The current focus is on Labour's woes being down to Corbyn; but I'd argue they are more that Labour doesn't have a coherent set of policies. Whoever is talking, they still have nothing to say. What if the new leader gets a hearing from the voters but they assess they are actually saying nothing.
I can't remember who said it yesterday, but someone in Labour opined that they had a policy on all things nuclear, and JC should espouse it.
In this example, and perhaps many others, the issue is wholly and entirely JC being crap.
A word of advice to all our gentle readers. When watching rugby, never mix cider, white wine and brandy. No matter how much it seems a good idea at the time
LOL, so someone had a good day yesterday and is feeling a bit rubbish this morning.
Meanwhile, in other time zones some of us are heading for the pub already!
Gina Miller fighting for the House of Lords! Who'd have thunk it? She wants a vote in Parliament in 18 months on "all options."
Gina Miller doesn't want us to leave the EU.
Gina Miller doesn't respect the voters.
We all knew that anyway. If it were that she genuinely wanted to see a role for Parliament, as she professed a few months ago, then fair enough. But that's not the case. Gina (and her wealthy backers) are determined to subvert the will of the people at any price. They're going to be a legal opposition to everything the government tries to do over Brexit.
Her body language shows her total disrespect for those who voted to leave and sheer arrogance at wanting to stop the whole process. She always was a wolf in sheep's clothing trying to make out that Parliament is where the decision is to be taken in the knowledge that Parliament is full of EU toadies who will do anything to subvert the will of the people.
No one has explained what would happen if Parliament voted down Theresa May's deal following A50. How could we even start to undo all the negotiations including new legislation on work visas and meekly ask the EU, please can we come back. Complete nonsense
Correction she did it in the hope parliament would subvert the will of the people. But her hopes are irrelevant, giving the decision to parliament rather than government was still a good thing, and given Mays arbitrary timescale of the end of March looks like being met, I wouldn't be surprised if she picked it as the contingency date based on expecting parliament being involved.
I doubt that it doubled in real terms or we'd be spending more than ~9% of GDP on it. Anyway, double a dysfunctional hierarchy is still a dysfunctional hierarchy. The history of it since 1979 seems to be roughly one major reorganisation for every SoS of Health.
From £63bn in 97/8 to £137.2bn in 09/10, in 12/13 prices.
seems to suggest that in most countries it increased rapidly in that period. It ground to a halt around 2009-10, especially in the more recession-hit countries.
LOL, so someone had a good day yesterday and is feeling a bit rubbish this morning.
Meanwhile, in other time zones some of us are heading for the pub already!
@HoggFacts: Not saying the Scotland team partied hard last night but Finn Russell's been spotted with a Kebab on Arthur's Seat wearing a dressing gown.
Isn't the point that you can't turn back the tide, but if you wait long enough the tide will turn?
Yes, so corbyn is really saying they can't stop the Tories winning but eventually they'll retreat through no effort of labours. Cheering message for the party.
I still cannot get over, even by his standards, how stupid corbyns remarks about turning back the Tory tide were. Poor drafting of a speech, but did nobody comment that tides cannot be turned back?
Ah, but if you make your gesture at the right time, it gives every impression of turning back the tide!
The Coral bet is a much better bet than the Health Secretary one. Hunt is an effective politician in the Cameron mode but does not get peoples backs up the same way. He is for me the #1 May under a bus candidate at the present time.
'does not get peoples backs up the same way'. You're obviously not married to a medic (as I am). I have to leave the room when he appears on television to escape the tirade.
Of all the Health Ministers that I have worked under, the only one who I have truly loathed is Patricia Hewitt. The only one that I have liked was a junior minister in the coalition, Norman Lamb. The rest are much of a muchness in terms of uselessness and malignity.
I agree that the NHS crisis has been going since 1948, and I suspect we will continue to muddle through, with cuts here, rationing there, hospitals downsized everywhere. Scandals will continue. I voted against Brexit but agree it must be implemented, and the same goes for the NHS. The people have voted against funding it better, when given the chance and that too must be respected. It is the voters who have to live with the consequences after all, and Hunt is delivering that.
The other week I was headhunted for a job in NZ, in a delightful city that I know from when I worked there 25 years ago. I am sorely tempted, but it is a couple of years too early for me. Grandpa Fox and Fox jr need me here for a couple more years.
NHS in crisis since 1948? Even in 2010 after spending on it had doubled in real terms since 1997? Perhaps spending would have to double again to get it out of crisis.
Far, far too much time has been spent 1974-2011 in re-organising the NHS. Those in managerial ...... I know, I know...... roles haven’t had the security to enable clinicians to get on with their real work.
They also do not seem to be fit to run a bath. Recent hospital series had them 100% beds full every episode, they made it all dramatic , having surgeons standing about all day , patients surgery cancelled etc. They explained as it was a trauma hospital they could never say when they had emergencies etc , so any idiot would think why do you keep planning elective surgery there when you know it always has to be cancelled. The waste was incredible and lots of very talented surgeons just piddling about all day arguing with administrators etc about free beds. Shocking to see what a shambles it is.
I doubt that it doubled in real terms or we'd be spending more than ~9% of GDP on it. Anyway, double a dysfunctional hierarchy is still a dysfunctional hierarchy. The history of it since 1979 seems to be roughly one major reorganisation for every SoS of Health.
From £63bn in 97/8 to £137.2bn in 09/10, in 12/13 prices.
seems to suggest that in most countries it increased rapidly in that period. It ground to a halt around 2009-10, especially in the more recession-hit countries.
In the UK it was going up closer to 10% per annum, much higher than the OECD rates.
@PolhomeEditor: Shami Chakrabarti criticises Andrew Marr for having Peter Mandelson on his show a few days before the Copeland by-election.
@BBCNormanS: Oh dear ..seems Shami Chakrabarti going down the blame the media route. Dead end. @MarrShow
@IsabelHardman: Not sure what is more painful watching: Whittle excusing Paul Nuttall for squandering his chance in Stoke or Shami's checklist of blame
One thing that doesn't get mentioned is that whilst Jeremy is undoubtedly crap, the working assumption is that his successor simply has to be so much better. That puts huge expectations on that person. Their great advantage is that they might at least get a hearing from those voters who just tune out to Corbyn. But any new leader will have to have something to say.
The current focus is on Labour's woes being down to Corbyn; but I'd argue they are more that Labour doesn't have a coherent set of policies. Whoever is talking, they still have nothing to say. What if the new leader gets a hearing from the voters but they assess they are actually saying nothing.
Corbyn being elected in the first place was a symptom of labours troubles, but he has been the cause of many more since. Ejecting him as leader will not in itself fix all their issues, but it does fix several of them, which is a start and gives the body time to fix the rest,
To me, it seems the major problem that the NHS has at the moment is that it does not stand alone. So the government has since 2010 maintained and even increased spending on the NHS in real terms but it has done this within a spending envelope which means other areas of spending have had to be cut even more to compensate with an ever increasing bill for debt interest adding to the pressure.
The most obviously relevant of these is local government social care spending. Another would be health related expenditure in education. Maintaining real spending in the NHS has meant the decimation of these services so that they are no longer able to adequately provide for the increasing number of frail and elderly in our community. This means that the NHS is unable to offload these patients when they no longer require medical treatment and that they are being looked after in hospitals at much greater expense than they would be in care homes.
I think we are at the point when we recognise that this is just silly. We therefore need to find a way to divert some of the NHS money to social care to get a bigger bang for our bucks.. The main way this is being achieved is "integrating" care which allows this switch of resources to occur without being too obvious about it. It is just one example of how this obsession with the NHS distorts priorities leading to inefficiency.
A word of advice to all our gentle readers. When watching rugby, never mix cider, white wine and brandy. No matter how much it seems a good idea at the time
You need a big fry up ASAP. Then give it till 12 ish and have a shandy or two and all will be well.
@PaulBrandITV: Chakrabarti blames storm Doris for poor Copeland result. I was there and it has to be clarified that it barely rained at all. Doris bypassed
Baroness Chakrabatti (spelling!) on Marr talking the same bollocks. And Storm Doris stopped impoverished Labour supporters voting because they can't afford cars.
We won Stoke because we listened. 'Listened!'
Hopefully, Labour will carry on like this. It's good for the country.
@PolhomeEditor: Shami Chakrabarti criticises Andrew Marr for having Peter Mandelson on his show a few days before the Copeland by-election.
@BBCNormanS: Oh dear ..seems Shami Chakrabarti going down the blame the media route. Dead end. @MarrShow
@IsabelHardman: Not sure what is more painful watching: Whittle excusing Paul Nuttall for squandering his chance in Stoke or Shami's checklist of blame
It's a shame she has turned out to be such a shameless party hack.
@PaulBrandITV: Chakrabarti blames storm Doris for poor Copeland result. I was there and it has to be clarified that it barely rained at all. Doris bypassed
Isn't there no hard evidence weather impacts one side more than another?
@PolhomeEditor: Lab source: "Shami says Labour took Copeland for granted. She only joined the party 9 months ago, had never knocked a door & isn't elected."
To me, it seems the major problem that the NHS has at the moment is that it does not stand alone. So the government has since 2010 maintained and even increased spending on the NHS in real terms but it has done this within a spending envelope which means other areas of spending have had to be cut even more to compensate with an ever increasing bill for debt interest adding to the pressure.
The most obviously relevant of these is local government social care spending. Another would be health related expenditure in education. Maintaining real spending in the NHS has meant the decimation of these services so that they are no longer able to adequately provide for the increasing number of frail and elderly in our community. This means that the NHS is unable to offload these patients when they no longer require medical treatment and that they are being looked after in hospitals at much greater expense than they would be in care homes.
I think we are at the point when we recognise that this is just silly. We therefore need to find a way to divert some of the NHS money to social care to get a bigger bang for our bucks.. The main way this is being achieved is "integrating" care which allows this switch of resources to occur without being too obvious about it. It is just one example of how this obsession with the NHS distorts priorities leading to inefficiency.
@PaulBrandITV: Chakrabarti joins the trend du jour by repeatedly attacking Labour. Saying 'talented shadow cabinet colleagues' aren't getting air time.
@PolhomeEditor: Shami Chakrabarti criticises Andrew Marr for having Peter Mandelson on his show a few days before the Copeland by-election.
@BBCNormanS: Oh dear ..seems Shami Chakrabarti going down the blame the media route. Dead end. @MarrShow
@IsabelHardman: Not sure what is more painful watching: Whittle excusing Paul Nuttall for squandering his chance in Stoke or Shami's checklist of blame
It's a shame she has turned out to be such a shameless party hack.
She is hopeless and the interview with Marr is just embarrasing
Shami Chakrabarti on Marr - 'when people see the alternative vision from a more united labour party people will change their mind'
She is quite simply a loser and has lost all respect by flouting herself in front of Corbyn to get promotion to the HOL.
I think that's just what she believes, I'm sure she could have had a gong or peerage from so done else before now. She is, it turns out, a totally partisan, says anything to defend the leader, hack.
I doubt that it doubled in real terms or we'd be spending more than ~9% of GDP on it. Anyway, double a dysfunctional hierarchy is still a dysfunctional hierarchy. The history of it since 1979 seems to be roughly one major reorganisation for every SoS of Health.
From £63bn in 97/8 to £137.2bn in 09/10, in 12/13 prices.
seems to suggest that in most countries it increased rapidly in that period. It ground to a halt around 2009-10, especially in the more recession-hit countries.
In the UK it was going up closer to 10% per annum, much higher than the OECD rates.
It was like the Barber Boom. Injecting money without the capacity to spend it wisely was the problem under New Labour, and not just in Health. They just threw money and autocratic management at problems, without real understanding of what needed doing. It is why we have surgeons standing idle, and patients dying because of lack of intensive care beds, as seen in #hospital.
@SnoozeInBrief: Baroness Chakrabarti is still new to this. You can see her remembering the next line and quickly disregarding the fact that it's rubbish.
@DPJHodges: There is no single-individual - not even Corbyn - who is a better symbol of what is wrong with the Labour party than Shami Chakrabarti.
Apart from your usual jibes, how about answering a serious question.
One or two have been bleating on about how many LD voters might switch to Labour if they were led by someone other than Corbyn - I've not seen anyone mention how many Conservatives would switch to Labour if they had a new or different leader ?
20 years ago, we had the Wirral South by election where a significant number of voters went straight from Conservative to Labour. If Labour were to "come of its senses", how much of the current 41% level of Conservative support would stay loyal to Mrs May ?
To me, it seems the major problem that the NHS has at the moment is that it does not stand alone. So the government has since 2010 maintained and even increased spending on the NHS in real terms but it has done this within a spending envelope which means other areas of spending have had to be cut even more to compensate with an ever increasing bill for debt interest adding to the pressure.
The most obviously relevant of these is local government social care spending. Another would be health related expenditure in education. Maintaining real spending in the NHS has meant the decimation of these services so that they are no longer able to adequately provide for the increasing number of frail and elderly in our community. This means that the NHS is unable to offload these patients when they no longer require medical treatment and that they are being looked after in hospitals at much greater expense than they would be in care homes.
I think we are at the point when we recognise that this is just silly. We therefore need to find a way to divert some of the NHS money to social care to get a bigger bang for our bucks.. The main way this is being achieved is "integrating" care which allows this switch of resources to occur without being too obvious about it. It is just one example of how this obsession with the NHS distorts priorities leading to inefficiency.
Personally, I'd leave the NHS as it is for a decade and focus political energy on creating a decent national Social Care Service.
Means tested, covering homecare/carehome costs - with a charge made on assets after they/their partner dies.
I'd integrate it with a national service / voluntary service type arrangement. I think if all of us, at one point, spent a year helping other elderly/disabled/very young people we would have a more compassionate understanding society.
@PolhomeEditor: Shami Chakrabarti criticises Andrew Marr for having Peter Mandelson on his show a few days before the Copeland by-election.
@BBCNormanS: Oh dear ..seems Shami Chakrabarti going down the blame the media route. Dead end. @MarrShow
@IsabelHardman: Not sure what is more painful watching: Whittle excusing Paul Nuttall for squandering his chance in Stoke or Shami's checklist of blame
It's a shame she has turned out to be such a shameless party hack.
She is hopeless and the interview with Marr is just embarrasing
I loved that according to Shami, Storm Doris meant the rural voters couldn't come out to vote at Copeland....God knows how big the Tory majority would have been had they all got out to the polling stations then!
I doubt that it doubled in real terms or we'd be spending more than ~9% of GDP on it. Anyway, double a dysfunctional hierarchy is still a dysfunctional hierarchy. The history of it since 1979 seems to be roughly one major reorganisation for every SoS of Health.
From £63bn in 97/8 to £137.2bn in 09/10, in 12/13 prices.
seems to suggest that in most countries it increased rapidly in that period. It ground to a halt around 2009-10, especially in the more recession-hit countries.
In the UK it was going up closer to 10% per annum, much higher than the OECD rates.
It was like the Barber Boom. Injecting money without the capacity to spend it wisely was the problem under New Labour, and not just in Health. They just threw money and autocratic management at problems, without real understanding of what needed doing. It is why we have surgeons standing idle, and patients dying because of lack of intensive care beds, as seen in #hospital.
Justt what I said in earlier post , that series was shocking in that it showed what a shambles the system is.
To me, it seems the major problem that the NHS has at the moment is that it does not stand alone. So the government has since 2010 maintained and even increased spending on the NHS in real terms but it has done this within a spending envelope which means other areas of spending have had to be cut even more to compensate with an ever increasing bill for debt interest adding to the pressure.
The most obviously relevant of these is local government social care spending. Another would be health related expenditure in education. Maintaining real spending in the NHS has meant the decimation of these services so that they are no longer able to adequately provide for the increasing number of frail and elderly in our community. This means that the NHS is unable to offload these patients when they no longer require medical treatment and that they are being looked after in hospitals at much greater expense than they would be in care homes.
I think we are at the point when we recognise that this is just silly. We therefore need to find a way to divert some of the NHS money to social care to get a bigger bang for our bucks.. The main way this is being achieved is "integrating" care which allows this switch of resources to occur without being too obvious about it. It is just one example of how this obsession with the NHS distorts priorities leading to inefficiency.
Unintended consequence of ring-fencing. Hypothecating seldom makes sense in public finance. Cameron and Osborne thought It would get them out of a political hole, but it just kicks the can down the road.
Apart from your usual jibes, how about answering a serious question.
One or two have been bleating on about how many LD voters might switch to Labour if they were led by someone other than Corbyn - I've not seen anyone mention how many Conservatives would switch to Labour if they had a new or different leader ?
20 years ago, we had the Wirral South by election where a significant number of voters went straight from Conservative to Labour. If Labour were to "come of its senses", how much of the current 41% level of Conservative support would stay loyal to Mrs May ?
Tough question - depends on who takes over and how Brexit is perceived to be going. I can't recall there being any polling done putting May up against other Labour leadership contenders. That said, I don't think it would drop too far, especially if the slow drift from UKIP continues.
Apart from your usual jibes, how about answering a serious question.
One or two have been bleating on about how many LD voters might switch to Labour if they were led by someone other than Corbyn - I've not seen anyone mention how many Conservatives would switch to Labour if they had a new or different leader ?
20 years ago, we had the Wirral South by election where a significant number of voters went straight from Conservative to Labour. If Labour were to "come of its senses", how much of the current 41% level of Conservative support would stay loyal to Mrs May ?
I wasnt bleating, that's what a poll showed, and if true the lds have a serious problem as they are just hoovering up temporary support that will evaporate whenever they do feel the need to do their own thing (rather than bring in general accord with labour but feeling they are not up to it). I've voted LD every ge since getting the vote, partly because I want as many parties as possible in parliament to be strong, but just because the Tories may have issues too doesn't mean that poll of sift LD support, if true, is not a problem. It was 57%. If it had been a quarter or something that would be one thing, but that's over half saying they don't really support the party.
To me, it seems the major problem that the NHS has at the moment is that it does not stand alone. So the government has since 2010 maintained and even increased spending on the NHS in real terms but it has done this within a spending envelope which means other areas of spending have had to be cut even more to compensate with an ever increasing bill for debt interest adding to the pressure.
The most obviously relevant of these is local government social care spending. Another would be health related expenditure in education. Maintaining real spending in the NHS has meant the decimation of these services so that they are no longer able to adequately provide for the increasing number of frail and elderly in our community. This means that the NHS is unable to offload these patients when they no longer require medical treatment and that they are being looked after in hospitals at much greater expense than they would be in care homes.
I think we are at the point when we recognise that this is just silly. We therefore need to find a way to divert some of the NHS money to social care to get a bigger bang for our bucks.. The main way this is being achieved is "integrating" care which allows this switch of resources to occur without being too obvious about it. It is just one example of how this obsession with the NHS distorts priorities leading to inefficiency.
Personally, I'd leave the NHS as it is for a decade and focus political energy on creating a decent national Social Care Service.
Means tested, covering homecare/carehome costs - with a charge made on assets after they/their partner dies.
I'd integrate it with a national service / voluntary service type arrangement.
I think the last point is key. We frankly need to get away from the idea that Mum has the "right" to leave her house to her grateful children when the State has been expending huge sums maintaining Mum for the last decade of her life so the children can get on with theirs. There are already provisions in place for this if an elderly person goes into care (although avoidance is common) but much less so if they receive substantial care at home. We cannot continue this way, it is simply not viable.
I doubt that it doubled in real terms or we'd be spending more than ~9% of GDP on it. Anyway, double a dysfunctional hierarchy is still a dysfunctional hierarchy. The history of it since 1979 seems to be roughly one major reorganisation for every SoS of Health.
From £63bn in 97/8 to £137.2bn in 09/10, in 12/13 prices.
seems to suggest that in most countries it increased rapidly in that period. It ground to a halt around 2009-10, especially in the more recession-hit countries.
Rising life expectancy and low birth rates means that the ratio of the retirees to workers will continue to rise, which means that the proportion of your taxes that goes on the NHS will rise and rise and rise.
A word of advice to all our gentle readers. When watching rugby, never mix cider, white wine and brandy. No matter how much it seems a good idea at the time
You need a big fry up ASAP. Then give it till 12 ish and have a shandy or two and all will be well.
Getting down to the local curry house at lunchtime for a good, hot vindaloo with a couple of pints of Cobra is a jolly good restorative after a busy evening.
A word of advice to all our gentle readers. When watching rugby, never mix cider, white wine and brandy. No matter how much it seems a good idea at the time
You need a big fry up ASAP. Then give it till 12 ish and have a shandy or two and all will be well.
Getting down to the local curry house at lunchtime for a good, hot vindaloo with a couple of pints of Cobra is a jolly good restorative after a busy evening.
Morning Hurst, sounds like a good curative. Contains all the necessary ingredients.
I still cannot get over, even by his standards, how stupid corbyns remarks about turning back the Tory tide were. Poor drafting of a speech, but did nobody comment that tides cannot be turned back?
Is there anybody in Labour not stupid. The cretinous mayor of London called 50% of Scots racists yesterday , wrecked the Labour Conference ( for what it was with half empty hall ) and had to backtrack big time. Makes Corbyn look like a genius.
Absolutely outrageous comments from those who cry rascist at every opportunity. Hope labour are obliterated in Scotland in May's elections
Did you read what he said or just Malcolm's critique?
Tough question - depends on who takes over and how Brexit is perceived to be going. I can't recall there being any polling done putting May up against other Labour leadership contenders. That said, I don't think it would drop too far, especially if the slow drift from UKIP continues.
First, thank you for the measured response.
It's been my observation that support for the Government Party diminishes over time, initially it's a protest to smaller parties (UKIP, LDs, Greens etc) but at a point it becomes a direct transfer to the main Opposition party. There's a third later phase when voters turn against the Government in such a way we see tactical voting.
The Conservatives began drawing support directly from Labour from about 2007-8 onwards.
Make no mistake, the Conservatives won't stay at this level of support forever - either via the reality of the Brexit process or via Labour regaining the desire to win power, something will happen to erode Conservative support. We already see from some on here the arrogance of a Party which believes it will be in power forever and can do or say anything without it damaging their support.
At the moment, there is no external alternative to Theresa May - that's not to say there is no Opposition as the business rates issue has shown and the compromise on that will have ramifications down the line for the funding of local services. The first indication of a Government losing its way doesn't come from polls but from local elections - May's contests may prove deceptive as the Conservatives will likely gain seats from UKIP to offset losses to the LDs and others but it will be informative nonetheless.
To me, it seems the major problem that the NHS has at the moment is that it does not stand alone. So the government has since 2010 maintained and even increased spending on the NHS in real terms but it has done this within a spending envelope which means other areas of spending have had to be cut even more to compensate with an ever increasing bill for debt interest adding to the pressure.
The most obviously relevant of these is local government social care spending. Another would be health related expenditure in education. Maintaining real spending in the NHS has meant the decimation of these services so that they are no longer able to adequately provide for the increasing number of frail and elderly in our community. This means that the NHS is unable to offload these patients when they no longer require medical treatment and that they are being looked after in hospitals at much greater expense than they would be in care homes.
I think we are at the point when we recognise that this is just silly. We therefore need to find a way to divert some of the NHS money to social care to get a bigger bang for our bucks.. The main way this is being achieved is "integrating" care which allows this switch of resources to occur without being too obvious about it. It is just one example of how this obsession with the NHS distorts priorities leading to inefficiency.
Unintended consequence of ring-fencing. Hypothecating seldom makes sense in public finance. Cameron and Osborne thought It would get them out of a political hole, but it just kicks the can down the road.
In fairness it did get them out of a hole to the extent that they had an answer when challenged to their commitment to the NHS. See endless PMQs passim. But it did so at the cost of an inefficient allocation of resources.
Baroness Chakrabatti (spelling!) on Marr talking the same bollocks. And Storm Doris stopped impoverished Labour supporters voting because they can't afford cars.
We won Stoke because we listened. 'Listened!'
Hopefully, Labour will carry on like this. It's good for the country.
Stoke was an awful result for Labour. It's like the Conservatives retaining Surrey Heath with 37%, with Labour and Lib Dems on 25% each, and claiming that's a good result.
A lot depends on the exact question. Would LDs switch if Labour had a different leader could easily be interpreted as tactical voting.
Even with a new leader it will take years for credibility to be restored. There are no quick fixes.
I wasnt bleating, that's what a poll showed, and if true the lds have a serious problem as they are just hoovering up temporary support that will evaporate whenever they do feel the need to do their own thing (rather than bring in general accord with labour but feeling they are not up to it). I've voted LD every ge since getting the vote, partly because I want as many parties as possible in parliament to be strong, but just because the Tories may have issues too doesn't mean that poll of sift LD support, if true, is not a problem. It was 57%. If it had been a quarter or something that would be one thing, but that's over half saying they don't really support the party.
I still cannot get over, even by his standards, how stupid corbyns remarks about turning back the Tory tide were. Poor drafting of a speech, but did nobody comment that tides cannot be turned back?
Is there anybody in Labour not stupid. The cretinous mayor of London called 50% of Scots racists yesterday , wrecked the Labour Conference ( for what it was with half empty hall ) and had to backtrack big time. Makes Corbyn look like a genius.
Absolutely outrageous comments from those who cry rascist at every opportunity. Hope labour are obliterated in Scotland in May's elections
Did you read what he said or just Malcolm's critique?
He very clearly stated that anyone that supported the SNP was a racist. He later had to eat humble pie, but both him and the equally useless anas Sarwar continue to cry racist. Desperate dangerous charlatans. Labour have a death wish and trial their suicide attempts in Scotland to be sure they will work. So far they are successful and are following similar plan down south. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/scottish-nationalism-same-racism-says-9913799
I still cannot get over, even by his standards, how stupid corbyns remarks about turning back the Tory tide were. Poor drafting of a speech, but did nobody comment that tides cannot be turned back?
Is there anybody in Labour not stupid. The cretinous mayor of London called 50% of Scots racists yesterday , wrecked the Labour Conference ( for what it was with half empty hall ) and had to backtrack big time. Makes Corbyn look like a genius.
Absolutely outrageous comments from those who cry rascist at every opportunity. Hope labour are obliterated in Scotland in May's elections
Did you read what he said or just Malcolm's critique?
He very clearly stated that anyone that supported the SNP was a racist. He later had to eat humble pie, but both him and the equally useless anas Sarwar continue to cry racist. Desperate dangerous charlatans. Labour have a death wish and trial their suicide attempts in Scotland to be sure they will work. So far they are successful and are following similar plan down south.
I think a lot of lab must have bets on scon retaining second place in Scotland long term.
It's not an outside view. Ask anyone who has lived in another country. Almost every other country has better organised healthcare than the UK.
AIUI (from afar) the current big issue is the interaction between health and social care leading to significant bed-blocking by the infirm elderly with nowhere else to go. This is primarily a local authority rather than an NHS problem, but its leading to inefficiencies in the NHS as expensive capital equipment and staff sit idle. No-one is repaired to think outside their very small and tightly defined box, and so we are where we are. Someone needs to bang heads together, rather than praising the NHS as if it were a god.
As an example - rent out a large house for six months of winter, close to a hospital. Staff it with nurses from Manila on temp visas who live on site and earn minimum wage less an allowance for their accommodation. Transfer the bed-blockers there until they can go somewhere else, freeing up consultants, surgeons and operating theatres. This requires the NHS, LA, Home Office and planning authority to work together to arrange - something that's clearly not happening any time soon.
In other words: stop closing beds in rehab wards and social care, staff them with immigrants. Why hasn't anyone thought of it before?
So where's the block then?
As I see it the problem is the various interested parties not talking to each other and having to deal with numerous pigeonholed budgets that don't take account of the wider picture.
Leaving expensive surgeons and operating theatres idle, for want of a few non-clinical care beds is something that should be jumped on as a massive waste of scarce resources.
I know there's no simplistic answers to these things, but the complete inability of anyone to think even slightly outside the box is clearly exacerbating the situation.
My example of a temporary nursing house is exactly what a profit-motivated hospital would do, with so much idle capital and skilled labour costing them a small fortune.
This is no criticism of medical professionals (as I understand you are) doing their best with the system, rather that the system itself is becoming completely broken.
Baroness Chakrabatti (spelling!) on Marr talking the same bollocks. And Storm Doris stopped impoverished Labour supporters voting because they can't afford cars.
We won Stoke because we listened. 'Listened!'
Hopefully, Labour will carry on like this. It's good for the country.
Stoke was an awful result for Labour. It's like the Conservatives retaining Surrey Heath with 37%, with Labour and Lib Dems on 25% each, and claiming that's a good result.
I think they can take some comfort that their brand is so strong that they can win by-elections even with the complete mess that they have at the top. A party where most of its leading figures refuse to serve in the shadow cabinet should really be totally unelectable. If they can't decide on policies amongst themselves what possible chance would they have of doing so if those policies were to face the reality of government.
To me, it seems the major problem that the NHS has at the moment is that it does not stand alone. So the government has since 2010 maintained and even increased spending on the NHS in real terms but it has done this within a spending envelope which means other areas of spending have had to be cut even more to compensate with an ever increasing bill for debt interest adding to the pressure.
The most obviously relevant of these is local government social care spending. Another would be health related expenditure in education. Maintaining real spending in the NHS has meant the decimation of these services so that they are no longer able to adequately provide for the increasing number of frail and elderly in our community. This means that the NHS is unable to offload these patients when they no longer require medical treatment and that they are being looked after in hospitals at much greater expense than they would be in care homes.
I think we are at the point when we recognise that this is just silly. We therefore need to find a way to divert some of the NHS money to social care to get a bigger bang for our bucks.. The main way this is being achieved is "integrating" care which allows this switch of resources to occur without being too obvious about it. It is just one example of how this obsession with the NHS distorts priorities leading to inefficiency.
Personally, I'd leave the NHS as it is for a decade and focus political energy on creating a decent national Social Care Service.
Means tested, covering homecare/carehome costs - with a charge made on assets after they/their partner dies.
I'd integrate it with a national service / voluntary service type arrangement.
I think the last point is key. We frankly need to get away from the idea that Mum has the "right" to leave her house to her grateful children when the State has been expending huge sums maintaining Mum for the last decade of her life so the children can get on with theirs. There are already provisions in place for this if an elderly person goes into care (although avoidance is common) but much less so if they receive substantial care at home. We cannot continue this way, it is simply not viable.
Too true.
I see it around me with loads of OAPs in their 80s. (I am an OAP approaching 70 so young!)..Children grown up - and their children are grown up. But they only occasionally come to help parents as usually they live far away.. Not poor so they can afford care - but the children seem to want the estate..
And they then ask those local to parents to help in emergencies. I don't mind doing it but staying the night waiting in A&E for a bed for an elderly and ill neighbour is not fun.. especially when their are on holiday/working/too busy..
One thing that doesn't get mentioned is that whilst Jeremy is undoubtedly crap, the working assumption is that his successor simply has to be so much better. That puts huge expectations on that person. Their great advantage is that they might at least get a hearing from those voters who just tune out to Corbyn. But any new leader will have to have something to say.
The current focus is on Labour's woes being down to Corbyn; but I'd argue they are more that Labour doesn't have a coherent set of policies. Whoever is talking, they still have nothing to say. What if the new leader gets a hearing from the voters but they assess they are actually saying nothing.
I agree, and it's what I've been saying from the Labour side for some years now - it's partly why I voted for Jeremy. Yesterday's polling failed to identify any of the alternative leaders named who would make people "more likely to vote Labour", net (the best was David M, who had 20% more and 20% less). I think in practice people would give a new leader a honeymoon period anyway, but there is absolutely no point in electing a new leader without a coherent, interesting programme.
Some bookies (Sky) are offering 1/1000 on England, best price is 1/100. I'm not sure I've ever seen such odds for a single major sporting match before.
I still cannot get over, even by his standards, how stupid corbyns remarks about turning back the Tory tide were. Poor drafting of a speech, but did nobody comment that tides cannot be turned back?
Is there anybody in Labour not stupid. The cretinous mayor of London called 50% of Scots racists yesterday , wrecked the Labour Conference ( for what it was with half empty hall ) and had to backtrack big time. Makes Corbyn look like a genius.
Absolutely outrageous comments from those who cry rascist at every opportunity. Hope labour are obliterated in Scotland in May's elections
Did you read what he said or just Malcolm's critique?
He very clearly stated that anyone that supported the SNP was a racist. He later had to eat humble pie, but both him and the equally useless anas Sarwar continue to cry racist. Desperate dangerous charlatans. Labour have a death wish and trial their suicide attempts in Scotland to be sure they will work. So far they are successful and are following similar plan down south.
I think a lot of lab must have bets on scon retaining second place in Scotland long term.
It is hard to fathom what their plan is or if they really are just stupid and utterly useless.
Some bookies (Sky) are offering 1/1000 on England, best price is 1/100. I'm not sure I've ever seen such odds for a single major sporting match before.
English team should put a grand a head on the Italians and then let them win by a point , instant millionaires. Or perhaps eat a few pies during the game.
I still cannot get over, even by his standards, how stupid corbyns remarks about turning back the Tory tide were. Poor drafting of a speech, but did nobody comment that tides cannot be turned back?
Is there anybody in Labour not stupid. The cretinous mayor of London called 50% of Scots racists yesterday , wrecked the Labour Conference ( for what it was with half empty hall ) and had to backtrack big time. Makes Corbyn look like a genius.
Absolutely outrageous comments from those who cry rascist at every opportunity. Hope labour are obliterated in Scotland in May's elections
Did you read what he said or just Malcolm's critique?
Mr. Sandpit, England aren't playing phenomenally, but they're hard to beat. Italy have slid back from a few years ago and are looking like pushovers again.
One thing that doesn't get mentioned is that whilst Jeremy is undoubtedly crap, the working assumption is that his successor simply has to be so much better. That puts huge expectations on that person. Their great advantage is that they might at least get a hearing from those voters who just tune out to Corbyn. But any new leader will have to have something to say.
The current focus is on Labour's woes being down to Corbyn; but I'd argue they are more that Labour doesn't have a coherent set of policies. Whoever is talking, they still have nothing to say. What if the new leader gets a hearing from the voters but they assess they are actually saying nothing.
I agree, and it's what I've been saying from the Labour side for some years now - it's partly why I voted for Jeremy. Yesterday's polling failed to identify any of the alternative leaders named who would make people "more likely to vote Labour", net (the best was David M, who had 20% more and 20% less). I think in practice people would give a new leader a honeymoon period anyway, but there is absolutely no point in electing a new leader without a coherent, interesting programme.
Generally that's the case, but even if you think the time is not now, would you accept that sometimes things get so bad you have to take a risk on an unknown who may or may not help, vs a known that definitely will not?
I still cannot get over, even by his standards, how stupid corbyns remarks about turning back the Tory tide were. Poor drafting of a speech, but did nobody comment that tides cannot be turned back?
Is there anybody in Labour not stupid. The cretinous mayor of London called 50% of Scots racists yesterday , wrecked the Labour Conference ( for what it was with half empty hall ) and had to backtrack big time. Makes Corbyn look like a genius.
Absolutely outrageous comments from those who cry rascist at every opportunity. Hope labour are obliterated in Scotland in May's elections
Did you read what he said or just Malcolm's critique?
He very clearly stated that anyone that supported the SNP was a racist. He later had to eat humble pie, but both him and the equally useless anas Sarwar continue to cry racist. Desperate dangerous charlatans. Labour have a death wish and trial their suicide attempts in Scotland to be sure they will work. So far they are successful and are following similar plan down south.
I think a lot of lab must have bets on scon retaining second place in Scotland long term.
It is hard to fathom what their plan is or if they really are just stupid and utterly useless.
Thinking of backing Scotland for the title. However, going to wait and see how I feel after the match today. If England murder Italy it'll make Scotland's odds (9 on Betfair) lengthen.
Also worth looking at the Triple Crown (Scotland have beaten 2/3 that they need to, England being the third).
Edited extra bit: btw, how Ladbrokes' multiples work?
I still cannot get over, even by his standards, how stupid corbyns remarks about turning back the Tory tide were. Poor drafting of a speech, but did nobody comment that tides cannot be turned back?
Is there anybody in Labour not stupid. The cretinous mayor of London called 50% of Scots racists yesterday , wrecked the Labour Conference ( for what it was with half empty hall ) and had to backtrack big time. Makes Corbyn look like a genius.
Absolutely outrageous comments from those who cry rascist at every opportunity. Hope labour are obliterated in Scotland in May's elections
Did you read what he said or just Malcolm's critique?
He very clearly stated that anyone that supported the SNP was a racist. He later had to eat humble pie, but both him and the equally useless anas Sarwar continue to cry racist. Desperate dangerous charlatans. Labour have a death wish and trial their suicide attempts in Scotland to be sure they will work. So far they are successful and are following similar plan down south.
I think a lot of lab must have bets on scon retaining second place in Scotland long term.
It is hard to fathom what their plan is or if they really are just stupid and utterly useless.
SCON or SLAB?
Scon definitely have a plan. It may or may not have reached its apex, but they had one.
To me, it seems the major problem that the NHS has at the moment is that it does not stand alone. So the government has since 2010 maintained and even increased spending on the NHS in real terms but it has done this within a spending envelope which means other areas of spending have had to be cut even more to compensate with an ever increasing bill for debt interest adding to the pressure.
The most obviously relevant of these is local government social care spending. Another would be health related expenditure in education. Maintaining real spending in the NHS has meant the decimation of these services so that they are no longer able to adequately provide for the increasing number of frail and elderly in our community. This means that the NHS is unable to offload these patients when they no longer require medical treatment and that they are being looked after in hospitals at much greater expense than they would be in care homes.
I think we are at the point when we recognise that this is just silly. We therefore need to find a way to divert some of the NHS money to social care to get a bigger bang for our bucks.. The main way this is being achieved is "integrating" care which allows this switch of resources to occur without being too obvious about it. It is just one example of how this obsession with the NHS distorts priorities leading to inefficiency.
Personally, I'd leave the NHS as it is for a decade and focus political energy on creating a decent national Social Care Service.
Means tested, covering homecare/carehome costs - with a charge made on assets after they/their partner dies.
I'd integrate it with a national service / voluntary service type arrangement.
I think the last point is key. We frankly need to get away from the idea that Mum has the "right" to leave her house to her grateful children when the State has been expending huge sums maintaining Mum for the last decade of her life so the children can get on with theirs. There are already provisions in place for this if an elderly person goes into care (although avoidance is common) but much less so if they receive substantial care at home. We cannot continue this way, it is simply not viable.
A solicitor can be found negligent if he does not advise a client how to avoid care fees. That's an area where specific legislation should be introduced to prevent such a claim, as current law clearly works against the public interest.
If someone has a £300,000 house, it's perfectly reasonable for that asset to be used to fund end of life care.
Baroness Chakrabatti (spelling!) on Marr talking the same bollocks. And Storm Doris stopped impoverished Labour supporters voting because they can't afford cars.
We won Stoke because we listened. 'Listened!'
Hopefully, Labour will carry on like this. It's good for the country.
Stoke was an awful result for Labour. It's like the Conservatives retaining Surrey Heath with 37%, with Labour and Lib Dems on 25% each, and claiming that's a good result.
One thing that doesn't get mentioned is that whilst Jeremy is undoubtedly crap, the working assumption is that his successor simply has to be so much better. That puts huge expectations on that person. Their great advantage is that they might at least get a hearing from those voters who just tune out to Corbyn. But any new leader will have to have something to say.
The current focus is on Labour's woes being down to Corbyn; but I'd argue they are more that Labour doesn't have a coherent set of policies. Whoever is talking, they still have nothing to say. What if the new leader gets a hearing from the voters but they assess they are actually saying nothing.
I agree, and it's what I've been saying from the Labour side for some years now - it's partly why I voted for Jeremy. Yesterday's polling failed to identify any of the alternative leaders named who would make people "more likely to vote Labour", net (the best was David M, who had 20% more and 20% less). I think in practice people would give a new leader a honeymoon period anyway, but there is absolutely no point in electing a new leader without a coherent, interesting programme.
Nick, perhaps the biggest problem under Corbyn is that he shows no interest in the party standing back and taking a long hard look at what it needs to do to arrive at that "coherent, interesting programme". And the people who should be undertaking that task are sitting on their hands, outside the Shadow Cabinet.
To me, it seems the major problem that the NHS has at the moment is that it does not stand alone. So the government has since 2010 maintained and even increased spending on the NHS in real terms but it has done this within a spending envelope which means other areas of spending have had to be cut even more to compensate with an ever increasing bill for debt interest adding to the pressure.
The most obviously relevant of these is local government social care spending. Another would be health related expenditure in education. Maintaining real spending in the NHS has meant the decimation of these services so that they are no longer able to adequately provide for the increasing number of frail and elderly in our community. This means that the NHS is unable to offload these patients when they no longer require medical treatment and that they are being looked after in hospitals at much greater expense than they would be in care homes.
I think we are at the point when we recognise that this is just silly. We therefore need to find a way to divert some of the NHS money to social care to get a bigger bang for our bucks.. The main way this is being achieved is "integrating" care which allows this switch of resources to occur without being too obvious about it. It is just one example of how this obsession with the NHS distorts priorities leading to inefficiency.
Personally, I'd leave the NHS as it is for a decade and focus political energy on creating a decent national Social Care Service.
Means tested, covering homecare/carehome costs - with a charge made on assets after they/their partner dies.
I'd integrate it with a national service / voluntary service type arrangement.
I think the last point is key. We frankly need to get away from the idea that Mum has the "right" to leave her house to her grateful children when the State has been expending huge sums maintaining Mum for the last decade of her life so the children can get on with theirs. There are already provisions in place for this if an elderly person goes into care (although avoidance is common) but much less so if they receive substantial care at home. We cannot continue this way, it is simply not viable.
A solicitor can be found negligent if he does not advise a client how to avoid care fees. That's an area where specific legislation should be introduced to prevent such a claim, as current law clearly works against the public interest.
If someone has a £300,000 house, it's perfectly reasonable for that asset to be used to fund end of life care.
One thing that doesn't get mentioned is that whilst Jeremy is undoubtedly crap, the working assumption is that his successor simply has to be so much better. That puts huge expectations on that person. Their great advantage is that they might at least get a hearing from those voters who just tune out to Corbyn. But any new leader will have to have something to say.
The current focus is on Labour's woes being down to Corbyn; but I'd argue they are more that Labour doesn't have a coherent set of policies. Whoever is talking, they still have nothing to say. What if the new leader gets a hearing from the voters but they assess they are actually saying nothing.
I agree, and it's what I've been saying from the Labour side for some years now - it's partly why I voted for Jeremy. Yesterday's polling failed to identify any of the alternative leaders named who would make people "more likely to vote Labour", net (the best was David M, who had 20% more and 20% less). I think in practice people would give a new leader a honeymoon period anyway, but there is absolutely no point in electing a new leader without a coherent, interesting programme.
This is alternative universe stuff. Mention Corbyn's name to an erstwhile Labour voter and they laugh or grimace but they don't support. I don't believe there is a single Labour MP who as leader wouldn't increase Labour's support from day 1, Once a reputation is trashed as corbyn's has been it's irrecoverable.
I wasnt bleating, that's what a poll showed, and if true the lds have a serious problem as they are just hoovering up temporary support that will evaporate whenever they do feel the need to do their own thing (rather than bring in general accord with labour but feeling they are not up to it). I've voted LD every ge since getting the vote, partly because I want as many parties as possible in parliament to be strong, but just because the Tories may have issues too doesn't mean that poll of sift LD support, if true, is not a problem. It was 57%. If it had been a quarter or something that would be one thing, but that's over half saying they don't really support the party
Whisper it quietly but that's always been the way with the LDs and indeed all other parties. How many Conservative voters are actually conservative in outlook and how many are just anti-Labour ? It's complex.
I do think that as the Conservative support level erodes (which it will), some will come to the LDs especially while it seems Labour have no prospect of forming an alternative Government.
The interesting future political development will be Labour's positioning post Brexit. Will we see Labour taking a line closer to the LDs in terms of maintaining a close relationship with the EU - access to the Single Market as an example - as a counterweight to "Global Britain" ? If so, it raises the possibility of a future Lab-LD relationship predicated on negotiating a revised economic relationship with the EU.
To me, it seems the major problem that the NHS has at the moment is that it does not stand alone. So the government has since 2010 maintained and even increased spending on the NHS in real terms but it has done this within a spending envelope which means other areas of spending have had to be cut even more to compensate with an ever increasing bill for debt interest adding to the pressure.
The most obviously relevant of these is local government social care spending. Another would be health related expenditure in education. Maintaining real spending in the NHS has meant the decimation of these services so that they are no longer able to adequately provide for the increasing number of frail and elderly in
I think we are at the point when we recognise that this is just silly. We therefore need to find a way to divert some of the NHS money to social care to get a bigger bang for our bucks.. The main way this is being achieved is "integrating" care which allows this switch of resources to occur without being too obvious about it. It is just one example of how this obsession with the NHS distorts priorities leading to inefficiency.
Personally, I'd leave the NHS as it is for a decade and focus political energy on creating a decent national Social Care Service.
Means tested, covering homecare/carehome costs - with a charge made on assets after they/their partner dies.
I'd integrate it with a national service / voluntary service type arrangement.
I think the last point is key. We frankly need to get away from the idea that Mum has the "right" to leave her house to her grateful children when the State has been expending huge sums maintaining Mum for the last decade of her life so the children can get on with theirs. There are already provisions in place for this if an elderly person goes into care (although avoidance is common) but much less so if they receive substantial care at home. We cannot continue this way, it is simply not viable.
A solicitor can be found negligent if he does not advise a client how to avoid care fees. That's an area where specific legislation should be introduced to prevent such a claim, as current law clearly works against the public interest.
If someone has a £300,000 house, it's perfectly reasonable for that asset to be used to fund end of life care.
A solicitor advising on what, though?
Advising the elderly generally, on wills, property ownership, powers of attorney etc. However, my advice would usually be that it's better to retain assets under your own control, and retain independence, than to rely on the goodwill of beneficiaries (unless you have plenty of money to give away).
I wasnt bleating, that's what a poll showed, and if true the lds have a serious problem as they are just hoovering up temporary support that will evaporate whenever they do feel the need to do their own thing (rather than bring in general accord with labour but feeling they are not up to it). I've voted LD every ge since getting the vote, partly because I want as many parties as possible in parliament to be strong, but just because the Tories may have issues too doesn't mean that poll of sift LD support, if true, is not a problem. It was 57%. If it had been a quarter or something that would be one thing, but that's over half saying they don't really support the party
Whisper it quietly but that's always been the way with the LDs and indeed all other parties. How many Conservative voters are actually conservative in outlook and how many are just anti-Labour ? It's complex.
I do think that as the Conservative support level erodes (which it will), some will come to the LDs especially while it seems Labour have no prospect of forming an alternative Government.
The interesting future political development will be Labour's positioning post Brexit. Will we see Labour taking a line closer to the LDs in terms of maintaining a close relationship with the EU - access to the Single Market as an example - as a counterweight to "Global Britain" ? If so, it raises the possibility of a future Lab-LD relationship predicated on negotiating a revised economic relationship with the EU.
The difference is those other parties have a larger core. It's a question of ambition - the lds present like they want to be major players, but to do that they need to have a core of firm support larger than they have now.
A lot depends on the exact question. Would LDs switch if Labour had a different leader could easily be interpreted as tactical voting.
Even with a new leader it will take years for credibility to be restored. There are no quick fixes.
'I wasnt bleating, that's what a poll showed, and if true the lds have a serious problem as they are just hoovering up temporary support that will evaporate whenever they do feel the need to do their own thing (rather than bring in general accord with labour but feeling they are not up to it). I've voted LD every ge since getting the vote, partly because I want as many parties as possible in parliament to be strong, but just because the Tories may have issues too doesn't mean that poll of sift LD support, if true, is not a problem. It was 57%. If it had been a quarter or something that would be one thing, but that's over half saying they don't really support the party.'
It is fair to say that LibDem support has never been firmly rooted - 'easy come easy go'. They have very little of a core vote.Until entering the Coalition much of their support had been of the NOTA kind and bore little relation to their policy positions. Now they face competition for that from UKIP and the Greens.
A word of advice to all our gentle readers. When watching rugby, never mix cider, white wine and brandy. No matter how much it seems a good idea at the time
You need a big fry up ASAP. Then give it till 12 ish and have a shandy or two and all will be well.
Getting down to the local curry house at lunchtime for a good, hot vindaloo with a couple of pints of Cobra is a jolly good restorative after a busy evening.
Morning Hurst, sounds like a good curative. Contains all the necessary ingredients.
Morning, Mr. G, I have been using that cure for more than 40 years (though I don't need it as much these days) and it has yet to fail me. Add to it a couple of big measures of The Grouse served with hot water, lemon juice, honey and glycerine (repeated every couple of hours) and you also have a cure for the common cold.
Nature's remedies.
By the way on the subject of The Grouse and just to make you jealous, our small local off-licence is knocking out litres of the stuff for £17 a pop. I do not know how they do it considering all the big supermarkets around here charge the same price for a standard bottle.
There are 3 "senior" Labour politicians on TV and radio right now, all giving wildly contradictory interviews about the state of Labour, none of them willing to acknowledge the blindingly obvious
@JamesTapsfield: Tom Watson says the public knows Corbyn is a 'conviction politician' but he needs more 'coherence'
I still cannot get over, even by his standards, how stupid corbyns remarks about turning back the Tory tide were. Poor drafting of a speech, but did nobody comment that tides cannot be turned back?
Is there anybody in Labour not stupid. The cretinous mayor of London called 50% of Scots racists yesterday , wrecked the Labour Conference ( for what it was with half empty hall ) and had to backtrack big time. Makes Corbyn look like a genius.
Absolutely outrageous comments from those who cry rascist at every opportunity. Hope labour are obliterated in Scotland in May's elections
Did you read what he said or just Malcolm's critique?
Ignore your silly comment
I'll rephrase it then. Did you read what Khan actually said?
There are 3 "senior" Labour politicians on TV and radio right now, all giving wildly contradictory interviews about the state of Labour, none of them willing to acknowledge the blindingly obvious
@JamesTapsfield: Tom Watson says the public knows Corbyn is a 'conviction politician' but he needs more 'coherence'
Maybe they need a female leader? That would be well outside their comfort zone
Morning all,
It seems Corbyn has said he wants to remain leader in order to "finish the job". That is, presumably, to ensure that English Labour suffers the same kind of wipeout as Scottish Labour.
There are 3 "senior" Labour politicians on TV and radio right now, all giving wildly contradictory interviews about the state of Labour, none of them willing to acknowledge the blindingly obvious
@JamesTapsfield: Tom Watson says the public knows Corbyn is a 'conviction politician' but he needs more 'coherence'
I still cannot get over, even by his standards, how stupid corbyns remarks about turning back the Tory tide were. Poor drafting of a speech, but did nobody comment that tides cannot be turned back?
Is there anybody in Labour not stupid. The cretinous mayor of London called 50% of Scots racists yesterday , wrecked the Labour Conference ( for what it was with half empty hall ) and had to backtrack big time. Makes Corbyn look like a genius.
Absolutely outrageous comments from those who cry rascist at every opportunity. Hope labour are obliterated in Scotland in May's elections
Did you read what he said or just Malcolm's critique?
I still cannot get over, even by his standards, how stupid corbyns remarks about turning back the Tory tide were. Poor drafting of a speech, but did nobody comment that tides cannot be turned back?
Is there anybody in Labour not stupid. The cretinous mayor of London called 50% of Scots racists yesterday , wrecked the Labour Conference ( for what it was with half empty hall ) and had to backtrack big time. Makes Corbyn look like a genius.
Absolutely outrageous comments from those who cry rascist at every opportunity. Hope labour are obliterated in Scotland in May's elections
Did you read what he said or just Malcolm's critique?
He very clearly stated that anyone that supported the SNP was a racist. He later had to eat humble pie, but both him and the equally useless anas Sarwar continue to cry racist. Desperate dangerous charlatans. Labour have a death wish and trial their suicide attempts in Scotland to be sure they will work. So far they are successful and are following similar plan down south. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/scottish-nationalism-same-racism-says-9913799
I read hs speech yesterday and it sounded reasonable. I'm conflicted as I think he is. I dislike Scottish Nationalism for the same reason I dislike English Nationalism as epitomised by Brexit but if I lived in Scotland in order to get away from the small minded small town Brexiteers I'd vote SNP.
I still cannot get over, even by his standards, how stupid corbyns remarks about turning back the Tory tide were. Poor drafting of a speech, but did nobody comment that tides cannot be turned back?
Is there anybody in Labour not stupid. The cretinous mayor of London called 50% of Scots racists yesterday , wrecked the Labour Conference ( for what it was with half empty hall ) and had to backtrack big time. Makes Corbyn look like a genius.
Absolutely outrageous comments from those who cry rascist at every opportunity. Hope labour are obliterated in Scotland in May's elections
Did you read what he said or just Malcolm's critique?
He very clearly stated that anyone that supported the SNP was a racist. He later had to eat humble pie, but both him and the equally useless anas Sarwar continue to cry racist. Desperate dangerous charlatans. Labour have a death wish and trial their suicide attempts in Scotland to be sure they will work. So far they are successful and are following similar plan down south.
I think a lot of lab must have bets on scon retaining second place in Scotland long term.
It is hard to fathom what their plan is or if they really are just stupid and utterly useless.
SCON or SLAB?
LOL, I could say both if being uncharitable or showing my bias , but Labour are the prize chumps, at least SCons can explain what they stand for.
I still cannot get over, even by his standards, how stupid corbyns remarks about turning back the Tory tide were. Poor drafting of a speech, but did nobody comment that tides cannot be turned back?
Is there anybody in Labour not stupid. The cretinous mayor of London called 50% of Scots racists yesterday , wrecked the Labour Conference ( for what it was with half empty hall ) and had to backtrack big time. Makes Corbyn look like a genius.
Absolutely outrageous comments from those who cry rascist at every opportunity. Hope labour are obliterated in Scotland in May's elections
Did you read what he said or just Malcolm's critique?
Ignore your silly comment
I'll rephrase it then. Did you read what Khan actually said?
One thing that doesn't get mentioned is that whilst Jeremy is undoubtedly crap, the working assumption is that his successor simply has to be so much better. That puts huge expectations on that person. Their great advantage is that they might at least get a hearing from those voters who just tune out to Corbyn. But any new leader will have to have something to say.
The current focus is on Labour's woes being down to Corbyn; but I'd argue they are more that Labour doesn't have a coherent set of policies. Whoever is talking, they still have nothing to say. What if the new leader gets a hearing from the voters but they assess they are actually saying nothing.
I agree, and it's what I've been saying from the Labour side for some years now - it's partly why I voted for Jeremy. Yesterday's polling failed to identify any of the alternative leaders named who would make people "more likely to vote Labour", net (the best was David M, who had 20% more and 20% less). I think in practice people would give a new leader a honeymoon period anyway, but there is absolutely no point in electing a new leader without a coherent, interesting programme.
So Nick it was desperation on your part to support Jezza which is I suppose fair enough. Because I don't see how you could deem a return to 70s socialist policies both "coherent and interesting" and electable at the same time.
A word of advice to all our gentle readers. When watching rugby, never mix cider, white wine and brandy. No matter how much it seems a good idea at the time
You need a big fry up ASAP. Then give it till 12 ish and have a shandy or two and all will be well.
Getting down to the local curry house at lunchtime for a good, hot vindaloo with a couple of pints of Cobra is a jolly good restorative after a busy evening.
Morning Hurst, sounds like a good curative. Contains all the necessary ingredients.
Morning, Mr. G, I have been using that cure for more than 40 years (though I don't need it as much these days) and it has yet to fail me. Add to it a couple of big measures of The Grouse served with hot water, lemon juice, honey and glycerine (repeated every couple of hours) and you also have a cure for the common cold.
Nature's remedies.
By the way on the subject of The Grouse and just to make you jealous, our small local off-licence is knocking out litres of the stuff for £17 a pop. I do not know how they do it considering all the big supermarkets around here charge the same price for a standard bottle.
Sounds a bargain, I have not needed to buy much recently due to number of gifts of nice malts, so not up on current prices.
Mr. Roger, the Welsh must be surprised to discover they're English nationalists
Incidentally, I thought Dawn of the Planet of the Apes was rather good. Caesar's a top chap.
I liked it too but a few years old now. The Welsh have pretty well lost their identity and to all intents and purposes are now English and those in the small towns behave as they do in England
One thing that doesn't get mentioned is that whilst Jeremy is undoubtedly crap, the working assumption is that his successor simply has to be so much better. That puts huge expectations on that person. Their great advantage is that they might at least get a hearing from those voters who just tune out to Corbyn. But any new leader will have to have something to say.
The current focus is on Labour's woes being down to Corbyn; but I'd argue they are more that Labour doesn't have a coherent set of policies. Whoever is talking, they still have nothing to say. What if the new leader gets a hearing from the voters but they assess they are actually saying nothing.
I agree, and it's what I've been saying from the Labour side for some years now - it's partly why I voted for Jeremy. Yesterday's polling failed to identify any of the alternative leaders named who would make people "more likely to vote Labour", net (the best was David M, who had 20% more and 20% less). I think in practice people would give a new leader a honeymoon period anyway, but there is absolutely no point in electing a new leader without a coherent, interesting programme.
This is alternative universe stuff. Mention Corbyn's name to an erstwhile Labour voter and they laugh or grimace but they don't support. I don't believe there is a single Labour MP who as leader wouldn't increase Labour's support from day 1, Once a reputation is trashed as corbyn's has been it's irrecoverable.
But also, from the outside, it appears to me that not one jot of progress has been made on policy under Corbyn. He has no ideas and is just an empty sloganeer, rehashing the tired old cliches about NHS being privatised, and vague nostrums about austerity. Corbyn is a block on the party in more ways than one.
I still cannot get over, even by his standards, how stupid corbyns remarks about turning back the Tory tide were. Poor drafting of a speech, but did nobody comment that tides cannot be turned back?
Is there anybody in Labour not stupid. The cretinous mayor of London called 50% of Scots racists yesterday , wrecked the Labour Conference ( for what it was with half empty hall ) and had to backtrack big time. Makes Corbyn look like a genius.
Absolutely outrageous comments from those who cry rascist at every opportunity. Hope labour are obliterated in Scotland in May's elections
Did you read what he said or just Malcolm's critique?
Absolutely outrageous comments from those who cry rascist at every opportunity. Hope labour are obliterated in Scotland in May's elections
Did you read what he said or just Malcolm's critique?
He very clearly stated that anyone that supported the SNP was a racist. He later had to eat humble pie, but both him and the equally useless anas Sarwar continue to cry racist. Desperate dangerous charlatans. Labour have a death wish and trial their suicide attempts in Scotland to be sure they will work. So far they are successful and are following similar plan down south. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/scottish-nationalism-same-racism-says-9913799
I read hs speech yesterday and it sounded reasonable. I'm conflicted as I think he is. I dislike Scottish Nationalism for the same reason I dislike English Nationalism as epitomised by Brexit but if I lived in Scotland in order to get away from the small minded small town Brexiteers I'd vote SNP.
Roger , he had to backtrack in his speech due to the shitstorm that was raging. Conflicted or not he typifies stupid Labour leaders at this point in time, deluded and out of touch with reality. Any idiot would know that demonising 50% of the population is not exactly good for your ambitions of getting them to vote for you. This is why labour are now under 15% in Scotland and still dropping.
Fox news have gone completely alt right bonkers. This company should NOT own sky news.
I have to say the whole what's happening in Sweden last night thing is irritating.
He obviously was referring to the programme he had seen the previous evening, not events in Sweden the previous evening. An understandable rookie politician mistake.
Comments
In this example, and perhaps many others, the issue is wholly and entirely JC being crap.
Meanwhile, in other time zones some of us are heading for the pub already!
The "context" being he never expected those remarks to be reported in the UK...
This doc.
http://www.oecd.org/newsroom/healthgrowthinhealthspendinggrindstoahalt.htm
seems to suggest that in most countries it increased rapidly in that period. It ground to a halt around 2009-10, especially in the more recession-hit countries.
@BBCNormanS: Oh dear ..seems Shami Chakrabarti going down the blame the media route. Dead end. @MarrShow
@IsabelHardman: Not sure what is more painful watching: Whittle excusing Paul Nuttall for squandering his chance in Stoke or Shami's checklist of blame
She is quite simply a loser and has lost all respect by flouting herself in front of Corbyn to get promotion to the HOL.
The most obviously relevant of these is local government social care spending. Another would be health related expenditure in education. Maintaining real spending in the NHS has meant the decimation of these services so that they are no longer able to adequately provide for the increasing number of frail and elderly in our community. This means that the NHS is unable to offload these patients when they no longer require medical treatment and that they are being looked after in hospitals at much greater expense than they would be in care homes.
I think we are at the point when we recognise that this is just silly. We therefore need to find a way to divert some of the NHS money to social care to get a bigger bang for our bucks.. The main way this is being achieved is "integrating" care which allows this switch of resources to occur without being too obvious about it. It is just one example of how this obsession with the NHS distorts priorities leading to inefficiency.
We won Stoke because we listened. 'Listened!'
Hopefully, Labour will carry on like this. It's good for the country.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/26/fox-news-nils-bildt-swedish-defence-advisor-unknown-to-countrys-military-officials
@DPJHodges: There is no single-individual - not even Corbyn - who is a better symbol of what is wrong with the Labour party than Shami Chakrabarti.
One or two have been bleating on about how many LD voters might switch to Labour if they were led by someone other than Corbyn - I've not seen anyone mention how many Conservatives would switch to Labour if they had a new or different leader ?
20 years ago, we had the Wirral South by election where a significant number of voters went straight from Conservative to Labour. If Labour were to "come of its senses", how much of the current 41% level of Conservative support would stay loyal to Mrs May ?
Means tested, covering homecare/carehome costs - with a charge made on assets after they/their partner dies.
I'd integrate it with a national service / voluntary service type arrangement. I think if all of us, at one point, spent a year helping other elderly/disabled/very young people we would have a more compassionate understanding society.
@DPJHodges: Shami Chakrabarti literally blamed everyone in the Labour party for the Copeland defeat except the leader of the Labour party.
Dear me, she has lost her marbles if she had any in the first place
Risible.
It's been my observation that support for the Government Party diminishes over time, initially it's a protest to smaller parties (UKIP, LDs, Greens etc) but at a point it becomes a direct transfer to the main Opposition party. There's a third later phase when voters turn against the Government in such a way we see tactical voting.
The Conservatives began drawing support directly from Labour from about 2007-8 onwards.
Make no mistake, the Conservatives won't stay at this level of support forever - either via the reality of the Brexit process or via Labour regaining the desire to win power, something will happen to erode Conservative support. We already see from some on here the arrogance of a Party which believes it will be in power forever and can do or say anything without it damaging their support.
At the moment, there is no external alternative to Theresa May - that's not to say there is no Opposition as the business rates issue has shown and the compromise on that will have ramifications down the line for the funding of local services. The first indication of a Government losing its way doesn't come from polls but from local elections - May's contests may prove deceptive as the Conservatives will likely gain seats from UKIP to offset losses to the LDs and others but it will be informative nonetheless.
Even with a new leader it will take years for credibility to be restored. There are no quick fixes.
I wasnt bleating, that's what a poll showed, and if true the lds have a serious problem as they are just hoovering up temporary support that will evaporate whenever they do feel the need to do their own thing (rather than bring in general accord with labour but feeling they are not up to it). I've voted LD every ge since getting the vote, partly because I want as many parties as possible in parliament to be strong, but just because the Tories may have issues too doesn't mean that poll of sift LD support, if true, is not a problem. It was 57%. If it had been a quarter or something that would be one thing, but that's over half saying they don't really support the party.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/scottish-nationalism-same-racism-says-9913799
As I see it the problem is the various interested parties not talking to each other and having to deal with numerous pigeonholed budgets that don't take account of the wider picture.
Leaving expensive surgeons and operating theatres idle, for want of a few non-clinical care beds is something that should be jumped on as a massive waste of scarce resources.
I know there's no simplistic answers to these things, but the complete inability of anyone to think even slightly outside the box is clearly exacerbating the situation.
My example of a temporary nursing house is exactly what a profit-motivated hospital would do, with so much idle capital and skilled labour costing them a small fortune.
This is no criticism of medical professionals (as I understand you are) doing their best with the system, rather that the system itself is becoming completely broken.
I see it around me with loads of OAPs in their 80s. (I am an OAP approaching 70 so young!)..Children grown up - and their children are grown up. But they only occasionally come to help parents as usually they live far away.. Not poor so they can afford care - but the children seem to want the estate..
And they then ask those local to parents to help in emergencies. I don't mind doing it but staying the night waiting in A&E for a bed for an elderly and ill neighbour is not fun.. especially when their are on holiday/working/too busy..
https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/835139725296078848
Fckn hypocrite.
Also worth looking at the Triple Crown (Scotland have beaten 2/3 that they need to, England being the third).
Edited extra bit: btw, how Ladbrokes' multiples work?
If someone has a £300,000 house, it's perfectly reasonable for that asset to be used to fund end of life care.
I do think that as the Conservative support level erodes (which it will), some will come to the LDs especially while it seems Labour have no prospect of forming an alternative Government.
The interesting future political development will be Labour's positioning post Brexit. Will we see Labour taking a line closer to the LDs in terms of maintaining a close relationship with the EU - access to the Single Market as an example - as a counterweight to "Global Britain" ? If so, it raises the possibility of a future Lab-LD relationship predicated on negotiating a revised economic relationship with the EU.
I suspect some cashing out is going on but if you're red on Lewis, not a great idea as his market is thin.
It is fair to say that LibDem support has never been firmly rooted - 'easy come easy go'. They have very little of a core vote.Until entering the Coalition much of their support had been of the NOTA kind and bore little relation to their policy positions. Now they face competition for that from UKIP and the Greens.
Nature's remedies.
By the way on the subject of The Grouse and just to make you jealous, our small local off-licence is knocking out litres of the stuff for £17 a pop. I do not know how they do it considering all the big supermarkets around here charge the same price for a standard bottle.
@JamesTapsfield: Tom Watson says the public knows Corbyn is a 'conviction politician' but he needs more 'coherence'
Eh?
@JPonpolitics: On #PienaarsPolitics - "Copeland defeat could be a turning point for Labour" says @johnmcdonnellMP
Despite the fact Corbyn has vowed to plough on
https://twitter.com/ridgeonsunday/status/835782759897444353
Maybe they need a female leader? That would be well outside their comfort zone
It seems Corbyn has said he wants to remain leader in order to "finish the job". That is, presumably, to ensure that English Labour suffers the same kind of wipeout as Scottish Labour.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/scottish-nationalism-same-racism-says-9913799
Incidentally, I thought Dawn of the Planet of the Apes was rather good. Caesar's a top chap.
Roger , he had to backtrack in his speech due to the shitstorm that was raging. Conflicted or not he typifies stupid Labour leaders at this point in time, deluded and out of touch with reality. Any idiot would know that demonising 50% of the population is not exactly good for your ambitions of getting them to vote for you. This is why labour are now under 15% in Scotland and still dropping.
He obviously was referring to the programme he had seen the previous evening, not events in Sweden the previous evening. An understandable rookie politician mistake.