This is interesting, not so much for Holocaust denial/Irving thing which is creepy but open to interpretation, rather Nuttalls's reaction at the end. His modus operandi started early it seems.
' My student; the anti-Semite
...I met Nuttall to discuss what he had written and he gave a tearful denial, saying that his girlfriend had downloaded the references to Irving’s book from the internet, blaming her rather than his own judgment. He accepted that the words could be construed as having an unpleasant, even racist meaning. But he denied that this had been his intention. He seemed shocked to be challenged about anything – like smug, arrogant, people everywhere he was most comfortable in a small bubble where no-one could disagree with him.'
The dates in that don't stack up, the Irving libel trial was decided in April 2000 yet he's talking about it in December 1999.
In early December 1999, Nuttall’s cohort were set a standard essay on the causes of the Holocaust. I forget the exact title, but the question was something like whether the Final Solution was principally caused by Hitler’s anti-Semitism or by other factors related to the German economy or state. To my surprise, Nuttall’s answer worked in two footnotes to different books by David Irving. I wasn’t expecting this, because Irving wasn’t on the course reading list: this was after his libel trial and historians regarded Irving as an unpleasant, racist crank who was beyond the
Perhaps the author's girlfriend researched the dates..
Heh.
The trial is one of those things I took a keen interest in, as one of the star witnesses was someone I kinda knew/had heard speak a few times at university, Professor Richard Evans.
It might be fair to say that in December 1999 most serious/reputable historians considered David Irving either a crank or an anti-semite, the court case confirmed it.
Have you seen "Denial" ?
Shows the best of the English legal system I think.
I have, saw it twice, Tom Wilkinson as Richard Rampton was awesome and as you said, showed the best of the English legal system.
Richard Rampton is a friend of mine who lives just down my road. So I have to see the film. Booked to see it next Sunday.
Cutting local hospital services and sending mothers 40 miles away to give birth - that's how tory governments lose byelections.
To be more precise, getting blamed for decisions which are nothing to do with them is how parties of government lose by-elections
The decision is everything to do with the government.
Tories cannot dodge the blame for this one.
You think the government has made the decision to close this hospital?
Well, it's a view I suppose.
But yes, you are right that they will be blamed for it (although I've no idea whether 'blame' is the right word, it might well be a good decision). As I understand it, the Conservatives also oppose the closure. But, as we know, candidates of all parties almost invariably side with those campaigning against hospital closures or rationalisation of services. It's one of the main impediments to improving the NHS.
What this does show is that talk of some kind of cross-party consensus or a Royal Commission on the NHS is completely out with the fairies. There is no chance whatsoever of the Labour Party wanting to relinquish what it sees, probably rightly, as its most potent electoral asset.
STP's are signed off by the Ministry of Health, so yes it is a government decision.
So the government imposed the decision against the recommendation of the trust?
Or the government agreed with the decision of the people best placed to take it?
STP's are signed off by the Ministry of Health, so yes it is a government decision.
A more honest Conservative candidate would not be opposing her own government, but would rather be arguing that services would be better centralised in Carlisle.
Such local hospital closures are particularly hard on those without their own transport, the WWC and elderly in particular.
'Signed off' doesn't make it a government decision.
Of course closing local hospitals or reducing their scope has a detrimental effect in terms of transport and journey times. It also has benefits in many cases, by centralising care in local centres of excellence. As I said, I've no idea whether this particular plan is a good one or a bad one, but people always oppose such plans irrespective of their merits.
Cutting local hospital services and sending mothers 40 miles away to give birth - that's how tory governments lose byelections.
To be more precise, getting blamed for decisions which are nothing to do with them is how parties of government lose by-elections
The decision is everything to do with the government.
Tories cannot dodge the blame for this one.
You think the government has made the decision to close this hospital?
Well, it's a view I suppose.
But yes, you are right that they will be blamed for it (although I've no idea whether 'blame' is the right word, it might well be a good decision). As I understand it, the Conservatives also oppose the closure. But, as we know, candidates of all parties almost invariably side with those campaigning against hospital closures or rationalisation of services. It's one of the main impediments to improving the NHS.
What this does show is that talk of some kind of cross-party consensus or a Royal Commission on the NHS is completely out with the fairies. There is no chance whatsoever of the Labour Party wanting to relinquish what it sees, probably rightly, as its most potent electoral asset.
STP's are signed off by the Ministry of Health, so yes it is a government decision.
So the government imposed the decision against the recommendation of the trust?
Or the government agreed with the decision of the people best placed to take it?
I am sure that argument goes down well on Surrey doorsteps, but in Copeland? not so much...
Had a bit of spare time so looked round the general politics markets this morning. I think laying Le Pen at 3.65 is the closest to free money. People betting on her simply don't understand the French two-round system.
I understand the French two-round system perfectly and I am betting on her, not because I think she is particularly likely to win, but because I have traded my way over the past few months to a very healthy all green book and Le Pen is probably the safest haven for my hard-earned potential profit at the moment.
Macron's momentum has all but stopped and over half of his supporters polled say they might change their mind.
Fillon could withdraw from the race at a moment's notice due to his legal situation and anyway his head to head figure against Le Pen was shown to be 56-44 in a poll last week -hardly an insurmountable lead.
Yes Le Pen should probably be longer odds, but I would rather trade out at longer odds and keep most of my profit on the market rather than seeing a large profit on Macron or Fillon go to waste if the former does not hold on to his support or the latter has to pull out.
Nick P's comments smack to me of the 'Clinton has won, just look at the ECV and the demographics' mantra. This was the view by majority (incl me) until about 4am on the night.
There is a populist tide and I see no reason why the FR wont be next, especially if ISIS pull off some nasty stunt days before polling.
However, like BudG I am happily green on this market (assuming Melanchon doesn't surprise or a complete unknown doesn't come forward (thanks to Fillon dropping out)).
Andrew Neil @afneil 8 mins8 minutes ago In year to end-2016, UK nationals working in UK increased by 70,000 to 28.44m; non-UK nationals working in UK increased by 233,000 to 3.48m
The reasons for Brexit in a nutshell.
Yes, Leavers would rather see fewer Brits in work so long as there were fewer foreigners in work too.
Possibly they would like to see some of the 1.6m sitting on the dole queue at the public expense doing some of the work that the 233,000 are ?
twitter.com/Birdyword/status/831813452779945984
The claimant count is a rather smaller number than the unemployment figure, and only includes those on JSA.
Considering the Employment Ratio is at its highest ever level where other than JSA claimants are these extra unemployed sitting on the dole queue? I thought the dole queue was JSA.
Are you planning on rounding up stay at home parents and frog marching them to work despite them not claiming a dole and not wanting to work?
tsk tsk. Its has feck all to do with stay at home parents they are not in the figures.
The following groups would not be entitled to claim unemployment related benefits but could be looking for and available to start work: - people whose partner works more than 24 hours a week - young people under 18 who are looking for work but do not take up the offer of a Youth Training place - students looking for part‐time work or vacation work - people who have left their job voluntarily - people with savings of over £16,000.
The penultimate is significant, anyone that quits rather than is laid off can't claim.
When I last signed on about 13 months ago. They didn't even ask why I had left my previous job (firm moved up North) In 1996, I had to produce reams of evidence and it still took 4 months for the first payment to be made as they were checking my evidence.
Cutting local hospital services and sending mothers 40 miles away to give birth - that's how tory governments lose byelections.
To be more precise, getting blamed for decisions which are nothing to do with them is how parties of government lose by-elections
The decision is everything to do with the government.
Tories cannot dodge the blame for this one.
You think the government has made the decision to close this hospital?
Well, it's a view I suppose.
But yes, you are right that they will be blamed for it (although I've no idea whether 'blame' is the right word, it might well be a good decision). As I understand it, the Conservatives also oppose the closure. But, as we know, candidates of all parties almost invariably side with those campaigning against hospital closures or rationalisation of services. It's one of the main impediments to improving the NHS.
What this does show is that talk of some kind of cross-party consensus or a Royal Commission on the NHS is completely out with the fairies. There is no chance whatsoever of the Labour Party wanting to relinquish what it sees, probably rightly, as its most potent electoral asset.
The NHS is fine - it just needs more money. A small 10-15% real terms increase over 5 years would stop a lot of the callous nonsense like carting expectant mothers 40 miles away to give birth.
Theresa is going to have to find that £350m/week, otherwise come 2020 it's PM Starmer.
Cutting local hospital services and sending mothers 40 miles away to give birth - that's how tory governments lose byelections.
To be more precise, getting blamed for decisions which are nothing to do with them is how parties of government lose by-elections
The decision is everything to do with the government.
Tories cannot dodge the blame for this one.
You think the government has made the decision to close this hospital?
Well, it's a view I suppose.
But yes, you are right that they will be blamed for it (although I've no idea whether 'blame' is the right word, it might well be a good decision). As I understand it, the Conservatives also oppose the closure. But, as we know, candidates of all parties almost invariably side with those campaigning against hospital closures or rationalisation of services. It's one of the main impediments to improving the NHS.
What this does show is that talk of some kind of cross-party consensus or a Royal Commission on the NHS is completely out with the fairies. There is no chance whatsoever of the Labour Party wanting to relinquish what it sees, probably rightly, as its most potent electoral asset.
STP's are signed off by the Ministry of Health, so yes it is a government decision.
So the government imposed the decision against the recommendation of the trust?
Or the government agreed with the decision of the people best placed to take it?
As you know it's the perception that counts above all else. And appearing to try and pass the buck isn't a good look.
WIth critical claim and movies a good rule of thumb is if it is about movie making or acting, real or fictional, critics will probably love it. Not sure how well that carries over to Oscar chances, but if abou tthe glory of Hollywood, the sleaze of Hollywood, or the rise and fall of some actor or dramatic endeavour, critics eat that crap up.
This is interesting, not so much for Holocaust denial/Irving thing which is creepy but open to interpretation, rather Nuttalls's reaction at the end. His modus operandi started early it seems.
' My student; the anti-Semite
...I met Nuttall to discuss what he had written and he gave a tearful denial, saying that his girlfriend had downloaded the references to Irving’s book from the internet, blaming her rather than his own judgment. He accepted that the words could be construed as having an unpleasant, even racist meaning. But he denied that this had been his intention. He seemed shocked to be challenged about anything – like smug, arrogant, people everywhere he was most comfortable in a small bubble where no-one could disagree with him.'
The dates in that don't stack up, the Irving libel trial was decided in April 2000 yet he's talking about it in December 1999.
In early December 1999, Nuttall’s cohort were set a standard essay on the causes of the Holocaust. I forget the exact title, but the question was something like whether the Final Solution was principally caused by Hitler’s anti-Semitism or by other factors related to the German economy or state. To my surprise, Nuttall’s answer worked in two footnotes to different books by David Irving. I wasn’t expecting this, because Irving wasn’t on the course reading list: this was after his libel trial and historians regarded Irving as an unpleasant, racist crank who was beyond the
Perhaps the author's girlfriend researched the dates..
Heh.
The trial is one of those things I took a keen interest in, as one of the star witnesses was someone I kinda knew/had heard speak a few times at university, Professor Richard Evans.
It might be fair to say that in December 1999 most serious/reputable historians considered David Irving either a crank or an anti-semite, the court case confirmed it.
Have you seen "Denial" ?
Shows the best of the English legal system I think.
I have, saw it twice, Tom Wilkinson as Richard Rampton was awesome and as you said, showed the best of the English legal system.
Richard Rampton is a friend of mine who lives just down my road. So I have to see the film. Booked to see it next Sunday.
You'll enjoy it.
He came off as the brilliant barrister and human being I've always thought he was.
tsk tsk. Its has feck all to do with stay at home parents they are not in the figures.
The following groups would not be entitled to claim unemployment related benefits but could be looking for and available to start work: - people whose partner works more than 24 hours a week - young people under 18 who are looking for work but do not take up the offer of a Youth Training place - students looking for part‐time work or vacation work - people who have left their job voluntarily - people with savings of over £16,000.
The penultimate is significant, anyone that quits rather than is laid off can't claim.
They are in the employment ratio figures actually.
How are the penultimate "in the dole queue" if they can't claim? Though this claim is more true in theory than in practice, the reality is that people quit their jobs voluntarily and then go straight to claiming all the time. I've been an employer for over 11 years now and doing payroll for half that time and do you know how often HMRC or whoever else is responsible has taken up references to see if someone quit or was laid off? Never. Not once.
I once had someone outright quit without notice at a busy period then call up later that week (when they should have been working) demanding their P45 so that they could sign on to get benefits. I told him it would be processed next payroll, he said that wasn't good enough as he wanted his paperwork to go get benefits immediately and I said if he bothered me again I would write to the local JobCentre and tell them he quit so he couldn't get any benefits. Funnily enough, never heard from him again after that.
If the government really wanted to prevent people from signing on after quitting they could take references, they don't. In fact with modern online reporting it would be even easier, there could be a field to fill in on the P45 for the part that goes to the government that asks whether they voluntarily left employment. We could tick yes and then they couldn't sign on. But the government, probably for good reason hasn't done that so your claim is correct in theory but not in the real world.
STP's are signed off by the Ministry of Health, so yes it is a government decision.
A more honest Conservative candidate would not be opposing her own government, but would rather be arguing that services would be better centralised in Carlisle.
Such local hospital closures are particularly hard on those without their own transport, the WWC and elderly in particular.
'Signed off' doesn't make it a government decision.
Of course closing local hospitals or reducing their scope has a detrimental effect in terms of transport and journey times. It also has benefits in many cases, by centralising care in local centres of excellence. As I said, I've no idea whether this particular plan is a good one or a bad one, but people always oppose such plans irrespective of their merits.
True enough. Without an indepth look at the issues, merely because there is opposition and some detriment it is impossible to say if the plans are reasonable or not.
The NHS is fine - it just needs more money. A small 10-15% real terms increase over 5 years would stop a lot of the callous nonsense like carting expectant mothers 40 miles away to give birth.
'Callous nonsense'. Really? Or a good decision based on evidence? I have no idea, but nor have you.
No amount of extra money would mean that hospitals never get reorganised - very much the opposite, in fact - with more money to spend, the NHS would love to build larger hospitals and centres of excellence rather than have the current more scattered set based on historical accident.
Labour still looks the value in Copeland. Stoke market looking more 'correct' now.
Quite extraordinary we should ever find that a government gain from the opposition almost two years into a parliament is considered nailed on.
The markets just hate Labour. At the very least Labour should be the 1.33 in Stoke, with the Tories at 1.6 odd in Copeland. That would be a bit more sensible.
Look at the swing UKIP needs in Stoke compared to the Tory one in Copeland for a start. Much larger requirement.
Are there any similar seats in Scotland ie they voted 70/30 to leave in the ref so we can compare how they voted in the GE? Obviously a big factor is that Indy lost and Leave won
EDIT: D'oh obviously there are unlikely to be many 70/30 Indy as Indy lost. Forget that!
Banff and Buchan voted "No", and "leave" - seat was an SNP stronghold, but I can see the Tories gaining there. Aberdeenshire County Council will be an interesting Lib Dem-Tory-SNP battle in May. Long term I think the seat goes Tory, particularly if the SNP lose IndyRef 2. Precisely the sort of area the SNP will weaken while they hoover up Glasgow & surrounds.
Bloody hell, didn't that used to be Salmond's stamping ground ?
Oh it'll stay SNP in 2020, and most likely 2025 I think. But its definitely a "Tartan Tory" type of seat that the SNP will weaken in long term. 2030 Tory gain maybe.
Is that a distant Scottish Tory Surge Klaxon I hear?
So since the general election, the Tories are up 11%, SNP down 3% and Labour down 10%. There's an excellent thread to be had looking at what Scottish seats would change hands -basically, which seats would the Tories take off the SNP on a 7% swing?
Mr. Borough, if they do, expectations will have been well-managed. Retaining a seat they've had since World War Two will be seen as some sort of signal success.
tsk tsk. Its has feck all to do with stay at home parents they are not in the figures.
The following groups would not be entitled to claim unemployment related benefits but could be looking for and available to start work: - people whose partner works more than 24 hours a week - young people under 18 who are looking for work but do not take up the offer of a Youth Training place - students looking for part‐time work or vacation work - people who have left their job voluntarily - people with savings of over £16,000.
The penultimate is significant, anyone that quits rather than is laid off can't claim.
They are in the employment ratio figures actually.
How are the penultimate "in the dole queue" if they can't claim? Though this claim is more true in theory than in practice, the reality is that people quit their jobs voluntarily and then go straight to claiming all the time. I've been an employer for over 11 years now and doing payroll for half that time and do you know how often HMRC or whoever else is responsible has taken up references to see if someone quit or was laid off? Never. Not once.
I once had someone outright quit without notice at a busy period then call up later that week (when they should have been working) demanding their P45 so that they could sign on to get benefits. I told him it would be processed next payroll, he said that wasn't good enough as he wanted his paperwork to go get benefits immediately and I said if he bothered me again I would write to the local JobCentre and tell them he quit so he couldn't get any benefits. Funnily enough, never heard from him again after that.
If the government really wanted to prevent people from signing on after quitting they could take references, they don't. In fact with modern online reporting it would be even easier, there could be a field to fill in on the P45 for the part that goes to the government that asks whether they voluntarily left employment. We could tick yes and then they couldn't sign on. But the government, probably for good reason hasn't done that so your claim is correct in theory but not in the real world.
Unintended consequences arise: a pissed off employer might well vindictively tick the box.
Andrew Neil @afneil 8 mins8 minutes ago In year to end-2016, UK nationals working in UK increased by 70,000 to 28.44m; non-UK nationals working in UK increased by 233,000 to 3.48m
The reasons for Brexit in a nutshell.
Yes, Leavers would rather see fewer Brits in work so long as there were fewer foreigners in work too.
Possibly they would like to see some of the 1.6m sitting on the dole queue at the public expense doing some of the work that the 233,000 are ?
twitter.com/Birdyword/status/831813452779945984
The claimant count is a rather smaller number than the unemployment figure, and only includes those on JSA.
Considering the Employment Ratio is at its highest ever level where other than JSA claimants are these extra unemployed sitting on the dole queue? I thought the dole queue was JSA.
Are you planning on rounding up stay at home parents and frog marching them to work despite them not claiming a dole and not wanting to work?
tsk tsk. Its has feck all to do with stay at home parents they are not in the figures.
The following groups would not be entitled to claim unemployment related benefits but could be looking for and available to start work: - people whose partner works more than 24 hours a week - young people under 18 who are looking for work but do not take up the offer of a Youth Training place - students looking for part‐time work or vacation work - people who have left their job voluntarily - people with savings of over £16,000.
The penultimate is significant, anyone that quits rather than is laid off can't claim.
When I last signed on about 13 months ago. They didn't even ask why I had left my previous job (firm moved up North) In 1996, I had to produce reams of evidence and it still took 4 months for the first payment to be made as they were checking my evidence.
STP's are signed off by the Ministry of Health, so yes it is a government decision.
A more honest Conservative candidate would not be opposing her own government, but would rather be arguing that services would be better centralised in Carlisle.
Such local hospital closures are particularly hard on those without their own transport, the WWC and elderly in particular.
'Signed off' doesn't make it a government decision.
Of course closing local hospitals or reducing their scope has a detrimental effect in terms of transport and journey times. It also has benefits in many cases, by centralising care in local centres of excellence. As I said, I've no idea whether this particular plan is a good one or a bad one, but people always oppose such plans irrespective of their merits.
True enough. Without an indepth look at the issues, merely because there is opposition and some detriment it is impossible to say if the plans are reasonable or not.
Local people aren't going to see the bigger picture of resources being better used at larger, strategic centres. They are never interested in that argument. How long will an ambulance take is the extent of it.
Not saying it’s all non-sense, but all the hype has conveniently eclipsed the Hillary Clinton vote rigging scandal involving Wasserman Schultz and Donna Brazile.
More reading of entrails. I think they've been fairly confident all along, but the fear of a loss is a motivator for the core and at least some number of waverers, given the only likely beneficiaries. Call me cynical.
The NHS is fine - it just needs more money. A small 10-15% real terms increase over 5 years would stop a lot of the callous nonsense like carting expectant mothers 40 miles away to give birth.
'Callous nonsense'. Really? Or a good decision based on evidence? I have no idea, but nor have you.
No amount of extra money would mean that hospitals never get reorganised - very much the opposite, in fact - with more money to spend, the NHS would love to build larger hospitals and centres of excellence rather than have the current more scattered set based on historical accident.
Scattered set based upon historical accident? or where people live in rural areas?
Labour still looks the value in Copeland. Stoke market looking more 'correct' now.
Quite extraordinary we should ever find that a government gain from the opposition almost two years into a parliament is considered nailed on.
The markets just hate Labour. At the very least Labour should be the 1.33 in Stoke, with the Tories at 1.6 odd in Copeland. That would be a bit more sensible.
Look at the swing UKIP needs in Stoke compared to the Tory one in Copeland for a start. Much larger requirement.
Are there any similar seats in Scotland ie they voted 70/30 to leave in the ref so we can compare how they voted in the GE? Obviously a big factor is that Indy lost and Leave won
EDIT: D'oh obviously there are unlikely to be many 70/30 Indy as Indy lost. Forget that!
Banff and Buchan voted "No", and "leave" - seat was an SNP stronghold, but I can see the Tories gaining there. Aberdeenshire County Council will be an interesting Lib Dem-Tory-SNP battle in May. Long term I think the seat goes Tory, particularly if the SNP lose IndyRef 2. Precisely the sort of area the SNP will weaken while they hoover up Glasgow & surrounds.
Bloody hell, didn't that used to be Salmond's stamping ground ?
Oh it'll stay SNP in 2020, and most likely 2025 I think. But its definitely a "Tartan Tory" type of seat that the SNP will weaken in long term. 2030 Tory gain maybe.
Is that a distant Scottish Tory Surge Klaxon I hear?
So since the general election, the Tories are up 11%, SNP down 3% and Labour down 10%. There's an excellent thread to be had looking at what Scottish seats would change hands -basically, which seats would the Tories take off the SNP on a 7% swing?
Berwickshire Roxburgh, Selkirk Dumfries & Galloway West Aberdeenshire, Kincardine
Unintended consequences arise: a pissed off employer might well vindictively tick the box.
An employer should tick the box if the employee either quit or was sacked for gross misconduct (eg stealing) - in which case the employer is likely to be pissed off but ticking the box would be the right thing not the wrong thing. An employer laying off employees for other reasons is not likely to be pissed off and vindictive but an appeals process and investigation would surely follow and lying to HMRC is a very serious offence that would result in punishment if caught.
My concern is that the unintended consequence would be that it would incentivise people who want to quit to make sure they get fired instead (though not for gross misconduct) trapping employers with crap employees.
Not saying it’s all non-sense, but all the hype has conveniently eclipsed the Hillary Clinton vote rigging scandal involving Wasserman Schultz and Donna Brazile.
Which vote rigging scandal involving those two ladies?
If Labour were running Snell in Copeland they'd be up the creek without a paddle.
Labour are still up the creek in Copeland, but Troughton has a decent paddle to try and dig them out.
Seems she is running a good campaign i.e. NHS, NHS, NHS and avoiding Corbyn.
I am on the Tories to sneak a win, but have to say the mood music is looking a bit doubtful on that, although I can't believe May would visit unless there was a really good chance. Or is she spending recess week hiking the lakes and is just popping in?
Scattered set based upon historical accident? or where people live in rural areas?
Largely the former.
Still, I'm amused that you, as a doctor, seem to be arguing that there should never, ever, under any circumstances be a change to an existing georgraphy of hospitals, that no new large hospitals should ever be built to replace two or three smaller hospitals, and that no NHS Trust should ever try to concentrate services in particular hospitals rather than have them scattered around.
Cutting local hospital services and sending mothers 40 miles away to give birth - that's how tory governments lose byelections.
To be more precise, getting blamed for decisions which are nothing to do with them is how parties of government lose by-elections
The decision is everything to do with the government.
Tories cannot dodge the blame for this one.
You think the government has made the decision to close this hospital?
Well, it's a view I suppose.
But yes, you are right that they will be blamed for it (although I've no idea whether 'blame' is the right word, it might well be a good decision). As I understand it, the Conservatives also oppose the closure. But, as we know, candidates of all parties almost invariably side with those campaigning against hospital closures or rationalisation of services. It's one of the main impediments to improving the NHS.
What this does show is that talk of some kind of cross-party consensus or a Royal Commission on the NHS is completely out with the fairies. There is no chance whatsoever of the Labour Party wanting to relinquish what it sees, probably rightly, as its most potent electoral asset.
The NHS is fine - it just needs more money. A small 10-15% real terms increase over 5 years would stop a lot of the callous nonsense like carting expectant mothers 40 miles away to give birth.
Theresa is going to have to find that £350m/week, otherwise come 2020 it's PM Starmer.
That will happen without her doing anything at all. Just extrapolate our current annual increase in NHS spend until 2020 and it will work out around 350m/week just like that. Oh what you didn't realise they meant nominal increase ?
Scattered set based upon historical accident? or where people live in rural areas?
Largely the former.
Still, I'm amused that you, as a doctor, seem to be arguing that there should never, ever, under any circumstances be a change to an existing georgraphy of hospitals, that no new large hospitals should ever be built to replace two or three smaller hospitals, and that no NHS Trust should ever try to concentrate services in particular hospitals rather than have them scattered around.
40 miles is an awfully long way to have to travel. I agree with some of what you say but equally doubt I'd be so sanguine if I was a Copeland voter. Annoyed enough to vote for Corbyn and his party? Probably not. But probably enough to not vote Conservative (at least in a by-election).
Tories much much closer in Copeland. UKIP not really a large factor there, so I think May was always going to go and visit there rather than Stoke. Where the Cons may well end up 4th.
Scattered set based upon historical accident? or where people live in rural areas?
Largely the former.
Still, I'm amused that you, as a doctor, seem to be arguing that there should never, ever, under any circumstances be a change to an existing georgraphy of hospitals, that no new large hospitals should ever be built to replace two or three smaller hospitals, and that no NHS Trust should ever try to concentrate services in particular hospitals rather than have them scattered around.
40 miles is an awfully long way to have to travel. I agree with some of what you say but equally doubt I'd be so sanguine if I was a Copeland voter. Annoyed enough to vote for Corbyn and his party? Probably not. But probably enough to not vote Conservative (at least in a by-election).
One would hope it would be relatively cheap to provide the transport for those that do not have their own, its not the same as having a hospital there of course, but as a measure to damp down pissed offness it has a certain amount to recommend it.
Not saying it’s all non-sense, but all the hype has conveniently eclipsed the Hillary Clinton vote rigging scandal involving Wasserman Schultz and Donna Brazile.
er that's because she lost. He is President now, we have hold him accountable.
I think that the whole US establishment are reeling after the Trump victory. This includes Democrats, Republicans, CIA, FBI and other state institutions, and the lobbying/media. The cosy club that they've existed within has been thrown into turmoil and they don't know how to react.
I don't know if Trump will be a good or bad President but the US political establishment will have a very uncomfortable 4 years and if Trump is anywhere near successful, it could be 8 years!
I just hope that some of the deep seated corruption is rooted out and removed and some of the pork barrel politics is exposed for what it is.
Deep seated corruption and pork barrel politics is just begining. The US has copied Russias kleptocracy with Trump.
I see no evidence that Trump will do this rooting out. We were promised swamp draining and then he puts half of Goldman Sachs into his Cabinet. Yeh right - Wall Street is really gonna get it in the neck.
You missed his announcement of the death of Dodd-Frank obviously. The marriage of Washington and Wall Street is headed for divorce.
That makes no sense.
US banks hate Dodd-Frank, partly because it is excessively rule bound, and partly because it prevents retail banks from offering lucrative investment banking services.
This last part is very important: a major cause of the 2008 Global Financial Crisis was because retail banks were able to use implicit government guarantees to lever up and trade. (Which was fabulous while asset prices were rising, but turned out to be a complete disaster when they went the other way.)
The Trump tweet would seem to suggest that there will be a straight repeal of Dodd-Frank. If that were to happen, and US retail banks were to allowed to trade with their customers' money, that would be good for US banks' profits in the near-term, but probably not good for world financial stability in the long run. Dodd-Frank, for all its flaws, attempted to stop banks from excessive gambling. I hope it will be replaced and not simply repealed.
The combination of this and the stated intention of walking away from the Basel process is troubling. Basel II and III have many deficiencies but banks being allowed to gamble without sufficient capital in a system where the taxpayer stands as a lender of last resort is in the "done that, bought the T shirt" box not the "to do" list.
Tories much much closer in Copeland. UKIP not really a large factor there, so I think May was always going to go and visit there rather than Stoke. Where the Cons may well end up 4th.
Silly moo. Winning Copeland isn't going to help her much, whereas keeping Jezza on seat certainly is.
This is not as stupid as it may at first sound. The UAE are planning a Mars orbiter for 2020 and the timescale of a century for the manned settlement means they can concentrate on education and research, including international cooperation.
Had a bit of spare time so looked round the general politics markets this morning. I think laying Le Pen at 3.65 is the closest to free money. People betting on her simply don't understand the French two-round system.
I understand the French two-round system perfectly and I am betting on her, not because I think she is particularly likely to win, but because I have traded my way over the past few months to a very healthy all green book and Le Pen is probably the safest haven for my hard-earned potential profit at the moment.
Macron's momentum has all but stopped and over half of his supporters polled say they might change their mind.
Fillon could withdraw from the race at a moment's notice due to his legal situation and anyway his head to head figure against Le Pen was shown to be 56-44 in a poll last week -hardly an insurmountable lead.
Yes Le Pen should probably be longer odds, but I would rather trade out at longer odds and keep most of my profit on the market rather than seeing a large profit on Macron or Fillon go to waste if the former does not hold on to his support or the latter has to pull out.
Nick P's comments smack to me of the 'Clinton has won, just look at the ECV and the demographics' mantra. This was the view by majority (incl me) until about 4am on the night.
There is a populist tide and I see no reason why the FR wont be next, especially if ISIS pull off some nasty stunt days before polling.
However, like BudG I am happily green on this market (assuming Melanchon doesn't surprise or a complete unknown doesn't come forward (thanks to Fillon dropping out)).
Yup. I think there is a tendency to look too much into the past for reference with this election. People constantly refer to 2002, and to recent regional elections, as evidence that there will be a solid mainstream front against Le Pen. This isn't 2002, regardless of her opponent, MLP is much more savvy and serious than her dad, and more populist than fascist, at a time when Islamic terrorism is actually a serious problem for France, more so than in the UK or the USA really - and you can't escape it on the news all the time. The voters in regional elections won't turnout in the same way as a much more important presidential one.
She has three rich veins to focus her campaign on: anti-islam, anti-EU, anti-globalisation. In the second round she will focus on the one her opponent is weakest on (Fillon, and she will go for the left Bernie/Trump type vote, Macron and it will be anti-Euro and anti-islam, Hamon and she will launch right with an anti-islam campaign).
She's obviously no shoo-in, but people are far too complacent about her chances.
Re NHS in Cumbria, it took 7 years to find out what happen at the maternity unit in Barrow, not a great advertisement for Labour's stewardship of health care.
Surprised at Davis... But if you were told an MP has been sexist... Your first guess should surely be Soames.
That's not sexist, surely. Just rude! And it comes after a discussion where he was (apparently falsely) accused of trying to kiss Abbott after the Brexit vote.
Not saying it’s all non-sense, but all the hype has conveniently eclipsed the Hillary Clinton vote rigging scandal involving Wasserman Schultz and Donna Brazile.
er that's because she lost. He is President now, we have hold him accountable.
Both should be held to account for their misdemeanours and losing an election does not absolve you from anything.
This is not as stupid as it may at first sound. The UAE are planning a Mars orbiter for 2020 and the timescale of a century for the manned settlement means they can concentrate on education and research, including international cooperation.
Countries have spent oil money in worse ways.
They ought to focus on architecture/habitat.
Elana Musk's SpaceX will have developed a fleet of ITS by then for the transport.
Tories much much closer in Copeland. UKIP not really a large factor there, so I think May was always going to go and visit there rather than Stoke. Where the Cons may well end up 4th.
Silly moo. Winning Copeland isn't going to help her much, whereas keeping Jezza on seat certainly is.
Copeland gives her a boost going into Brexit and if Corbyn holds Stoke even if he loses Copeland his renewed mandate from Labour members of more than 60% just a few months ago will secure him. Don't believe what either side says on Copeland when they say they have won it, having phoned there it is neck and neck and depends on each side getting its voters out. Of course Labour in their BHS leaflets scaremongering about something which has not happened fail to mention the Labour council closed care homes while opening a new office block
They've played the expectations game well, so two holds next Thursday will feel like a decent result for Labour.
Two holds for Labour will feel like a triumph for them, no doubt about it - even though the reality is is that they should be not only be holding on, but increasing their majorities. Nuttall has gifted Stoke to Labour, it's got nothing to do with Corbyn. Copeland even less.
Noone expects anything in Stoke, and a close second in Copeland keeps Jezza in place. Winning the seat adds to the majority and sends Labour into another tailspin.
I think at the GE the Conservatives gain Copeland very comfortably.
If it's Fillon vs Le Pen then Le Pen has a great chance because he's getting damaged more and more.
If it's Fillon vs Le Pen then Le Pen has no chance still because Fillon wasn't damaged enough to be defeated by any other candidate.
There would have to be something new and extraordinary between Round 1 and Round 2 for Fillon to lose to Le Pen as otherwise Fillon would never have made it to Round 2.
She's only 58-42 down in some of the head to head polls, that's close enough to be overturned.
Anyone saying she has no chance hasn't learnt their lesson from the last year of politics.
What upset in the last year had 58-42 as the most favourable polls?
Both Brexit and Trump were ahead in their most favourable polls (and Trump still lost the popular vote by millions). I don't recall any upset in the last year of politics that involved overturning a 16 percent poll lead in their most favourable polls let alone average ones.
Both Hillary and Remain had polls in their favour with leads of more than 10%
She's obviously no shoo-in, but people are far too complacent about her chances.
Yes. The French 2nd round runoff system certainly works against her but is not an absolute obstacle. Anti Muslim feelings across Europe are hardening very rapidly: https://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/comment/What-do-europeans-think-about-muslim-immigration Only 16% of French disagree with the statement 'All further immigration from mainly Muslim countries should be stopped'! Over 60% agree. This very recent and very large poll from Chatham House therefore makes pretty much the whole electorate of Europe more hardline on Muslims than Trump! Just wow. Who knows how that will play out in upcoming elections.
Labour still looks the value in Copeland. Stoke market looking more 'correct' now.
Quite extraordinary we should ever find that a government gain from the opposition almost two years into a parliament is considered nailed on.
The markets just hate Labour. At the very least Labour should be the 1.33 in Stoke, with the Tories at 1.6 odd in Copeland. That would be a bit more sensible.
Look at the swing UKIP needs in Stoke compared to the Tory one in Copeland for a start. Much larger requirement.
Are there any similar seats in Scotland ie they voted 70/30 to leave in the ref so we can compare how they voted in the GE? Obviously a big factor is that Indy lost and Leave won
EDIT: D'oh obviously there are unlikely to be many 70/30 Indy as Indy lost. Forget that!
Banff and Buchan voted "No", and "leave" - seat was an SNP stronghold, but I can see the Tories gaining there. Aberdeenshire County Council will be an interesting Lib Dem-Tory-SNP battle in May. Long term I think the seat goes Tory, particularly if the SNP lose IndyRef 2. Precisely the sort of area the SNP will weaken while they hoover up Glasgow & surrounds.
Bloody hell, didn't that used to be Salmond's stamping ground ?
Oh it'll stay SNP in 2020, and most likely 2025 I think. But its definitely a "Tartan Tory" type of seat that the SNP will weaken in long term. 2030 Tory gain maybe.
Is that a distant Scottish Tory Surge Klaxon I hear?
So since the general election, the Tories are up 11%, SNP down 3% and Labour down 10%. There's an excellent thread to be had looking at what Scottish seats would change hands -basically, which seats would the Tories take off the SNP on a 7% swing?
Berwickshire Roxburgh, Selkirk Dumfries & Galloway West Aberdeenshire, Kincardine
Edinburgh South would also be an exceptionally close three-way (SNP 31, Lab 29, Con 28.5).
Noone expects anything in Stoke, and a close second in Copeland keeps Jezza in place. Winning the seat adds to the majority and sends Labour into another tailspin.
I think at the GE the Conservatives gain Copeland very comfortably.
Probably not, their best bet is to win this By-Election. By the GE Corbyn may well be gone.
Noone expects anything in Stoke, and a close second in Copeland keeps Jezza in place. Winning the seat adds to the majority and sends Labour into another tailspin.
I think at the GE the Conservatives gain Copeland very comfortably.
This is not as stupid as it may at first sound. The UAE are planning a Mars orbiter for 2020 and the timescale of a century for the manned settlement means they can concentrate on education and research, including international cooperation.
Countries have spent oil money in worse ways.
They ought to focus on architecture/habitat.
Elana Musk's SpaceX will have developed a fleet of ITS by then for the transport.
I think you're right.
If you want to make money in space, develop allied technology such as satellites instead of rockets. The former can generate oodles of money with a great deal of commonality, whilst rockets cost small fortunes to develop and manage, and frequently go boom.
This is why the UK has a healthy space economy with about £12 billion revenue without any launchers. By contrast, SpaceX's revenue is believed to be only about $1 billion.
This is one reason why SpaceX are desperate to get into satellites.
Labour still looks the value in Copeland. Stoke market looking more 'correct' now.
Quite extraordinary we should ever find that a government gain from the opposition almost two years into a parliament is considered nailed on.
The markets just hate Labour. At the very least Labour should be the 1.33 in Stoke, with the Tories at 1.6 odd in Copeland. That would be a bit more sensible.
Look at the swing UKIP needs in Stoke compared to the Tory one in Copeland for a start. Much larger requirement.
Are there any similar seats in Scotland ie they voted 70/30 to leave in the ref so we can compare how they voted in the GE? Obviously a big factor is that Indy lost and Leave won
EDIT: D'oh obviously there are unlikely to be many 70/30 Indy as Indy lost. Forget that!
Banff and Buchan voted "No", and "leave" - seat was an SNP stronghold, but I can see the Tories gaining there. Aberdeenshire County Council will be an interesting Lib Dem-Tory-SNP battle in May. Long term I think the seat goes Tory, particularly if the SNP lose IndyRef 2. Precisely the sort of area the SNP will weaken while they hoover up Glasgow & surrounds.
Bloody hell, didn't that used to be Salmond's stamping ground ?
Oh it'll stay SNP in 2020, and most likely 2025 I think. But its definitely a "Tartan Tory" type of seat that the SNP will weaken in long term. 2030 Tory gain maybe.
Is that a distant Scottish Tory Surge Klaxon I hear?
So since the general election, the Tories are up 11%, SNP down 3% and Labour down 10%. There's an excellent thread to be had looking at what Scottish seats would change hands -basically, which seats would the Tories take off the SNP on a 7% swing?
Berwickshire Roxburgh, Selkirk Dumfries & Galloway West Aberdeenshire, Kincardine
Edinburgh South would also be an exceptionally close three-way (SNP 31, Lab 29, Con 28.5).
I wonder if Crockart could take Edinburgh West in 2020.
He increased his vote there from 2010 to 2015. An utterly remarkable achievement.
They've played the expectations game well, so two holds next Thursday will feel like a decent result for Labour.
It's as much Team May pushing that line, isn't it?
There is that too.
If the Tories fail to take Copeland, I'm sure some people will be writing
'Mrs May: An electoral liability'
Unless Labour increase their majority they won't and was Blair an electoral liability when the Tories held Uxbridge in 1997 and Eddisbury in 1999 despite his visits there?
Labour still looks the value in Copeland. Stoke market looking more 'correct' now.
Quite extraordinary we should ever find that a government gain from the opposition almost two years into a parliament is considered nailed on.
The markets just hate Labour. At the very least Labour should be the 1.33 in Stoke, with the Tories at 1.6 odd in Copeland. That would be a bit more sensible.
Look at the swing UKIP needs in Stoke compared to the Tory one in Copeland for a start. Much larger requirement.
Are there any similar seats in Scotland ie they voted 70/30 to leave in the ref so we can compare how they voted in the GE? Obviously a big factor is that Indy lost and Leave won
EDIT: D'oh obviously there are unlikely to be many 70/30 Indy as Indy lost. Forget that!
Banff and Buchan voted "No", and "leave" - seat was an SNP stronghold, but I can see the Tories gaining there. Aberdeenshire County Council will be an interesting Lib Dem-Tory-SNP battle in May. Long term I think the seat goes Tory, particularly if the SNP lose IndyRef 2. Precisely the sort of area the SNP will weaken while they hoover up Glasgow & surrounds.
Bloody hell, didn't that used to be Salmond's stamping ground ?
Oh it'll stay SNP in 2020, and most likely 2025 I think. But its definitely a "Tartan Tory" type of seat that the SNP will weaken in long term. 2030 Tory gain maybe.
Is that a distant Scottish Tory Surge Klaxon I hear?
So since the general election, the Tories are up 11%, SNP down 3% and Labour down 10%. There's an excellent thread to be had looking at what Scottish seats would change hands -basically, which seats would the Tories take off the SNP on a 7% swing?
Not many. The Conservatives would win a lot of strong second places.
The NHS is fine - it just needs more money. A small 10-15% real terms increase over 5 years would stop a lot of the callous nonsense like carting expectant mothers 40 miles away to give birth.
'Callous nonsense'. Really? Or a good decision based on evidence? I have no idea, but nor have you.
No amount of extra money would mean that hospitals never get reorganised - very much the opposite, in fact - with more money to spend, the NHS would love to build larger hospitals and centres of excellence rather than have the current more scattered set based on historical accident.
Agree re "callous nonsense" - there are always going to be people who have to travel an awful distance to obtain necessary services, because Britain isn't Singapore, though I would be much more comfortable with it if this were a tiny minority of the UK population. (It is one of the largely inevitable trade-offs of people living somewhere relatively remote, or at least extra-urban. But I do think these people's interests should be given particular attention when resource decisions are made.)
I also think you're understating the reorganisation issue, if anything - one of the reasons the NHS is not "fine" in its current state is that the District General Hospital model its infrastructure is currently built to is being challenged to the core. Some of this is about building "super-hospitals" with very concentrated centres of excellence... but then other aspects are (as I understand it) about localising services, putting more emphasis on prevention work and community care, polyclinics and perhaps a renewed role for "cottage hospitals"...
There's a really radical transformation underway - not a new thing at all, see eg this 2007 piece from the King's Fund - and that's going to be the case whether Labour or Tories are running the show. I actually reckon surprisingly little of it is politicised, all told - reconfiguration issues seem to be pretty complex and technical and generally decided on wonkish merits rather than how particular MPs would like their local hospitals to be arranged.
The big policy issue, so far as I can see, is social care- there are some very challenging political decisions to be made on that front, and the impetus for structuring health and social care will have to come from politicians.
Scattered set based upon historical accident? or where people live in rural areas?
Largely the former.
Still, I'm amused that you, as a doctor, seem to be arguing that there should never, ever, under any circumstances be a change to an existing georgraphy of hospitals, that no new large hospitals should ever be built to replace two or three smaller hospitals, and that no NHS Trust should ever try to concentrate services in particular hospitals rather than have them scattered around.
40 miles is an awfully long way to have to travel. I agree with some of what you say but equally doubt I'd be so sanguine if I was a Copeland voter. Annoyed enough to vote for Corbyn and his party? Probably not. But probably enough to not vote Conservative (at least in a by-election).
One would hope it would be relatively cheap to provide the transport for those that do not have their own, its not the same as having a hospital there of course, but as a measure to damp down pissed offness it has a certain amount to recommend it.
True, but the point I'm making is that the closing of hospitals has a very pronounced affect on the electability of those deemed to be responsible, even when the alternative is considerably closer than 40 miles. It's real life, tangible and impacts on peoples lives.
Not sure that all the Brexit euphoria and anti Corbyn whatnot is going to persuade people to vote Tory in droves. Again this is with the proviso that this is only a by-election.
Beginning to persuade myself Labour are worth backing. Hmmm
The funding issue for health is also, ultimately, political - but local people are going to be disappointed if they think more funding means no changes to services.
It does look like we need to spend more. I think even the Tories will spend more, though I'm not sure if they will spend "enough". I quite like @Pong's ball-park figures, - a 10-15% increase in funding what put the NHS on a par with the 11% or so of GDP that's common in the continent (@Pulpstar made a good comparison to that yesterday). But I don't know whether that would "sort the NHS out", as such - demand for health services is just growing faster than the economy as a whole (demographically inevitable, though there are other factors too). And although there are metrics by which the NHS lags its continental equivalents, we're also ahead of them in others, and overall British life expectancy is much of a muchness with western European equivalents.
Must have been hard for Tory door-knockers in 2015 trying to press the line "even through austerity, we've kept increasing NHS spending in real terms" (which was true, and from the government's position a big fiscal ask) when the response is "so why are there so many cuts in the health service?" (also true - because funding rises were accompanied by efficiency drives). Even if NHS spending was to get a significant post-Brexit boost, those "cuts" would still continue.
By all informed accounts, BoJo was absolutely serious about pushing ahead with 350m/week extra for the NHS - he seems to have viewed it both as totemic from the Brexit point of view, and a sensible use for the money anyway. He might have been the one PM who could have removed from the Tory party's neck its electoral albatross of having opposed the formation of the NHS. I think Mrs May would do well to consider what she could muster.
Scattered set based upon historical accident? or where people live in rural areas?
Largely the former.
Still, I'm amused that you, as a doctor, seem to be arguing that there should never, ever, under any circumstances be a change to an existing georgraphy of hospitals, that no new large hospitals should ever be built to replace two or three smaller hospitals, and that no NHS Trust should ever try to concentrate services in particular hospitals rather than have them scattered around.
40 miles is an awfully long way to have to travel. I agree with some of what you say but equally doubt I'd be so sanguine if I was a Copeland voter. Annoyed enough to vote for Corbyn and his party? Probably not. But probably enough to not vote Conservative (at least in a by-election).
Also the A66 is closed overnight for long term repairs to prevent flooding.
Comments
Or the government agreed with the decision of the people best placed to take it?
Of course closing local hospitals or reducing their scope has a detrimental effect in terms of transport and journey times. It also has benefits in many cases, by centralising care in local centres of excellence. As I said, I've no idea whether this particular plan is a good one or a bad one, but people always oppose such plans irrespective of their merits.
There is a populist tide and I see no reason why the FR wont be next, especially if ISIS pull off some nasty stunt days before polling.
However, like BudG I am happily green on this market (assuming Melanchon doesn't surprise or a complete unknown doesn't come forward (thanks to Fillon dropping out)).
In 1996, I had to produce reams of evidence and it still took 4 months for the first payment to be made as they were checking my evidence.
Theresa is going to have to find that £350m/week, otherwise come 2020 it's PM Starmer.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/831837514226921472
He came off as the brilliant barrister and human being I've always thought he was.
I think Theresa May had it right all those years ago
How are the penultimate "in the dole queue" if they can't claim? Though this claim is more true in theory than in practice, the reality is that people quit their jobs voluntarily and then go straight to claiming all the time. I've been an employer for over 11 years now and doing payroll for half that time and do you know how often HMRC or whoever else is responsible has taken up references to see if someone quit or was laid off? Never. Not once.
I once had someone outright quit without notice at a busy period then call up later that week (when they should have been working) demanding their P45 so that they could sign on to get benefits. I told him it would be processed next payroll, he said that wasn't good enough as he wanted his paperwork to go get benefits immediately and I said if he bothered me again I would write to the local JobCentre and tell them he quit so he couldn't get any benefits. Funnily enough, never heard from him again after that.
If the government really wanted to prevent people from signing on after quitting they could take references, they don't. In fact with modern online reporting it would be even easier, there could be a field to fill in on the P45 for the part that goes to the government that asks whether they voluntarily left employment. We could tick yes and then they couldn't sign on. But the government, probably for good reason hasn't done that so your claim is correct in theory but not in the real world.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/copeland-by-election-theresa-may-to-visit-labour-conservatives-2017-2
No amount of extra money would mean that hospitals never get reorganised - very much the opposite, in fact - with more money to spend, the NHS would love to build larger hospitals and centres of excellence rather than have the current more scattered set based on historical accident.
-basically, which seats would the Tories take off the SNP on a 7% swing?
If Labour were running Snell in Copeland they'd be up the creek without a paddle.
Labour are still up the creek in Copeland, but Troughton has a decent paddle to try and dig them out.
Dumfries & Galloway
West Aberdeenshire, Kincardine
My concern is that the unintended consequence would be that it would incentivise people who want to quit to make sure they get fired instead (though not for gross misconduct) trapping employers with crap employees.
I am on the Tories to sneak a win, but have to say the mood music is looking a bit doubtful on that, although I can't believe May would visit unless there was a really good chance. Or is she spending recess week hiking the lakes and is just popping in?
Still, I'm amused that you, as a doctor, seem to be arguing that there should never, ever, under any circumstances be a change to an existing georgraphy of hospitals, that no new large hospitals should ever be built to replace two or three smaller hospitals, and that no NHS Trust should ever try to concentrate services in particular hospitals rather than have them scattered around.
They've played the expectations game well, so two holds next Thursday will feel like a decent result for Labour.
https://order-order.com/2017/02/15/vaz-sets-carter-ruck-on-andrew-pierce/
If the Tories fail to take Copeland, I'm sure some people will be writing
'Mrs May: An electoral liability'
The UAE has unveiled a “Mars 2117 Project”, which aims at its final stage to establish an inhabitable human settlement on Mars by 2117.
http://mediaoffice.ae/en/media-center/news/14/2/2017/mars.aspx
This is not as stupid as it may at first sound. The UAE are planning a Mars orbiter for 2020 and the timescale of a century for the manned settlement means they can concentrate on education and research, including international cooperation.
Countries have spent oil money in worse ways.
She has three rich veins to focus her campaign on: anti-islam, anti-EU, anti-globalisation. In the second round she will focus on the one her opponent is weakest on (Fillon, and she will go for the left Bernie/Trump type vote, Macron and it will be anti-Euro and anti-islam, Hamon and she will launch right with an anti-islam campaign).
She's obviously no shoo-in, but people are far too complacent about her chances.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-31532749
Elana Musk's SpaceX will have developed a fleet of ITS by then for the transport.
Noone expects anything in Stoke, and a close second in Copeland keeps Jezza in place. Winning the seat adds to the majority and sends Labour into another tailspin.
I think at the GE the Conservatives gain Copeland very comfortably.
She's obviously no shoo-in, but people are far too complacent about her chances.
Yes. The French 2nd round runoff system certainly works against her but is not an absolute obstacle. Anti Muslim feelings across Europe are hardening very rapidly:
https://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/comment/What-do-europeans-think-about-muslim-immigration
Only 16% of French disagree with the statement 'All further immigration from mainly Muslim countries should be stopped'! Over 60% agree.
This very recent and very large poll from Chatham House therefore makes pretty much the whole electorate of Europe more hardline on Muslims than Trump! Just wow. Who knows how that will play out in upcoming elections.
NEW THREAD
If you want to make money in space, develop allied technology such as satellites instead of rockets. The former can generate oodles of money with a great deal of commonality, whilst rockets cost small fortunes to develop and manage, and frequently go boom.
This is why the UK has a healthy space economy with about £12 billion revenue without any launchers. By contrast, SpaceX's revenue is believed to be only about $1 billion.
This is one reason why SpaceX are desperate to get into satellites.
Rockets are sexy. Satellites make the money.
He increased his vote there from 2010 to 2015. An utterly remarkable achievement.
I also think you're understating the reorganisation issue, if anything - one of the reasons the NHS is not "fine" in its current state is that the District General Hospital model its infrastructure is currently built to is being challenged to the core. Some of this is about building "super-hospitals" with very concentrated centres of excellence... but then other aspects are (as I understand it) about localising services, putting more emphasis on prevention work and community care, polyclinics and perhaps a renewed role for "cottage hospitals"...
There's a really radical transformation underway - not a new thing at all, see eg this 2007 piece from the King's Fund - and that's going to be the case whether Labour or Tories are running the show. I actually reckon surprisingly little of it is politicised, all told - reconfiguration issues seem to be pretty complex and technical and generally decided on wonkish merits rather than how particular MPs would like their local hospitals to be arranged.
The big policy issue, so far as I can see, is social care- there are some very challenging political decisions to be made on that front, and the impetus for structuring health and social care will have to come from politicians.
Not sure that all the Brexit euphoria and anti Corbyn whatnot is going to persuade people to vote Tory in droves. Again this is with the proviso that this is only a by-election.
Beginning to persuade myself Labour are worth backing. Hmmm
It does look like we need to spend more. I think even the Tories will spend more, though I'm not sure if they will spend "enough". I quite like @Pong's ball-park figures, - a 10-15% increase in funding what put the NHS on a par with the 11% or so of GDP that's common in the continent (@Pulpstar made a good comparison to that yesterday). But I don't know whether that would "sort the NHS out", as such - demand for health services is just growing faster than the economy as a whole (demographically inevitable, though there are other factors too). And although there are metrics by which the NHS lags its continental equivalents, we're also ahead of them in others, and overall British life expectancy is much of a muchness with western European equivalents.
Must have been hard for Tory door-knockers in 2015 trying to press the line "even through austerity, we've kept increasing NHS spending in real terms" (which was true, and from the government's position a big fiscal ask) when the response is "so why are there so many cuts in the health service?" (also true - because funding rises were accompanied by efficiency drives). Even if NHS spending was to get a significant post-Brexit boost, those "cuts" would still continue.
By all informed accounts, BoJo was absolutely serious about pushing ahead with 350m/week extra for the NHS - he seems to have viewed it both as totemic from the Brexit point of view, and a sensible use for the money anyway. He might have been the one PM who could have removed from the Tory party's neck its electoral albatross of having opposed the formation of the NHS. I think Mrs May would do well to consider what she could muster.