that you can be over the limit after a single drink, and not in the slightest bit incapacitated.
Yes it would be an arbitrary limit. Some people might feel hard done by, plenty do now.
Donald J Trump I don't know Putin, have no deals in Russia, and the haters are going crazy - yet Obama can make a deal with Iran, #1in terror, no problem!
Mr. Meeks, how can we assess that? There was no vote on the matter. You're guessing he has majority support. Moreover, his job is to be neutral, not wade into diplomatic affairs.
It is not for the referee to try and score goals.
As others have quoted: May it please your majesty, I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place but as this house is pleased to direct me whose servant I am here; and humbly beg your majesty's pardon that I cannot give any other answer than this is to what your majesty is pleased to demand of me.
You're missing the point. The Speaker speaks for the House. He evidently believed he did so with majority support. He seems to have been correct in his belief (and perhaps he took advance soundings before opining). If so, he has correctly interpreted the House's direction to him as their servant.
Anyway, the whole debate about foreign patients, self-inflicted injuries and missed appointments is a complete sideshow. What's driving up the costs of the NHS is a steadily ageing population.
Charging patients for bungee-jumping may make voters feel better but it does the square root of f all towards dealing with the underlying problem.
No.
But a common theme with this and to be fair much of the immigration debate is that voters don't see why they should pay while there are conspicuously people around that appear to be taking the piss. Reducing the amount of piss being taken is in the first instance both popular and clearly right in its own terms, but also gives the public fewer squirrels to point at when the government comes rattling the tin for more money.
Bercow said in his speech that 'ordinarily the three keyholders would agree'.
He said so himself, and yet he's not had so much as a digestive biscuit with the Lords Speaker over the issue. I wonder if he didn't expect to get called out on such a breach of convention and protocol; which is simply amazing when his entire position is due to constitutional nuance and unwritten convention.
Andrew Mitchell spoke up for the Speaker this morning. I expect John Bercow is safe enough.
My next thread is on the Speaker surviving, so far I've written one thread saying he's safe as houses, then I've rewritten it by saying he's toast.
Then I was back to my original view, now I'm not so sure.
To mis-quote Bella Swan, in the greatest love story ever told, My mood swings are giving me whiplash
Bercow is toast but not necessarily just yet. He's burned too many bridges with the Tory side and while he might fall over the Trump outburst (and should), MPs might hold off with the hope of bringing him down at a time when the division isn't so openly partisan.
From a party management point of view, the problem is not so much getting rid of him - it'd only take 20 or so MPs to behave towards him with open contempt while another hundred watched passively on for his position to become untenable - it's who do you replace him with?
The obvious choice is Lindsay Hoyle, who's an effective chair and who couldn't on any account be considered a government patsy (which would be the allegation thrown against any Tory nominated, whether true or not). But he'd need to up for a coup against Bercow, if only tacitly.
Hoyle ought to be up for restoring the dignity of the post but you can never be sure.
One side-effect, were events to play out like this, would be a growing pseudo-convention (or set of happenstances), whereby the Speaker came from the Opposition benches. He'd be the third out of four with the exception - Martin - having proven a poor choice.
Bercow said in his speech that 'ordinarily the three keyholders would agree'.
He said so himself, and yet he's not had so much as a digestive biscuit with the Lords Speaker over the issue. I wonder if he didn't expect to get called out on such a breach of convention and protocol; which is simply amazing when his entire position is due to constitutional nuance and unwritten convention.
Who is the third keyholder if the Speakers in the Lords and HoC are the first two?
The Lord Great Chamberlain.
Ah yes, David Cholmondeley, 7th Marquess of Cholmondeley. Will he decide if the US President can attend?
Probably too many letters in his name for Trump to use it in a tweet slagging him off. Clever.
It does seem pretty well priced. There has to be a chance she goes over it; apparently her constituency party came within 2 votes of directing her to do so. Abstaining again would be embarrassing, but it might still be the least worst option.
Bercow said in his speech that 'ordinarily the three keyholders would agree'.
He said so himself, and yet he's not had so much as a digestive biscuit with the Lords Speaker over the issue. I wonder if he didn't expect to get called out on such a breach of convention and protocol; which is simply amazing when his entire position is due to constitutional nuance and unwritten convention.
Andrew Mitchell spoke up for the Speaker this morning. I expect John Bercow is safe enough.
My next thread is on the Speaker surviving, so far I've written one thread saying he's safe as houses, then I've rewritten it by saying he's toast.
Then I was back to my original view, now I'm not so sure.
To mis-quote Bella Swan, in the greatest love story ever told, My mood swings are giving me whiplash
Bercow is toast but not necessarily just yet. He's burned too many bridges with the Tory side and while he might fall over the Trump outburst (and should), MPs might hold off with the hope of bringing him down at a time when the division isn't so openly partisan.
From a party management point of view, the problem is not so much getting rid of him - it'd only take 20 or so MPs to behave towards him with open contempt while another hundred watched passively on for his position to become untenable - it's who do you replace him with?
The obvious choice is Lindsay Hoyle, who's an effective chair and who couldn't on any account be considered a government patsy (which would be the allegation thrown against any Tory nominated, whether true or not). But he'd need to up for a coup against Bercow, if only tacitly.
Hoyle ought to be up for restoring the dignity of the post but you can never be sure.
One side-effect, were events to play out like this, would be a growing pseudo-convention (or set of happenstances), whereby the Speaker came from the Opposition benches. He'd be the third out of four with the exception - Martin - having proven a poor choice.
I like Lindsey Hoyle a lot but hasn't he pissed off the Nats?
Rubbish. If actual votes had equal theoretical power then you wouldn't need an electoral college, you would just put the lot in one sack and count them. And Trump losing by 3 million in the popular vote would matter then.
Nonsense. Most states are winner takes all. If the Democrats get 51% of the vote in the state they send all the electors that state is entitled to. This is the case in 48 states.
Rubbish. If actual votes had equal theoretical power then you wouldn't need an electoral college, you would just put the lot in one sack and count them. And Trump losing by 3 million in the popular vote would matter then.
If you lose at Rugby Union, there's no point lamenting you'd have won if you were playing Rugby League. If you win 30 out of 50 States in the US, you win.
@Innocentabroad original argument was that rural votes were more powerful than urban ones and that states having 3 ECVs by default biased the system to the GOP.
I have PROVED that is simply not the case, and if every voter in every state had equal worth, then Trump would still have won 304 ECVs.
If every voter in the US had equal worth Hillary would have won by 2 million votes plus.
That we don't know. It'd depend on (1) whether the differences in campaign strategy that would have resulted from a different electoral system would have increased the GOP vote or depressed the Democrats', and (2) to what extent differential turnout would be affected in both safe Red and safe Blue states (which would affect both sides in each case: there'd be some who support the winners who couldn't be bothered, though the losers' votes are probably depressed more).
c) People think those whose problems are self induced should be charged;
The public are moving the same way with healthcare that they did with immigration and welfare. They are in 'enough is enough' mode.
OK - start with smokers. Smoking is a well-known form of self-induced harm and simple to spot in hospital.
Don't some people have lung cancer even though they have never smoked.
Not always easy to attribute cause and effect.
Indeed. I am not supporting the argument, just pointing out its absurdities and wondering how many people agree with the proposition that "...those whose problems are self induced should be charged..." whilst believing that it does not apply to them
Just imagine two queues in A&E - one queue with a payment terminal for everyone who is foreign, fat, drunk of smelling or smoke and the other queue for everyone else.
What could go wrong?
Why would there be two queues? You come in, take a breath test at the counter and either pay or don't
As I pointed out, some people come in unconscious, or at least in no state to take a breath test (like me).
But anyway, who's going to administer the test? How many breathalysers and extra staff are you going to pay for in each A&E department? How do you invoice for and process the payments? How do you enforce payment?
You'll almost certainly find the costs of this sort of scheme would outweigh any potential savings.
I don't know why I'm bothering. It's such a patently stupid suggestion that it really is a waste of pixels going on with this argument.
Bercow said in his speech that 'ordinarily the three keyholders would agree'.
He said so himself, and yet he's not had so much as a digestive biscuit with the Lords Speaker over the issue. I wonder if he didn't expect to get called out on such a breach of convention and protocol; which is simply amazing when his entire position is due to constitutional nuance and unwritten convention.
Andrew Mitchell spoke up for the Speaker this morning. I expect John Bercow is safe enough.
My next thread is on the Speaker surviving, so far I've written one thread saying he's safe as houses, then I've rewritten it by saying he's toast.
Then I was back to my original view, now I'm not so sure.
To mis-quote Bella Swan, in the greatest love story ever told, My mood swings are giving me whiplash
Bercow is toast but not necessarily just yet. He's burned too many bridges with the Tory side and while he might fall over the Trump outburst (and should), MPs might hold off with the hope of bringing him down at a time when the division isn't so openly partisan.
From a party management point of view, the problem is not so much getting rid of him - it'd only take 20 or so MPs to behave towards him with open contempt while another hundred watched passively on for his position to become untenable - it's who do you replace him with?
The obvious choice is Lindsay Hoyle, who's an effective chair and who couldn't on any account be considered a government patsy (which would be the allegation thrown against any Tory nominated, whether true or not). But he'd need to up for a coup against Bercow, if only tacitly.
Hoyle ought to be up for restoring the dignity of the post but you can never be sure.
One side-effect, were events to play out like this, would be a growing pseudo-convention (or set of happenstances), whereby the Speaker came from the Opposition benches. He'd be the third out of four with the exception - Martin - having proven a poor choice.
There's another angle to this: does the government really want a battle with the speaker at the moment?
Surely it's an unwanted diversion with few upsides? After all, the last couple of times they went on manoeuvres against Bercow, they lost.
Mr. Meeks, how can we assess that? There was no vote on the matter. You're guessing he has majority support. Moreover, his job is to be neutral, not wade into diplomatic affairs.
It is not for the referee to try and score goals.
As others have quoted: May it please your majesty, I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place but as this house is pleased to direct me whose servant I am here; and humbly beg your majesty's pardon that I cannot give any other answer than this is to what your majesty is pleased to demand of me.
The referee analogy doesn't work. The referee is not supposed to represent the teams. Referees make decisions both sides don't like sometimes.
If the house doesn't want Trump then speaker should say so.
As for needing a vote... Having a vote is a partisan act in itself and would be very unwelcome to the government. If MPs don't agree and want Trump to come they will say so?
If JB was just speaking off the top of his head and giving his own view that is wrong. But if he has support from parliament then I think he is doing the right thing?
In amongst all the reporting of the BBC, their Ipsos polling on the NHS tells us:
a) People do not want to pay more tax for it; b) People think foreign patients should be charged; c) People think those whose problems are self induced should be charged; d) People think those who waste the NHS' time by missing appointments etc should be charged;
I wonder which politician is actually listening rather than engaging in NHS ideology.
The public are moving the same way with healthcare that they did with immigration and welfare. They are in 'enough is enough' mode.
So if you are walking along the road and fall down a pot hole or walk into a tree you should get a freebie from the NHS. Otherwise you should be charged?
Does it say that?
I think once you head down the "self induced" road there are many potholes waiting for you.
It might be wise to consult the public on what they mean. They obviously have some things in mind.
I think you would get into some very interesting, not to say Socratic debate on the subject.
Bercow said in his speech that 'ordinarily the three keyholders would agree'.
He said so himself, and yet he's not had so much as a digestive biscuit with the Lords Speaker over the issue. I wonder if he didn't expect to get called out on such a breach of convention and protocol; which is simply amazing when his entire position is due to constitutional nuance and unwritten convention.
Andrew Mitchell spoke up for the Speaker this morning. I expect John Bercow is safe enough.
My next thread is on the Speaker surviving, so far I've written one thread saying he's safe as houses, then I've rewritten it by saying he's toast.
Then I was back to my original view, now I'm not so sure.
To mis-quote Bella Swan, in the greatest love story ever told, My mood swings are giving me whiplash
Bercow is toast but not necessarily just yet. He's burned too many bridges with the Tory side and while he might fall over the Trump outburst (and should), MPs might hold off with the hope of bringing him down at a time when the division isn't so openly partisan.
From a party management point of view, the problem is not so much getting rid of him - it'd only take 20 or so MPs to behave towards him with open contempt while another hundred watched passively on for his position to become untenable - it's who do you replace him with?
The obvious choice is Lindsay Hoyle, who's an effective chair and who couldn't on any account be considered a government patsy (which would be the allegation thrown against any Tory nominated, whether true or not). But he'd need to up for a coup against Bercow, if only tacitly.
Hoyle ought to be up for restoring the dignity of the post but you can never be sure.
One side-effect, were events to play out like this, would be a growing pseudo-convention (or set of happenstances), whereby the Speaker came from the Opposition benches. He'd be the third out of four with the exception - Martin - having proven a poor choice.
I like Lindsey Hoyle a lot but hasn't he pissed off the Nats?
I don't honestly know. But probably: it doesn't take much.
c) People think those whose problems are self induced should be charged;
The public are moving the same way with healthcare that they did with immigration and welfare. They are in 'enough is enough' mode.
OK - start with smokers. Smoking is a well-known form of self-induced harm and simple to spot in hospital.
A counter argument is that they already pay in advance via their tax contribution every time they smoke a pack. Likewise drinkers. Now the state is moving on to sugar consumers. No doubt these are on the list though.
Bad drivers? Irresponsible cyclists? Skiers? People who engage in a Friday night punch up?
The PB Lawyers seem to be coming up with lots of ways people can't be asked to pay, and rather less about how the bill is going to be met. Its all very well to say general taxation, but that will in all likelihood be the ultimate election losing policy all the time the public think other people are freeloading.
Bercow said in his speech that 'ordinarily the three keyholders would agree'.
He said so himself, and yet he's not had so much as a digestive biscuit with the Lords Speaker over the issue. I wonder if he didn't expect to get called out on such a breach of convention and protocol; which is simply amazing when his entire position is due to constitutional nuance and unwritten convention.
Who is the third keyholder if the Speakers in the Lords and HoC are the first two?
The Lord Great Chamberlain.
Ah yes, David Cholmondeley, 7th Marquess of Cholmondeley. Will he decide if the US President can attend?
Probably too many letters in his name for Trump to use it in a tweet slagging him off. Clever.
Isn't it pronounced Chumly? That's only 6 characters.
Mr. Meeks, how can we assess that? There was no vote on the matter. You're guessing he has majority support. Moreover, his job is to be neutral, not wade into diplomatic affairs.
It is not for the referee to try and score goals.
As others have quoted: May it please your majesty, I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place but as this house is pleased to direct me whose servant I am here; and humbly beg your majesty's pardon that I cannot give any other answer than this is to what your majesty is pleased to demand of me.
You're missing the point. The Speaker speaks for the House. He evidently believed he did so with majority support. He seems to have been correct in his belief (and perhaps he took advance soundings before opining). If so, he has correctly interpreted the House's direction to him as their servant.
It's not up to the Speaker to 'interpret' the mood of the House and then say something (or at least, something controversial). It's for the House to *tell* the Speaker what its view is and for the Speaker to *report* it.
Otherwise, the Speaker would effectively be nothing more than a mouthpiece of - or even a member of - the government.
c) People think those whose problems are self induced should be charged;
The public are moving the same way with healthcare that they did with immigration and welfare. They are in 'enough is enough' mode.
OK - start with smokers. Smoking is a well-known form of self-induced harm and simple to spot in hospital.
Don't some people have lung cancer even though they have never smoked.
Not always easy to attribute cause and effect.
Indeed. I am not supporting the argument, just pointing out its absurdities and wondering how many people agree with the proposition that "...those whose problems are self induced should be charged..." whilst believing that it does not apply to them
Just imagine two queues in A&E - one queue with a payment terminal for everyone who is foreign, fat, drunk of smelling or smoke and the other queue for everyone else.
What could go wrong?
Why would there be two queues? You come in, take a breath test at the counter and either pay or don't
As I pointed out, some people come in unconscious, or at least in no state to take a breath test (like me).
But anyway, who's going to administer the test? How many breathalysers and extra staff are you going to pay for in each A&E department? How do you invoice for and process the payments? How do you enforce payment?
You'll almost certainly find the costs of this sort of scheme would outweigh any potential savings.
I don't know why I'm bothering. It's such a patently stupid suggestion that it really is a waste of pixels going on with this argument.
Charge more than a tenner if the costs outweigh the savings. Make it £100
It's not a stupid idea. A&E is abused by people who brought their injuries on themselves, I have spoken to several NHS staff who think it should no longer be free of charge
Bercow said in his speech that 'ordinarily the three keyholders would agree'.
He said so himself, and yet he's not had so much as a digestive biscuit with the Lords Speaker over the issue. I wonder if he didn't expect to get called out on such a breach of convention and protocol; which is simply amazing when his entire position is due to constitutional nuance and unwritten convention.
Andrew Mitchell spoke up for the Speaker this morning. I expect John Bercow is safe enough.
My next thread is on the Speaker surviving, so far I've written one thread saying he's safe as houses, then I've rewritten it by saying he's toast.
Then I was back to my original view, now I'm not so sure.
To mis-quote Bella Swan, in the greatest love story ever told, My mood swings are giving me whiplash
Bercow is toast but not necessarily just yet. He's burned too many bridges with the Tory side and while he might fall over the Trump outburst (and should), MPs might hold off with the hope of bringing him down at a time when the division isn't so openly partisan.
From a party management point of view, the problem is not so much getting rid of him - it'd only take 20 or so MPs to behave towards him with open contempt while another hundred watched passively on for his position to become untenable - it's who do you replace him with?
The obvious choice is Lindsay Hoyle, who's an effective chair and who couldn't on any account be considered a government patsy (which would be the allegation thrown against any Tory nominated, whether true or not). But he'd need to up for a coup against Bercow, if only tacitly.
Hoyle ought to be up for restoring the dignity of the post but you can never be sure.
One side-effect, were events to play out like this, would be a growing pseudo-convention (or set of happenstances), whereby the Speaker came from the Opposition benches. He'd be the third out of four with the exception - Martin - having proven a poor choice.
I like Lindsey Hoyle a lot but hasn't he pissed off the Nats?
I don't honestly know. But probably: it doesn't take much.
Bercow said in his speech that 'ordinarily the three keyholders would agree'.
He said so himself, and yet he's not had so much as a digestive biscuit with the Lords Speaker over the issue. I wonder if he didn't expect to get called out on such a breach of convention and protocol; which is simply amazing when his entire position is due to constitutional nuance and unwritten convention.
Andrew Mitchell spoke up for the Speaker this morning. I expect John Bercow is safe enough.
My next thread is on the Speaker surviving, so far I've written one thread saying he's safe as houses, then I've rewritten it by saying he's toast.
Then I was back to my original view, now I'm not so sure.
To mis-quote Bella Swan, in the greatest love story ever told, My mood swings are giving me whiplash
Bercow is toast but not necessarily just yet. He's burned too many bridges with the Tory side and while he might fall over the Trump outburst (and should), MPs might hold off with the hope of bringing him down at a time when the division isn't so openly partisan.
From a party management point of view, the problem is not so much getting rid of him - it'd only take 20 or so MPs to behave towards him with open contempt while another hundred watched passively on for his position to become untenable - it's who do you replace him with?
The obvious choice is Lindsay Hoyle, who's an effective chair and who couldn't on any account be considered a government patsy (which would be the allegation thrown against any Tory nominated, whether true or not). But he'd need to up for a coup against Bercow, if only tacitly.
Hoyle ought to be up for restoring the dignity of the post but you can never be sure.
One side-effect, were events to play out like this, would be a growing pseudo-convention (or set of happenstances), whereby the Speaker came from the Opposition benches. He'd be the third out of four with the exception - Martin - having proven a poor choice.
There's another angle to this: does the government really want a battle with the speaker at the moment?
Surely it's an unwanted diversion with few upsides? After all, the last couple of times they went on manoeuvres against Bercow, they lost.
That's one reason why I'm far from convinced the government will give a nod and wink. They need to avoid his active opposition at this precise moment, while Brexit is still live - but if they delay past this week the moment to dump him over Trump will pass.
c) People think those whose problems are self induced should be charged;
The public are moving the same way with healthcare that they did with immigration and welfare. They are in 'enough is enough' mode.
OK - start with smokers. Smoking is a well-known form of self-induced harm and simple to spot in hospital.
A counter argument is that they already pay in advance via their tax contribution every time they smoke a pack. Likewise drinkers. Now the state is moving on to sugar consumers. No doubt these are on the list though.
Bad drivers? Irresponsible cyclists? Skiers? People who engage in a Friday night punch up?
The PB Lawyers seem to be coming up with lots of ways people can't be asked to pay, and rather less about how the bill is going to be met. Its all very well to say general taxation, but that will in all likelihood be the ultimate election losing policy all the time the public think other people are freeloading.
Presumably at least this discussion has put to bed the idea that health is not fudamentally political and that a royal commission will be able to sidestep all these political issues.
Anyway, the whole debate about foreign patients, self-inflicted injuries and missed appointments is a complete sideshow. What's driving up the costs of the NHS is a steadily ageing population.
Charging patients for bungee-jumping may make voters feel better but it does the square root of f all towards dealing with the underlying problem.
The underlying problem is the undying problem. We can now take a notional patient and fix most things now bar the brain - but at huge cost in surgery and ongoing medication. And everyone expects to be that nominal patient under the NHS.
It is an area where no politician will wade in. But at some point this century, I expect we are going to be taking a radically different view on quality of life and end of life. Are we really going to have the state look after 5 million dementia patients? 10 million?
There's going to need to be a proper debate about end of live care and control as well. I think living wills and allowing someone to have control over their life and the right to end it is needed.
Absolutely. We can agree to live together, get married, have children - but we can't agree to assist each other die if the one wants that. If my wife were to be in huge pain, house-bound, a mere shadow of her former vibrant self, I would respect her wish if she wanted to die. Even though that may mean jail time for me, to help bring that about.
Similarly, if I were to become aware that the rest of my lifetime was being lived under dementia, I would want to have a bit of time to tick off a few bucket list items while I could still appreciate them - but then I want to check out. I don't want somebody stepping in and saying my judgment was clouded, so they are going to decide for me that I will spend twenty years in a home, surrounded by similar broken people. No, I want my wishes respected - and I want to check out. Painlessly, surrounded by my nearest and dearest, in a warm, loving setting. At home, not in Switzerland.
This whole area has to be revisited, and profound change embraced. I will have huge respect for the first politician prepared to stick their head above the parapet on this subject.
I wonder if there's value for an honourable member to ask the Speaker if it acceptable to invite a representative of North Korea into the Palace of Westminster
If turnout was identical in every single state, and no state had a "baseline" of 2 electoral college votes; and the worth was decided strictly on population then the electoral college would have fallen as follows:
By population
303.1207914 234.8792086
Rounded 303 to 235.
Which meant Trump would have lost an entire electoral college vote:
@paulhutcheon: UK Labour: imposes whip to vote for Article 50 Scottish Labour: imposes whip to vote against Article 50
The UK Labour Party is reflecting the democratic will of the UK people. The Scottish Labour Party is reflecting the democratic will of the Scottish people.
English & Welsh MPs of any party who vote against triggering Article 50 are sticking two fingers up at the people.
c) People think those whose problems are self induced should be charged;
The public are moving the same way with healthcare that they did with immigration and welfare. They are in 'enough is enough' mode.
OK - start with smokers. Smoking is a well-known form of self-induced harm and simple to spot in hospital.
Don't some people have lung cancer even though they have never smoked.
Not always easy to attribute cause and effect.
Indeed. I am not supporting the argument, just pointing out its absurdities and wondering how many people agree with the proposition that "...those whose problems are self induced should be charged..." whilst believing that it does not apply to them
Just imagine two queues in A&E - one queue with a payment terminal for everyone who is foreign, fat, drunk of smelling or smoke and the other queue for everyone else.
What could go wrong?
Why would there be two queues? You come in, take a breath test at the counter and either pay or don't
As I pointed out, some people come in unconscious, or at least in no state to take a breath test (like me).
But anyway, who's going to administer the test? How many breathalysers and extra staff are you going to pay for in each A&E department? How do you invoice for and process the payments? How do you enforce payment?
You'll almost certainly find the costs of this sort of scheme would outweigh any potential savings.
I don't know why I'm bothering. It's such a patently stupid suggestion that it really is a waste of pixels going on with this argument.
Charge more than a tenner if the costs outweigh the savings. Make it £100
It's not a stupid idea. A&E is abused by people who brought their injuries on themselves, I have spoken to several NHS staff who think it should no longer be free of charge
Alternatively, let it be known that every day, five people admitted to hospital will be taken out the back and shot.
A&E admissions would drop 90%.... Even if you enacted the shooting bit, there'd still be a hell of a lot less people dead than die daily in a massively overstretched NHS.
Mr. Meeks, how can we assess that? There was no vote on the matter. You're guessing he has majority support. Moreover, his job is to be neutral, not wade into diplomatic affairs.
It is not for the referee to try and score goals.
As others have quoted: May it please your majesty, I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place but as this house is pleased to direct me whose servant I am here; and humbly beg your majesty's pardon that I cannot give any other answer than this is to what your majesty is pleased to demand of me.
You're missing the point. The Speaker speaks for the House. He evidently believed he did so with majority support. He seems to have been correct in his belief (and perhaps he took advance soundings before opining). If so, he has correctly interpreted the House's direction to him as their servant.
It's not up to the Speaker to 'interpret' the mood of the House and then say something (or at least, something controversial). It's for the House to *tell* the Speaker what its view is and for the Speaker to *report* it.
Otherwise, the Speaker would effectively be nothing more than a mouthpiece of - or even a member of - the government.
Well that's not right either. In Britain's imperfect system, the executive has far more influence over the legislature than is healthy but not all members of the governing party in the House of Commons are part of the executive. Some will actively not seek such a role. Some will be wanting to be critical friends. Their interests are not necessarily those of the executive and often will be diametrically opposed to them. And it seems strange for you to be making this suggestion precisely when the Speaker has acted inconveniently to the executive.
The government seems to have overlooked some important niceties when wanting to curry favour with President Trump. Did it occur to no one to check whether this invitation was one that Parliament was willing to endorse?
Bercow said in his speech that 'ordinarily the three keyholders would agree'.
He said so himself, and yet he's not had so much as a digestive biscuit with the Lords Speaker over the issue. I wonder if he didn't expect to get called out on such a breach of convention and protocol; which is simply amazing when his entire position is due to constitutional nuance and unwritten convention.
Andrew Mitchell spoke up for the Speaker this morning. I expect John Bercow is safe enough.
My next thread is on the Speaker surviving, so far I've written one thread saying he's safe as houses, then I've rewritten it by saying he's toast.
Then I was back to my original view, now I'm not so sure.
To mis-quote Bella Swan, in the greatest love story ever told, My mood swings are giving me whiplash
Bercow is toast but not necessarily just yet. He's burned too many bridges with the Tory side and while he might fall over the Trump outburst (and should), MPs might hold off with the hope of bringing him down at a time when the division isn't so openly partisan.
From a party management point of view, the problem is not so much getting rid of him - it'd only take 20 or so MPs to behave towards him with open contempt while another hundred watched passively on for his position to become untenable - it's who do you replace him with?
The obvious choice is Lindsay Hoyle, who's an effective chair and who couldn't on any account be considered a government patsy (which would be the allegation thrown against any Tory nominated, whether true or not). But he'd need to up for a coup against Bercow, if only tacitly.
Hoyle ought to be up for restoring the dignity of the post but you can never be sure.
One side-effect, were events to play out like this, would be a growing pseudo-convention (or set of happenstances), whereby the Speaker came from the Opposition benches. He'd be the third out of four with the exception - Martin - having proven a poor choice.
There's another angle to this: does the government really want a battle with the speaker at the moment?
Surely it's an unwanted diversion with few upsides? After all, the last couple of times they went on manoeuvres against Bercow, they lost.
Depends if Bercow starts making life hard for the government over BrExit, given how close some of the voting might be, if he goes on manoeuvres there he might be out the door quite fast.
Anyway, the whole debate about foreign patients, self-inflicted injuries and missed appointments is a complete sideshow. What's driving up the costs of the NHS is a steadily ageing population.
Charging patients for bungee-jumping may make voters feel better but it does the square root of f all towards dealing with the underlying problem.
The underlying problem is the undying problem. We can now take a notional patient and fix most things now bar the brain - but at huge cost in surgery and ongoing medication. And everyone expects to be that nominal patient under the NHS.
It is an area where no politician will wade in. But at some point this century, I expect we are going to be taking a radically different view on quality of life and end of life. Are we really going to have the state look after 5 million dementia patients? 10 million?
There are at least a couple of very promising lines of research that (with luck) will very significantly reduce the dementia-in-old-age problem at some point this century. Then, I suppose, the issue is how one deals with increasing physical frailty. Go the Japanese route? Robots?
If Abbott honestly wants to abstain, she should do so and head through both lobbies, or at least put out a "Why I am abstaining" piece. Lamb & Mulholland both abstained and set out very clearly their reasons for doing so. Her abstention with the fake sickie was pure political cowardice, and Boles has shown her up with what it means to be a proper parliamentarian today.
The PB Lawyers seem to be coming up with lots of ways people can't be asked to pay, and rather less about how the bill is going to be met. Its all very well to say general taxation, but that will in all likelihood be the ultimate election losing policy all the time the public think other people are freeloading.
Presumably at least this discussion has put to bed the idea that health is not fundamentally political and that a royal commission will be able to sidestep all these political issues.
A royal commission is never going to fly. At some point it will report, the government of the day will have to decide whether or not to implement its recommendations, and carry the can for its successes or failures. If the government figures there is any chance its is going to cost it the next election the recommendations will be dumped with alacrity, especially if they are able to blame the other party for setting it up with inappropriate terms of reference etc.
Charge more than a tenner if the costs outweigh the savings. Make it £100
It's not a stupid idea. A&E is abused by people who brought their injuries on themselves, I have spoken to several NHS staff who think it should no longer be free of charge
"people who brought their injuries on themselves"
When I fractured my elbow last year whilst out hiking, I essentially brought the injury on myself: I was doing a hobby and stupidly slipped through lack of caution. Should I have been charged for the A&E ? How about a friend who shattered his collarbone last year whilst training for an Ironman (he tried bunny-hopping onto a kerb on his racing bike) ?
Why are drinking or drugs the only ways someone can 'bring' an injury on themselves?
Being slightly more serious: a problem is that it's easy to see scenarios where it is hard to argue with you: someone's been absolutely stupid and hurt themselves whilst the worse for wear. The difficulties comes in the less obvious scenarios, and that's where the costs would come in.
Anyway, the whole debate about foreign patients, self-inflicted injuries and missed appointments is a complete sideshow. What's driving up the costs of the NHS is a steadily ageing population.
Charging patients for bungee-jumping may make voters feel better but it does the square root of f all towards dealing with the underlying problem.
The underlying problem is the undying problem. We can now take a notional patient and fix most things now bar the brain - but at huge cost in surgery and ongoing medication. And everyone expects to be that nominal patient under the NHS.
It is an area where no politician will wade in. But at some point this century, I expect we are going to be taking a radically different view on quality of life and end of life. Are we really going to have the state look after 5 million dementia patients? 10 million?
There's going to need to be a proper debate about end of live care and control as well. I think living wills and allowing someone to have control over their life and the right to end it is needed.
Absolutely. We can agree to live together, get married, have children - but we can't agree to assist each other die if the one wants that. If my wife were to be in huge pain, house-bound, a mere shadow of her former vibrant self, I would respect her wish if she wanted to die. Even though that may mean jail time for me, to help bring that about.
Similarly, if I were to become aware that the rest of my lifetime was being lived under dementia, I would want to have a bit of time to tick off a few bucket list items while I could still appreciate them - but then I want to check out. I don't want somebody stepping in and saying my judgment was clouded, so they are going to decide for me that I will spend twenty years in a home, surrounded by similar broken people. No, I want my wishes respected - and I want to check out. Painlessly, surrounded by my nearest and dearest, in a warm, loving setting. At home, not in Switzerland.
This whole area has to be revisited, and profound change embraced. I will have huge respect for the first politician prepared to stick their head above the parapet on this subject.
I am with you on this. Interestingly, Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court would almost certainly rule legislation allowing such choice unconstitutional.
Anyway, the whole debate about foreign patients, self-inflicted injuries and missed appointments is a complete sideshow. What's driving up the costs of the NHS is a steadily ageing population.
Charging patients for bungee-jumping may make voters feel better but it does the square root of f all towards dealing with the underlying problem.
The underlying problem is the undying problem. We can now take a notional patient and fix most things now bar the brain - but at huge cost in surgery and ongoing medication. And everyone expects to be that nominal patient under the NHS.
It is an area where no politician will wade in. But at some point this century, I expect we are going to be taking a radically different view on quality of life and end of life. Are we really going to have the state look after 5 million dementia patients? 10 million?
There's going to need to be a proper debate about end of live care and control as well. I think living wills and allowing someone to have control over their life and the right to end it is needed.
Absolutely. We can agree to live together, get married, have children - but we can't agree to assist each other die if the one wants that. If my wife were to be in huge pain, house-bound, a mere shadow of her former vibrant self, I would respect her wish if she wanted to die. Even though that may mean jail time for me, to help bring that about.
Similarly, if I were to become aware that the rest of my lifetime was being lived under dementia, I would want to have a bit of time to tick off a few bucket list items while I could still appreciate them - but then I want to check out. I don't want somebody stepping in and saying my judgment was clouded, so they are going to decide for me that I will spend twenty years in a home, surrounded by similar broken people. No, I want my wishes respected - and I want to check out. Painlessly, surrounded by my nearest and dearest, in a warm, loving setting. At home, not in Switzerland.
This whole area has to be revisited, and profound change embraced. I will have huge respect for the first politician prepared to stick their head above the parapet on this subject.
Mr. Meeks, I fear you're overlooking a supposedly neutral umpire wading into partisan political matters because it suits your perspective.
I think Trump's an oaf and his executive order ill-conceived and unjust, but that doesn't mean the Speaker of the House of Commons suddenly has permission to be a player rather than a referee.
Mr. rkrkrk, the footage yesterday was instructive. The Speaker got cheers and applause, from one side of the House, and stony silence from the other. That's not speaking for the House. It's speaking for the Opposition.
To return to last night's altercation between the SNP and the Deputy Speaker, would it not have been possible for the SNP to have sought to cause mayhem by one of their number shouting 'I spy a member of the public!' ? That device would surely have led to endless delays if repeated often enough.
@MrHarryCole: Javid sticks it to the Speaker - said he hoped Housing white paper would dominate morning news "but someone beat me to it." Bercow froths.
Anyway, the whole debate about foreign patients, self-inflicted injuries and missed appointments is a complete sideshow. What's driving up the costs of the NHS is a steadily ageing population.
Charging patients for bungee-jumping may make voters feel better but it does the square root of f all towards dealing with the underlying problem.
The underlying problem is the undying problem. We can now take a notional patient and fix most things now bar the brain - but at huge cost in surgery and ongoing medication. And everyone expects to be that nominal patient under the NHS.
It is an area where no politician will wade in. But at some point this century, I expect we are going to be taking a radically different view on quality of life and end of life. Are we really going to have the state look after 5 million dementia patients? 10 million?
There's going to need to be a proper debate about end of live care and control as well. I think living wills and allowing someone to have control over their life and the right to end it is needed.
Absolutely. We can agree to live together, get married, have children - but we can't agree to assist each other die if the one wants that. If my wife were to be in huge pain, house-bound, a mere shadow of her former vibrant self, I would respect her wish if she wanted to die. Even though that may mean jail time for me, to help bring that about.
Similarly, if I were to become aware that the rest of my lifetime was being lived under dementia, I would want to have a bit of time to tick off a few bucket list items while I could still appreciate them - but then I want to check out. I don't want somebody stepping in and saying my judgment was clouded, so they are going to decide for me that I will spend twenty years in a home, surrounded by similar broken people. No, I want my wishes respected - and I want to check out. Painlessly, surrounded by my nearest and dearest, in a warm, loving setting. At home, not in Switzerland.
This whole area has to be revisited, and profound change embraced. I will have huge respect for the first politician prepared to stick their head above the parapet on this subject.
I am with you on this. Interestingly, Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court would almost certainly rule legislation allowing such choice unconstitutional.
Yes. Gorsuch has the view that life is inherently valuable, from which his arguments on end of life (And presumably abortion) flow. It is an ethical argument, but not one which I believe is the alpha and omega of the debate.
@paulhutcheon: UK Labour: imposes whip to vote for Article 50 Scottish Labour: imposes whip to vote against Article 50
The UK Labour Party is reflecting the democratic will of the UK people. The Scottish Labour Party is reflecting the democratic will of the Scottish people.
English & Welsh MPs of any party who vote against triggering Article 50 are sticking two fingers up at the people.
Nonsense, you can accept the result but not the process.
Mr. Meeks, I fear you're overlooking a supposedly neutral umpire wading into partisan political matters because it suits your perspective.
I think Trump's an oaf and his executive order ill-conceived and unjust, but that doesn't mean the Speaker of the House of Commons suddenly has permission to be a player rather than a referee.
Mr. rkrkrk, the footage yesterday was instructive. The Speaker got cheers and applause, from one side of the House, and stony silence from the other. That's not speaking for the House. It's speaking for the Opposition.
Mr Dancer, the Speaker isn't a neutral umpire. He speaks for the House. He evidently believes that he has done so on this occasion.
c) People think those whose problems are self induced should be charged;
The public are moving the same way with healthcare that they did with immigration and welfare. They are in 'enough is enough' mode.
OK - start with smokers. Smoking is a well-known form of self-induced harm and simple to spot in hospital.
A counter argument is that they already pay in advance via their tax contribution every time they smoke a pack. Likewise drinkers. Now the state is moving on to sugar consumers. No doubt these are on the list though.
Bad drivers? Irresponsible cyclists? Skiers? People who engage in a Friday night punch up?
The PB Lawyers seem to be coming up with lots of ways people can't be asked to pay, and rather less about how the bill is going to be met. Its all very well to say general taxation, but that will in all likelihood be the ultimate election losing policy all the time the public think other people are freeloading.
Presumably at least this discussion has put to bed the idea that health is not fudamentally political and that a royal commission will be able to sidestep all these political issues.
Steve Richards has suggested a referendum: do you want to see increased investment in NHS, even if this requires additional income tax and/or NI?
The whole thing would be debated for months. At the end no one could complain if they vote 'No' and then suffer poor health service. Indeed, I suspect a 'No' vote would mean the rise of private health insurance to new levels.
"A prime minister would offer to facilitate investment in the NHS equivalent to levels in similar countries and to provide a national care service for the elderly of the highest standards, as in Norway, where the wealthiest plead to live in state-run institutions because they are the best available. A government would explain the costs and the tax rise required to pay for them. But the referendum would not be about a prime minister, the government or the opposition. It would be about us, our priorities. The politicians would be ready to act, but equally they would be ready not to act. They would insist that it is up to us."
The government seems to have overlooked some important niceties when wanting to curry favour with President Trump. Did it occur to no one to check whether this invitation was one that Parliament was willing to endorse?
Do we have any evidence it was even an issue. Trump doesnt seem to want to speak at parliament, which shouldn't be a surprise, there are no golden coaches there. This appears to be Bercow taking the opportunity to show off his virtue by answering a question that hadn't actually been asked by anyone.
Before he said anything the government would have probably arrange a quiet speech somewhere for invited guests because they would not want to make a song and dance about it given public ambivalence, but now Bercow has made a no issue a big issue and the Republican party which was asleep on the issue is now asking why we are disrespecting their president.
There's another angle to this: does the government really want a battle with the speaker at the moment?
Surely it's an unwanted diversion with few upsides? After all, the last couple of times they went on manoeuvres against Bercow, they lost.
Depends if Bercow starts making life hard for the government over BrExit, given how close some of the voting might be, if he goes on manoeuvres there he might be out the door quite fast.
There's always the possibility that they might end up with someone worse, and Bercow's a known quantity (if disliked by some). If precedent is anything to go by, he's also likely to stand down in a year or two.
ISTR that it was hard enough to unseat Martin, and Bercow has yet to do anything quite as egregious as his predecessor.
The government seems to have overlooked some important niceties when wanting to curry favour with President Trump. Did it occur to no one to check whether this invitation was one that Parliament was willing to endorse?
Do we have any evidence it was even an issue. Trump doesnt seem to want to speak at parliament, which shouldn't be a surprise, there are no golden coaches there. This appears to be Bercow taking the opportunity to show off his virtue by answering a question that hadn't actually been asked by anyone.
Before he said anything the government would have probably arrange a quiet speech somewhere for invited guests because they would not want to make a song and dance about it given public ambivalence, but now Bercow has made a non-issue into a big issue and the Republican party which was asleep before is now asking why we are disrespecting their president.
Mr. Meeks, I fear you're overlooking a supposedly neutral umpire wading into partisan political matters because it suits your perspective.
I think Trump's an oaf and his executive order ill-conceived and unjust, but that doesn't mean the Speaker of the House of Commons suddenly has permission to be a player rather than a referee.
Mr. rkrkrk, the footage yesterday was instructive. The Speaker got cheers and applause, from one side of the House, and stony silence from the other. That's not speaking for the House. It's speaking for the Opposition.
Precisely MD. I think Bercow is a self serving oaf that should be got rid of. The smirk on his face as he thought he'd got one over the Tories was disgusting in a supposedly non partisan Speaker
@david_herdson That's one reason why I'm far from convinced the government will give a nod and wink. They need to avoid his active opposition at this precise moment, while Brexit is still live - but if they delay past this week the moment to dump him over Trump will pass.
If they play, they must win this time.
I doubt they would win. Bercow might be a cackhanded egomaniac, but he probably has too much sympathy on this. The optics of throwing out the Speaker to placate Trump would be terrible.
Anyway, the whole debate about foreign patients, self-inflicted injuries and missed appointments is a complete sideshow. What's driving up the costs of the NHS is a steadily ageing population.
Charging patients for bungee-jumping may make voters feel better but it does the square root of f all towards dealing with the underlying problem.
The underlying problem is the undying problem. We can now take a notional patient and fix most things now bar the brain - but at huge cost in surgery and ongoing medication. And everyone expects to be that nominal patient under the NHS.
It is an area where no politician will wade in. But at some point this century, I expect we are going to be taking a radically different view on quality of life and end of life. Are we really going to have the state look after 5 million dementia patients? 10 million?
There's going to need to be a proper debate about end of live care and control as well. I think living wills and allowing someone to have control over their life and the right to end it is needed.
Absolutely. We can agree to live together, get married, have children - but we can't agree to assist each other die if the one wants that. If my wife were to be in huge pain, house-bound, a mere shadow of her former vibrant self, I would respect her wish if she wanted to die. Even though that may mean jail time for me, to help bring that about.
Similarly, if I were to become aware that the rest of my lifetime was being lived under dementia, I would want to have a bit of time to tick off a few bucket list items while I could still appreciate them - but then I want to check out. I don't want somebody stepping in and saying my judgment was clouded, so they are going to decide for me that I will spend twenty years in a home, surrounded by similar broken people. No, I want my wishes respected - and I want to check out. Painlessly, surrounded by my nearest and dearest, in a warm, loving setting. At home, not in Switzerland.
This whole area has to be revisited, and profound change embraced. I will have huge respect for the first politician prepared to stick their head above the parapet on this subject.
Charge more than a tenner if the costs outweigh the savings. Make it £100
It's not a stupid idea. A&E is abused by people who brought their injuries on themselves, I have spoken to several NHS staff who think it should no longer be free of charge
"people who brought their injuries on themselves"
When I fractured my elbow last year whilst out hiking, I essentially brought the injury on myself: I was doing a hobby and stupidly slipped through lack of caution. Should I have been charged for the A&E ? How about a friend who shattered his collarbone last year whilst training for an Ironman (he tried bunny-hopping onto a kerb on his racing bike) ?
Why are drinking or drugs the only ways someone can 'bring' an injury on themselves?
Being slightly more serious: a problem is that it's easy to see scenarios where it is hard to argue with you: someone's been absolutely stupid and hurt themselves whilst the worse for wear. The difficulties comes in the less obvious scenarios, and that's where the costs would come in.
Yes I agree that is an arbitrary system, and people will find examples where it seems unfair. But I am trying to find ways of easing the strain on A&E... I didn't say that drinking and drug taking were the 'only' things people do that bring harm in themselves,but I chose those two as I think it feels morally more right to ask those people over someone who was enjoying a healthy hobby. I think we should discourage drunkenness and drug taking and not walking and ironman training. I have been in A&E myself twice through drunkenness and had 27 stitches in my head, 3 in my knee plus two new front teeth! It was my fault and I should have paid!
Mr. Meeks, I fear you're overlooking a supposedly neutral umpire wading into partisan political matters because it suits your perspective.
I think Trump's an oaf and his executive order ill-conceived and unjust, but that doesn't mean the Speaker of the House of Commons suddenly has permission to be a player rather than a referee.
Mr. rkrkrk, the footage yesterday was instructive. The Speaker got cheers and applause, from one side of the House, and stony silence from the other. That's not speaking for the House. It's speaking for the Opposition.
You are repeating the same fundamental error as yesterday.
Neutral umpires make decisions that may upset one side or other. Being impartial isn't a block on giving offence.
c) People think those whose problems are self induced should be charged;
The public are moving the same way with healthcare that they did with immigration and welfare. They are in 'enough is enough' mode.
OK - start with smokers. Smoking is a well-known form of self-induced harm and simple to spot in hospital.
A counter argument is that they already pay in advance via their tax contribution every time they smoke a pack. Likewise drinkers. Now the state is moving on to sugar consumers. No doubt these are on the list though.
Bad drivers? Irresponsible cyclists? Skiers? People who engage in a Friday night punch up?
The PB Lawyers seem to be coming up with lots of ways people can't be asked to pay, and rather less about how the bill is going to be met. Its all very well to say general taxation, but that will in all likelihood be the ultimate election losing policy all the time the public think other people are freeloading.
Presumably at least this discussion has put to bed the idea that health is not fudamentally political and that a royal commission will be able to sidestep all these political issues.
Steve Richards has suggested a referendum: do you want to see increased investment in NHS, even if this requires additional income tax and/or NI?
The whole thing would be debated for months. At the end no one could complain if they vote 'No' and then suffer poor health service. Indeed, I suspect a 'No' vote would mean the rise of private health insurance to new levels.
"A prime minister would offer to facilitate investment in the NHS equivalent to levels in similar countries and to provide a national care service for the elderly of the highest standards, as in Norway, where the wealthiest plead to live in state-run institutions because they are the best available. A government would explain the costs and the tax rise required to pay for them. But the referendum would not be about a prime minister, the government or the opposition. It would be about us, our priorities. The politicians would be ready to act, but equally they would be ready not to act. They would insist that it is up to us."
But doesn't usually discussions on tax go along the lines of 'sure, happy to increase tax, as long as it's on people with higher incomes so i don't pay it.'
The only way something like this would really be 'fair' is if it was a flat rate tax, but then the poorer would be rightly not too happy about that.
Anyway, the whole debate about foreign patients, self-inflicted injuries and missed appointments is a complete sideshow. What's driving up the costs of the NHS is a steadily ageing population.
Charging patients for bungee-jumping may make voters feel better but it does the square root of f all towards dealing with the underlying problem.
The underlying problem is the undying problem. We can now take a notional patient and fix most things now bar the brain - but at huge cost in surgery and ongoing medication. And everyone expects to be that nominal patient under the NHS.
It is an area where no politician will wade in. But at some point this century, I expect we are going to be taking a radically different view on quality of life and end of life. Are we really going to have the state look after 5 million dementia patients? 10 million?
There's going to need to be a proper debate about end of live care and control as well. I think living wills and allowing someone to have control over their life and the right to end it is needed.
Absolutely. We can agree to live together, get married, have children - but we can't agree to assist each other die if the one wants that. If my wife were to be in huge pain, house-bound, a mere shadow of her former vibrant self, I would respect her wish if she wanted to die. Even though that may mean jail time for me, to help bring that about.
Similarly, if I were to become aware that the rest of my lifetime was being lived under dementia, I would want to have a bit of time to tick off a few bucket list items while I could still appreciate them - but then I want to check out. I don't want somebody stepping in and saying my judgment was clouded, so they are going to decide for me that I will spend twenty years in a home, surrounded by similar broken people. No, I want my wishes respected - and I want to check out. Painlessly, surrounded by my nearest and dearest, in a warm, loving setting. At home, not in Switzerland.
This whole area has to be revisited, and profound change embraced. I will have huge respect for the first politician prepared to stick their head above the parapet on this subject.
I am with you on this. Interestingly, Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court would almost certainly rule legislation allowing such choice unconstitutional.
Yes. Gorsuch has the view that life is inherently valuable, from which his arguments on end of life (And presumably abortion) flow. It is an ethical argument, but not one which I believe is the alpha and omega of the debate.
Yes - he just doesn't seem so keen on the liberty and pursuit of happiness bits.
Mr. Meeks, I fear you're overlooking a supposedly neutral umpire wading into partisan political matters because it suits your perspective.
I think Trump's an oaf and his executive order ill-conceived and unjust, but that doesn't mean the Speaker of the House of Commons suddenly has permission to be a player rather than a referee.
Mr. rkrkrk, the footage yesterday was instructive. The Speaker got cheers and applause, from one side of the House, and stony silence from the other. That's not speaking for the House. It's speaking for the Opposition.
Hmm... I see what you're saying but at least one Conservative MP has come out in support of Bercow (Wollaston).
Would you have seen it as partisan if Bercow had said he would like to have a vote to know how the house felt?
Anyway, the whole debate about foreign patients, self-inflicted injuries and missed appointments is a complete sideshow. What's driving up the costs of the NHS is a steadily ageing population.
Charging patients for bungee-jumping may make voters feel better but it does the square root of f all towards dealing with the underlying problem.
The underlying problem is the undying problem. We can now take a notional patient and fix most things now bar the brain - but at huge cost in surgery and ongoing medication. And everyone expects to be that nominal patient under the NHS.
It is an area where no politician will wade in. But at some point this century, I expect we are going to be taking a radically different view on quality of life and end of life. Are we really going to have the state look after 5 million dementia patients? 10 million?
There are at least a couple of very promising lines of research that (with luck) will very significantly reduce the dementia-in-old-age problem at some point this century. Then, I suppose, the issue is how one deals with increasing physical frailty. Go the Japanese route? Robots?
If I were to start suffering from dementia, then thanks, but I am not going to hang around hoping those "promising lines" duly pay off. Even if successful, they are likely to be overwhelmed by demand. And what kind of postcode lottery is going to decide whether my local area is prepared to pay the cost for dementia prevention medication - so that it can have lots more elderly people, lucid, but falling to bits? I think I can guess how that pans out...
Charge more than a tenner if the costs outweigh the savings. Make it £100
It's not a stupid idea. A&E is abused by people who brought their injuries on themselves, I have spoken to several NHS staff who think it should no longer be free of charge
"people who brought their injuries on themselves"
When I fractured my elbow last year whilst out hiking, I essentially brought the injury on myself: I was doing a hobby and stupidly slipped through lack of caution. Should I have been charged for the A&E ? How about a friend who shattered his collarbone last year whilst training for an Ironman (he tried bunny-hopping onto a kerb on his racing bike) ?
Why are drinking or drugs the only ways someone can 'bring' an injury on themselves?
Being slightly more serious: a problem is that it's easy to see scenarios where it is hard to argue with you: someone's been absolutely stupid and hurt themselves whilst the worse for wear. The difficulties comes in the less obvious scenarios, and that's where the costs would come in.
Yes I agree that is an arbitrary system, and people will find examples where it seems unfair. But I am trying to find ways of easing the strain on A&E... I didn't say that drinking and drug taking were the 'only' things people do that bring harm in themselves,but I chose those two as I think it feels morally more right to ask those people over someone who was enjoying a healthy hobby. I think we should discourage drunkenness and drug taking and not walking and ironman training. I have been in A&E myself twice through drunkenness and had 27 stitches in my head, 3 in my knee plus two new front teeth! It was my fault and I should have paid!
c) People think those whose problems are self induced should be charged;
The public are moving the same way with healthcare that they did with immigration and welfare. They are in 'enough is enough' mode.
OK - start with smokers. Smoking is a well-known form of self-induced harm and simple to spot in hospital.
Don't some people have lung cancer even though they have never smoked.
Not always easy to attribute cause and effect.
Indeed. I am not supporting the argument, just pointing out its absurdities and wondering how many people agree with the proposition that "...those whose problems are self induced should be charged..." whilst believing that it does not apply to them
Just imagine two queues in A&E - one queue with a payment terminal for everyone who is foreign, fat, drunk of smelling or smoke and the other queue for everyone else.
What could go wrong?
Why would there be two queues? You come in, take a breath test at the counter and either pay or don't
As I pointed out, some people come in unconscious, or at least in no state to take a breath test (like me).
But anyway, who's going to administer the test? How many breathalysers and extra staff are you going to pay for in each A&E department? How do you invoice for and process the payments? How do you enforce payment?
You'll almost certainly find the costs of this sort of scheme would outweigh any potential savings.
I don't know why I'm bothering. It's such a patently stupid suggestion that it really is a waste of pixels going on with this argument.
Charge more than a tenner if the costs outweigh the savings. Make it £100
It's not a stupid idea. A&E is abused by people who brought their injuries on themselves, I have spoken to several NHS staff who think it should no longer be free of charge
While drunks are fairly common in A and E on a weekend, as are people with trivial complaints, this just tends to cause a que in the Minors section. Priority goes to the sick patients and major trauma in the majors room. With decent triage it is not a risk, though the 4 hour target gets clobbered.
The problem with ambulances unloading and trolley waits is almost always because there are no beds to admit into, often due to delayed discharges. The only drunks that get admitted are due to significant other issues such as head injuries, broken bones etc which seems reasonable.
Mr. W, the Speaker is meant to be neutral. He's waded straight into Foreign matters. It's clearly unacceptable.
When the time comes for a replacement, MPs will now be considering each potential successor's partisan political perspective. Because Bercow's decided the Speaker can opine on diplomatic affairs without the approval of a majority of the House following a vote, and without consulting the Lord Great Chamberlain or the Lords Speaker.
He's politicised what's meant to be a neutral role.
Anyway, the whole debate about foreign patients, self-inflicted injuries and missed appointments is a complete sideshow. What's driving up the costs of the NHS is a steadily ageing population.
Charging patients for bungee-jumping may make voters feel better but it does the square root of f all towards dealing with the underlying problem.
The underlying problem is the undying problem. We can now take a notional patient and fix most things now bar the brain - but at huge cost in surgery and ongoing medication. And everyone expects to be that nominal patient under the NHS.
It is an area where no politician will wade in. But at some point this century, I expect we are going to be taking a radically different view on quality of life and end of life. Are we really going to have the state look after 5 million dementia patients? 10 million?
There's going to need to be a proper debate about end of live care and control as well. I think living wills and allowing someone to have control over their life and the right to end it is needed.
Absolutely. We can agree to live together, get married, have children - but we can't agree to assist each other die if the one wants that. If my wife were to be in huge pain, house-bound, a mere shadow of her former vibrant self, I would respect her wish if she wanted to die. Even though that may mean jail time for me, to help bring that about.
Similarly, if I were to become aware that the rest of my lifetime was being lived under dementia, I would want to have a bit of time to tick off a few bucket list items while I could still appreciate them - but then I want to check out. I don't want somebody stepping in and saying my judgment was clouded, so they are going to decide for me that I will spend twenty years in a home, surrounded by similar broken people. No, I want my wishes respected - and I want to check out. Painlessly, surrounded by my nearest and dearest, in a warm, loving setting. At home, not in Switzerland.
This whole area has to be revisited, and profound change embraced. I will have huge respect for the first politician prepared to stick their head above the parapet on this subject.
Mr. Meeks, I fear you're overlooking a supposedly neutral umpire wading into partisan political matters because it suits your perspective.
I think Trump's an oaf and his executive order ill-conceived and unjust, but that doesn't mean the Speaker of the House of Commons suddenly has permission to be a player rather than a referee.
Mr. rkrkrk, the footage yesterday was instructive. The Speaker got cheers and applause, from one side of the House, and stony silence from the other. That's not speaking for the House. It's speaking for the Opposition.
You are repeating the same fundamental error as yesterday.
Neutral umpires make decisions that may upset one side or other. Being impartial isn't a block on giving offence.
The umpire isn't expected to stand in the middle though, opining on the qualities of the England captain...
Mr. rkrkrk, if there'd been a vote and the Speaker had simply stated the conclusion without luxuriating in the sound of his own smugness, that would be another matter.
Mr. Meeks, I fear you're overlooking a supposedly neutral umpire wading into partisan political matters because it suits your perspective.
I think Trump's an oaf and his executive order ill-conceived and unjust, but that doesn't mean the Speaker of the House of Commons suddenly has permission to be a player rather than a referee.
Mr. rkrkrk, the footage yesterday was instructive. The Speaker got cheers and applause, from one side of the House, and stony silence from the other. That's not speaking for the House. It's speaking for the Opposition.
Mr Dancer, the Speaker isn't a neutral umpire. He speaks for the House. He evidently believes that he has done so on this occasion.
Yet he was happy to allow other speeches by other leaders guilty of far worse than Trump - why so?
Mr. Meeks, I fear you're overlooking a supposedly neutral umpire wading into partisan political matters because it suits your perspective.
I think Trump's an oaf and his executive order ill-conceived and unjust, but that doesn't mean the Speaker of the House of Commons suddenly has permission to be a player rather than a referee.
Mr. rkrkrk, the footage yesterday was instructive. The Speaker got cheers and applause, from one side of the House, and stony silence from the other. That's not speaking for the House. It's speaking for the Opposition.
Mr Dancer, the Speaker isn't a neutral umpire. He speaks for the House. He evidently believes that he has done so on this occasion.
Why so? The Tory MPs present looked distinctly unimpressed at Bercow's statement. We have seen in the Brexit vote that the effective government majority is higher than expected. Yes there might be one or two Tory MPs who are privately sympathetic to the Speaker but frankly anyone purporting to be even marginally right of centre should oppose the effective no platforming of the US president in parliament. This principle should override any personal distaste for Trump.
Andrew Mitchell spoke up for the Speaker this morning. I expect John Bercow is safe enough.
My next thread is on the Speaker surviving, so far I've written one thread saying he's safe as houses, then I've rewritten it by saying he's toast.
Then I was back to my original view, now I'm not so sure.
To mis-quote Bella Swan, in the greatest love story ever told, My mood swings are giving me whiplash
Bercow is toast but not necessarily just yet. He's burned too many bridges with the Tory side and while he might fall over the Trump outburst (and should), MPs might hold off with the hope of bringing him down at a time when the division isn't so openly partisan.
From a party management point of view, the problem is not so much getting rid of him - it'd only take 20 or so MPs to behave towards him with open contempt while another hundred watched passively on for his position to become untenable - it's who do you replace him with?
The obvious choice is Lindsay Hoyle, who's an effective chair and who couldn't on any account be considered a government patsy (which would be the allegation thrown against any Tory nominated, whether true or not). But he'd need to up for a coup against Bercow, if only tacitly.
Hoyle ought to be up for restoring the dignity of the post but you can never be sure.
One side-effect, were events to play out like this, would be a growing pseudo-convention (or set of happenstances), whereby the Speaker came from the Opposition benches. He'd be the third out of four with the exception - Martin - having proven a poor choice.
I like Lindsey Hoyle a lot but hasn't he pissed off the Nats?
I don't honestly know. But probably: it doesn't take much.
The video clip shows, right at the beginning, that Joanna Cherry was sitting down, and that she stood up again to protest. However, it cuts away at the precise moment she either took her seat or did not. Is there an alternative shot of this (from the camera behind the speaker for example) that could conclusively clear this up?
Mr. Meeks, I fear you're overlooking a supposedly neutral umpire wading into partisan political matters because it suits your perspective.
I think Trump's an oaf and his executive order ill-conceived and unjust, but that doesn't mean the Speaker of the House of Commons suddenly has permission to be a player rather than a referee.
Mr. rkrkrk, the footage yesterday was instructive. The Speaker got cheers and applause, from one side of the House, and stony silence from the other. That's not speaking for the House. It's speaking for the Opposition.
You are repeating the same fundamental error as yesterday.
Neutral umpires make decisions that may upset one side or other. Being impartial isn't a block on giving offence.
The umpire isn't expected to stand in the middle though, opining on the qualities of the England captain...
Comments
http://blog.hansardsociety.org.uk/president-trumps-state-visit/
Then I was back to my original view, now I'm not so sure.
To mis-quote Bella Swan, in the greatest love story ever told, My mood swings are giving me whiplash
It is an area where no politician will wade in. But at some point this century, I expect we are going to be taking a radically different view on quality of life and end of life. Are we really going to have the state look after 5 million dementia patients? 10 million?
I think the electoral college makes sense for a federal country such as the US. It's what it leads to that can be the problem. When a right win (or left wing) president who has received millions of votes less than his opponent can get Supreme Court nominations through a Senate in which the party with the majority has received fewer votes than the one with the minority, then a way of looking at the US constitution is being imposed by a minority on a majority. And that cannot just be corrected, given that SCOTUS judges are for life not just for a certain period of time.
He shouldn't be. But I'd be very surprised if he went over this.
It is not for the executive to dictate to the legislature how to run itself. If the government had been less focused on scampering after the new president and abasing itself before him, it might have noticed the gross mistake it was making.
It is not for the referee to try and score goals.
As others have quoted:
May it please your majesty, I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place but as this house is pleased to direct me whose servant I am here; and humbly beg your majesty's pardon that I cannot give any other answer than this is to what your majesty is pleased to demand of me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjDCHtwJVtU
Sauce:
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/usa/states/population.shtml
Donald J Trump
I don't know Putin, have no deals in Russia, and the haters are going crazy - yet Obama can make a deal with Iran, #1in terror, no problem!
"Beverley's Run" is for a different issue....
https://twitter.com/sharpeangle/status/828937295088779264
But a common theme with this and to be fair much of the immigration debate is that voters don't see why they should pay while there are conspicuously people around that appear to be taking the piss. Reducing the amount of piss being taken is in the first instance both popular and clearly right in its own terms, but also gives the public fewer squirrels to point at when the government comes rattling the tin for more money.
From a party management point of view, the problem is not so much getting rid of him - it'd only take 20 or so MPs to behave towards him with open contempt while another hundred watched passively on for his position to become untenable - it's who do you replace him with?
The obvious choice is Lindsay Hoyle, who's an effective chair and who couldn't on any account be considered a government patsy (which would be the allegation thrown against any Tory nominated, whether true or not). But he'd need to up for a coup against Bercow, if only tacitly.
Hoyle ought to be up for restoring the dignity of the post but you can never be sure.
One side-effect, were events to play out like this, would be a growing pseudo-convention (or set of happenstances), whereby the Speaker came from the Opposition benches. He'd be the third out of four with the exception - Martin - having proven a poor choice.
Ah yes, David Cholmondeley, 7th Marquess of Cholmondeley. Will he decide if the US President can attend?
Probably too many letters in his name for Trump to use it in a tweet slagging him off. Clever.
But anyway, who's going to administer the test? How many breathalysers and extra staff are you going to pay for in each A&E department? How do you invoice for and process the payments? How do you enforce payment?
You'll almost certainly find the costs of this sort of scheme would outweigh any potential savings.
I don't know why I'm bothering. It's such a patently stupid suggestion that it really is a waste of pixels going on with this argument.
Three American states have a larger economy than Russia: California, Texas and New York. https://t.co/63HWIFwuKn
https://twitter.com/NickBolesMP/status/828940157235654657
Surely it's an unwanted diversion with few upsides? After all, the last couple of times they went on manoeuvres against Bercow, they lost.
If the house doesn't want Trump then speaker should say so.
As for needing a vote... Having a vote is a partisan act in itself and would be very unwelcome to the government. If MPs don't agree and want Trump to come they will say so?
If JB was just speaking off the top of his head and giving his own view that is wrong.
But if he has support from parliament then I think he is doing the right thing?
Otherwise, the Speaker would effectively be nothing more than a mouthpiece of - or even a member of - the government.
It's not a stupid idea. A&E is abused by people who brought their injuries on themselves, I have spoken to several NHS staff who think it should no longer be free of charge
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/snp/alex-salmond/news/83120/watch-alex-salmond-fumes-deputy-speaker-eu
If they play, they must win this time.
Similarly, if I were to become aware that the rest of my lifetime was being lived under dementia, I would want to have a bit of time to tick off a few bucket list items while I could still appreciate them - but then I want to check out. I don't want somebody stepping in and saying my judgment was clouded, so they are going to decide for me that I will spend twenty years in a home, surrounded by similar broken people. No, I want my wishes respected - and I want to check out. Painlessly, surrounded by my nearest and dearest, in a warm, loving setting. At home, not in Switzerland.
This whole area has to be revisited, and profound change embraced. I will have huge respect for the first politician prepared to stick their head above the parapet on this subject.
If turnout was identical in every single state, and no state had a "baseline" of 2 electoral college votes; and the worth was decided strictly on population then the electoral college would have fallen as follows:
By population
303.1207914 234.8792086
Rounded 303 to 235.
Which meant Trump would have lost an entire electoral college vote:
Again workings - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dEwTzRca1tHFuClBeqW9yEJdPuButr0Ra6_F0CNMg_s/edit?usp=sharing
English & Welsh MPs of any party who vote against triggering Article 50 are sticking two fingers up at the people.
A&E admissions would drop 90%.... Even if you enacted the shooting bit, there'd still be a hell of a lot less people dead than die daily in a massively overstretched NHS.
The government seems to have overlooked some important niceties when wanting to curry favour with President Trump. Did it occur to no one to check whether this invitation was one that Parliament was willing to endorse?
Her abstention with the fake sickie was pure political cowardice, and Boles has shown her up with what it means to be a proper parliamentarian today.
When I fractured my elbow last year whilst out hiking, I essentially brought the injury on myself: I was doing a hobby and stupidly slipped through lack of caution. Should I have been charged for the A&E ? How about a friend who shattered his collarbone last year whilst training for an Ironman (he tried bunny-hopping onto a kerb on his racing bike) ?
Why are drinking or drugs the only ways someone can 'bring' an injury on themselves?
Being slightly more serious: a problem is that it's easy to see scenarios where it is hard to argue with you: someone's been absolutely stupid and hurt themselves whilst the worse for wear. The difficulties comes in the less obvious scenarios, and that's where the costs would come in.
Interestingly, Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court would almost certainly rule legislation allowing such choice unconstitutional.
That's why I'm a member of Dignity in Dying.
https://www.dignityindying.org.uk/
I think Trump's an oaf and his executive order ill-conceived and unjust, but that doesn't mean the Speaker of the House of Commons suddenly has permission to be a player rather than a referee.
Mr. rkrkrk, the footage yesterday was instructive. The Speaker got cheers and applause, from one side of the House, and stony silence from the other. That's not speaking for the House. It's speaking for the Opposition.
It is an ethical argument, but not one which I believe is the alpha and omega of the debate.
The whole thing would be debated for months. At the end no one could complain if they vote 'No' and then suffer poor health service. Indeed, I suspect a 'No' vote would mean the rise of private health insurance to new levels.
"A prime minister would offer to facilitate investment in the NHS equivalent to levels in similar countries and to provide a national care service for the elderly of the highest standards, as in Norway, where the wealthiest plead to live in state-run institutions because they are the best available. A government would explain the costs and the tax rise required to pay for them. But the referendum would not be about a prime minister, the government or the opposition. It would be about us, our priorities. The politicians would be ready to act, but equally they would be ready not to act. They would insist that it is up to us."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/03/save-the-nhs-elderly-care-referendum-healthcare
Before he said anything the government would have probably arrange a quiet speech somewhere for invited guests because they would not want to make a song and dance about it given public ambivalence, but now Bercow has made a no issue a big issue and the Republican party which was asleep on the issue is now asking why we are disrespecting their president.
ISTR that it was hard enough to unseat Martin, and Bercow has yet to do anything quite as egregious as his predecessor.
Before he said anything the government would have probably arrange a quiet speech somewhere for invited guests because they would not want to make a song and dance about it given public ambivalence, but now Bercow has made a non-issue into a big issue and the Republican party which was asleep before is now asking why we are disrespecting their president.
That's one reason why I'm far from convinced the government will give a nod and wink. They need to avoid his active opposition at this precise moment, while Brexit is still live - but if they delay past this week the moment to dump him over Trump will pass.
If they play, they must win this time.
I doubt they would win.
Bercow might be a cackhanded egomaniac, but he probably has too much sympathy on this. The optics of throwing out the Speaker to placate Trump would be terrible.
Neutral umpires make decisions that may upset one side or other. Being impartial isn't a block on giving offence.
The only way something like this would really be 'fair' is if it was a flat rate tax, but then the poorer would be rightly not too happy about that.
"An overwhelming majority of violent “Antifascist” protesters still live with their mom, according to a new study.
Research found that 92% of those suspected of violent crimes at Left-leaning demonstrations still share their home with their parents.
The study was carried out with data from Germany, and published in the German tabloid BILD – so results may vary compared to other Western activists.
http://heatst.com/culture-wars/study-92-of-anti-fascist-protesters-still-live-with-their-mom/?mod=sm_tw_post
Would you have seen it as partisan if Bercow had said he would like to have a vote to know how the house felt?
The problem with ambulances unloading and trolley waits is almost always because there are no beds to admit into, often due to delayed discharges. The only drunks that get admitted are due to significant other issues such as head injuries, broken bones etc which seems reasonable.
When the time comes for a replacement, MPs will now be considering each potential successor's partisan political perspective. Because Bercow's decided the Speaker can opine on diplomatic affairs without the approval of a majority of the House following a vote, and without consulting the Lord Great Chamberlain or the Lords Speaker.
He's politicised what's meant to be a neutral role.
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/828948700684746753
Anyway, I must be off.