Mr. Jessop, another issue is the deficit/debt. If you determine spending according to GDP and you have a bumper year unexpectedly, you just fling more money at departments which may have nothing to spend on (not a problem for Health, but could easily be for Aid). Paying off debt and decreasing the deficit, and interest payments, is not very exciting but it is a top priority.
Mr. Royale, that's not terribly surprising, even though it's damned foolish.
Fascinating article by David Goodhart in the Sunday Times yesterday where he confesses that Gus O'Donnell confiding in him at a social event that he always argued for the most open borders and highest level of immigration when he was at the civil service, because he viewed his job as maximising the net welfare of humanity not of the UK.
Whenever you hear about Whitehall officials and their 'advice', just bear that in mind.
It is a great article. The Somewhere vs Anywhere designation is bang on, too, I thought. I was even applying Pb characters to some of the notions/views.
I thought the 60% somewheres and 25% anywheres tallied with my experience. The more the Blues can represent the Somewheres, and the more they can pigeonhole the various oppositions as anywheres the better - for our Union, our politics and British people. Government has been for the anywheres for far too long.
Fascinating article by David Goodhart in the Sunday Times yesterday where he confesses that Gus O'Donnell confiding in him at a social event that he always argued for the most open borders and highest level of immigration when he was at the civil service, because he viewed his job as maximising the net welfare of humanity not of the UK.
Whenever you hear about Whitehall officials and their 'advice', just bear that in mind.
That was very revealing wasn't it.
The role of the UK in his 'world saving' role was merely to provide the money.
I wonder how many times he has been in England outside London compared with how many times he has been in foreign countries. Although I suspect he would find Nuneaton more 'foreign' than he does New York.
And, whilst I'm blowing my own trumpet, there's a free short story of mine in Kraxon. +10 history points to anyone who recognises the names [they're not easy]: http://www.kraxon.com/desert-prey/
Edited extra bit: ahem, the Smashwords' sale books are Journey to Altmortis and Kingdom Asunder (full version).
my local GP says he has 500 missed appointments a week. Charge 'em a tenner. And nt through an expensive system. Set up a debit card before you join the practice.
And schools; why do those with children get this massive benefit, when those who can't have kids don't. Charge 'em a bit extra through tax. Local parents to me think the world owes them a living.
Mr. Jessop, an interesting idea. A potential problem is that Health and Education (and, to a lesser extent, Policing) are vote-winners. Defence tends not to be. There'd be pressure with such an approach to starve an already underfunded MoD because voters are more into other areas.
Also, there's a problem with number bias. Twenty percent sounds a lot more than 19% (hence why books are priced Something-Ninety-Nine, but wages are £8 an hour, rather than £7.99).
Yes, but it's far more open than the current system, where any spending increase, however trivial in the grander scheme of things, becomes lauded, and spending on less sexy items, or more controversial ones, tend to get hidden.
It highlights a party's priorities very starkly. I'd go even further in the case of the NHS, but that's a much longer and far more controversial post.
I think the discussion we're having other DFID and MOD spending are indications that we're heading in this sort of direction. However I think it only works as a system if a certain percentage is left to one side for discretionary spending.
As an idea - I like it a lot. As you say it makes it much easier to compare.
Govt depts cost up to 6 times more than private companies. When private companies do the job of govts through outsourcing, their costs rise too. The system is broken. Too many chiefs, too many idiots, poor management. Get that right and costs come tumbling down. good example, should the head of waste collection in my borough earn £84,000? Shoudl there be 6 layers between him and a street sweeper? Either public or private, these depts are monopolies and act like it.
This is just confused, rambling nonsense.
"Govt depts cost up to 6 times more than private companies" - you're comparing woods with twigs. Government departments cover a huge range of tasks, services and obligations, private companies tend to be niche and specialised.
"When private companies do the job of govts through outsourcing, their costs rise too" - yes, when they have do the unprofitable statutory stuff that Government has to do yet still have to try to make a profit. One of the reasons functions are being in-sourced back into local Government is when you get a Contractor trying to charge £200 to change a toilet seat at a home for the elderly. It's not "easy" work but it has to be done. In my experience, most private sector companies don't understand and think it's a licence to print money.
Then we have a diatribe about "waste collection" which isn't a central Government but a local Government function. As for it being a "monopoly", yes and what would be the alternative ? I suppose you could have competing companies clearing the bins in a road - I would sign up to Alpha Waste Disposal, you could sign up to Beta and our bar-coded bins would tell the binmen whether it's "one of theirs" but what about street cleaning ? Would Alpha and Beta Street Cleaners go up and down the same bit of street cleaning it ?
There's a limit to the practicalities of competition - I'm sure it's something of which "senior Tories" are aware or they should be.
"In polarised times, political leaders should be asking themselves what values and shared identity still unite people up and down the country, and what common ideal we can all get behind."
But that begs for me a troubling question: what if there aren't any? What happens next?
Fascinating article by David Goodhart in the Sunday Times yesterday where he confesses that Gus O'Donnell confiding in him at a social event that he always argued for the most open borders and highest level of immigration when he was at the civil service, because he viewed his job as maximising the net welfare of humanity not of the UK.
Whenever you hear about Whitehall officials and their 'advice', just bear that in mind.
That was very revealing wasn't it.
The role of the UK in his 'world saving' role was merely to provide the money.
I wonder how many times he has been in England outside London compared with how many times he has been in foreign countries. Although I suspect he would find Nuneaton more 'foreign' than he does New York.
The belief that putting your own country first is both selfish, chauvinistic and anachronistic is, I suspect, very widespread in the senior levels of UK Civil Service.
These are the people we are employing (and paying for) to safeguard our interests.
Mr. Meeks, there are always differences of opinion within a country. These may or may not be exacerbated by referring to those with whom you disagree as being infected with a virus.
my local GP says he has 500 missed appointments a week. Charge 'em a tenner. And nt through an expensive system. Set up a debit card before you join the practice.
And schools; why do those with children get this massive benefit, when those who can't have kids don't. Charge 'em a bit extra through tax. Local parents to me think the world owes them a living.
I understand where you are coming from, but neither of those are necessary.
If GPs have a regular number of no-shows, then they can (I suspect they do), just fill out their appointment books a bit more, and it all averages itself out in the end. If there really is a gap in patients (never seen one), then there are always calls to make etc.
The reasons we (unfairly) benefit parents over non-parents is quite simply we need the next generation, and encouraging people to have kids is a benefit to society.
Fascinating article by David Goodhart in the Sunday Times yesterday where he confesses that Gus O'Donnell confiding in him at a social event that he always argued for the most open borders and highest level of immigration when he was at the civil service, because he viewed his job as maximising the net welfare of humanity not of the UK.
Whenever you hear about Whitehall officials and their 'advice', just bear that in mind.
That was very revealing wasn't it.
The role of the UK in his 'world saving' role was merely to provide the money.
I wonder how many times he has been in England outside London compared with how many times he has been in foreign countries. Although I suspect he would find Nuneaton more 'foreign' than he does New York.
The belief that putting your own country first is both selfish, chauvinistic and anachronistic is, I suspect, very widespread in the senior levels of UK Civil Service.
These are the people we are employing (and paying for) to safeguard our interests.
Mr. Meeks, there are always differences of opinion within a country. These may or may not be exacerbated by referring to those with whom you disagree as being infected with a virus.
Mr. Meeks, there are always differences of opinion within a country. These may or may not be exacerbated by referring to those with whom you disagree as being infected with a virus.
Fascinating article by David Goodhart in the Sunday Times yesterday where he confesses that Gus O'Donnell confiding in him at a social event that he always argued for the most open borders and highest level of immigration when he was at the civil service, because he viewed his job as maximising the net welfare of humanity not of the UK.
Whenever you hear about Whitehall officials and their 'advice', just bear that in mind.
It is a great article. The Somewhere vs Anywhere designation is bang on, too, I thought. I was even applying Pb characters to some of the notions/views.
I thought the 60% somewheres and 25% anywheres tallied with my experience. The more the Blues can represent the Somewheres, and the more they can pigeonhole the various oppositions as anywheres the better - for our Union, our politics and British people. Government has been for the anywheres for far too long.
I was particularly taken by his description of a social event where a cohort of senior British centre-left politicians competed to express how disgusted they were with Gordon Brown's "British jobs for British workers" speech. Chris Huhne being first off the block to describe it as 'racism - pure and simple'.
It shows that (a) these people really do socialise and confide in one together and (b) those who voted Leave really did have a point.
Credit to David Goodhart as well who is often the sole centre-left voice at such gatherings putting the opposing point of view.
Mr. Jessop, another issue is the deficit/debt. If you determine spending according to GDP and you have a bumper year unexpectedly, you just fling more money at departments which may have nothing to spend on (not a problem for Health, but could easily be for Aid). Paying off debt and decreasing the deficit, and interest payments, is not very exciting but it is a top priority.
Mr. Royale, that's not terribly surprising, even though it's damned foolish.
Percentages would be set in manifestos before a GE; the actual amounts would be based on the previous year's GDP. There would be a lag wrt the actual economy, but budgets are set at least a year in advance anyway.
There is a problem with departments wastefully spending budgets at the end of a financial year when they haven't spent all the year's money. In private industry my dad used to call this the April bonus, as the large companies he did work for started lots of fettling projects with little care for the cost. From their perspective, if they did not spend the money, they wouldn't have it allocated the next year.
As I say, it's not a perfect system, but IMO it's far better than the chaotic one we have at the moment. It might also generate meaningful discussion on spending, instead of the stupid ones we have at the moment. It would highlight the compromises that need to be made.
Mr. Meeks, "...the descent into the tertiary stages of the Leaver virus continues..." isn't specific to those with dreams of empire, only those who wanted to Leave.
Mr. D, so you say, but there's a constant risk of death caused by undercooking babies.
"In polarised times, political leaders should be asking themselves what values and shared identity still unite people up and down the country, and what common ideal we can all get behind."
But that begs for me a troubling question: what if there aren't any? What happens next?
Also, uniting the whole country around shared values is the opposite of most political elections, where polarizing the choice the electorate face ad making sure you are on the 50% + 1 side is the aim.
"In polarised times, political leaders should be asking themselves what values and shared identity still unite people up and down the country, and what common ideal we can all get behind."
But that begs for me a troubling question: what if there aren't any? What happens next?
Alastair, with respect, you need to take a look in the mirror.
Govt depts cost up to 6 times more than private companies. When private companies do the job of govts through outsourcing, their costs rise too. The system is broken. Too many chiefs, too many idiots, poor management. Get that right and costs come tumbling down. good example, should the head of waste collection in my borough earn £84,000? Shoudl there be 6 layers between him and a street sweeper? Either public or private, these depts are monopolies and act like it.
"When private companies do the job of govts through outsourcing, their costs rise too" - yes, when they have do the unprofitable statutory stuff that Government has to do yet still have to try to make a profit. One of the reasons functions are being in-sourced back into local Government is when you get a Contractor trying to charge £200 to change a toilet seat at a home for the elderly. It's not "easy" work but it has to be done. In my experience, most private sector companies don't understand and think it's a licence to print money.
Then we have a diatribe about "waste collection" which isn't a central Government but a local Government function. As for it being a "monopoly", yes and what would be the alternative ? I suppose you could have competing companies clearing the bins in a road - I would sign up to Alpha Waste Disposal, you could sign up to Beta and our bar-coded bins would tell the binmen whether it's "one of theirs" but what about street cleaning ? Would Alpha and Beta Street Cleaners go up and down the same bit of street cleaning it ?
There's a limit to the practicalities of competition - I'm sure it's something of which "senior Tories" are aware or they should be.
There is a relatively straightforward approach that resolves much if not all of these problems and one that has done more to benefit mankind than almost any other - free markets. Some of you may recall the story of a Soviet visitor to London being unable to comprehend that nobody was in charge of the bread / bakeries system. That it was free actors in a free market that made our offering so much better and cheaper than theirs. Some systems of human interaction are simply too comlex to be directed. Only free actors can drive effectiveness and efficiency. So...government control will fail because eg the NHS is just too complex to manage. Private contractors will 'fail' by charging £200 for a loo seat - because they aren't in a freely competitive market for said loo seat. Corporatism / capitalist abuse is not the same thing as a free market. As much as possible of our service delivery should be competitively tendered. That will drive better and cheaper service in the public sector just as it has in the private.
my local GP says he has 500 missed appointments a week. Charge 'em a tenner. And nt through an expensive system. Set up a debit card before you join the practice.
And schools; why do those with children get this massive benefit, when those who can't have kids don't. Charge 'em a bit extra through tax. Local parents to me think the world owes them a living.
If your local GP works 70 hours a week, ten minute appointments and does nothing else... That adds up to 420 appointments a week.
Possibly you/GP meant across a surgery with lots of GPs... But even then it sounds implausibly high.
Fascinating article by David Goodhart in the Sunday Times yesterday where he confesses that Gus O'Donnell confiding in him at a social event that he always argued for the most open borders and highest level of immigration when he was at the civil service, because he viewed his job as maximising the net welfare of humanity not of the UK.
Whenever you hear about Whitehall officials and their 'advice', just bear that in mind.
It is a great article. The Somewhere vs Anywhere designation is bang on, too, I thought. I was even applying Pb characters to some of the notions/views.
I thought the 60% somewheres and 25% anywheres tallied with my experience. The more the Blues can represent the Somewheres, and the more they can pigeonhole the various oppositions as anywheres the better - for our Union, our politics and British people. Government has been for the anywheres for far too long.
I was particularly taken by his description of a social event where a cohort of senior British centre-left politicians competed to express how disgusted they were with Gordon Brown's "British jobs for British workers" speech. Chris Huhne being first off the block to describe it as 'racism - pure and simple'.
It shows that (a) these people really do socialise and confide in one together and (b) those who voted Leave really did have a point.
Credit to David Goodhart as well who is often the sole centre-left voice at such gatherings putting the opposing point of view.
He isn't thanked for it.
If you want to serve humanity in general, you should work for a charity in the Third World. If you want to be a civil servant, then you should be working in the interest of the country that employs you.
my local GP says he has 500 missed appointments a week. Charge 'em a tenner. And nt through an expensive system. Set up a debit card before you join the practice.
And schools; why do those with children get this massive benefit, when those who can't have kids don't. Charge 'em a bit extra through tax. Local parents to me think the world owes them a living.
I understand where you are coming from, but neither of those are necessary.
If GPs have a regular number of no-shows, then they can (I suspect they do), just fill out their appointment books a bit more, and it all averages itself out in the end. If there really is a gap in patients (never seen one), then there are always calls to make etc. (Snip)
It would be interesting to see if there have been any studies into this (there must have been), but I doubt that's the way it works. There are only a limited number of tasks that can be fitted into the odd minute or two (they cannot be sure if the appointee will turn up a minute or two late), and task switching is not compatible with competent work.
Mr. Meeks, there are always differences of opinion within a country. These may or may not be exacerbated by referring to those with whom you disagree as being infected with a virus.
Fascinating article by David Goodhart in the Sunday Times yesterday where he confesses that Gus O'Donnell confiding in him at a social event that he always argued for the most open borders and highest level of immigration when he was at the civil service, because he viewed his job as maximising the net welfare of humanity not of the UK.
Whenever you hear about Whitehall officials and their 'advice', just bear that in mind.
That was very revealing wasn't it.
The role of the UK in his 'world saving' role was merely to provide the money.
I wonder how many times he has been in England outside London compared with how many times he has been in foreign countries. Although I suspect he would find Nuneaton more 'foreign' than he does New York.
The belief that putting your own country first is both selfish, chauvinistic and anachronistic is, I suspect, very widespread in the senior levels of UK Civil Service.
These are the people we are employing (and paying for) to safeguard our interests.
It would certainly explain the failures of Britain's EU negotiating.
And I doubt the same mentality dominates the French Civil Service.
my local GP says he has 500 missed appointments a week. Charge 'em a tenner. And nt through an expensive system. Set up a debit card before you join the practice.
And schools; why do those with children get this massive benefit, when those who can't have kids don't. Charge 'em a bit extra through tax. Local parents to me think the world owes them a living.
I understand where you are coming from, but neither of those are necessary.
If GPs have a regular number of no-shows, then they can (I suspect they do), just fill out their appointment books a bit more, and it all averages itself out in the end. If there really is a gap in patients (never seen one), then there are always calls to make etc.
The reasons we (unfairly) benefit parents over non-parents is quite simply we need the next generation, and encouraging people to have kids is a benefit to society.
Indeed Mr Hopkins.
Sometimes, reading the comments on here, I think there are a lot of people running around with solutions looking for problems....
my local GP says he has 500 missed appointments a week. Charge 'em a tenner. And nt through an expensive system. Set up a debit card before you join the practice.
And schools; why do those with children get this massive benefit, when those who can't have kids don't. Charge 'em a bit extra through tax. Local parents to me think the world owes them a living.
On the schools point - there is a benefit to everyone in a society if people are well educated.
Every public service would benefit from more investment, and would equally benefit from reform-as long as reform isn't "Do more with less", which is really the only type of reform that any government is interested in.
... but that ultimately is the point of any reform, otherwise what's the point?
"Do more with less *here* so we have enough to what we want *over there*"
But "over there" never seems to be any good either! Reform in my sector tends to be a case of "Here's less money than you need, sort yourself out. Don't come back for another 3 years". There is then a knee jerk reaction that results in a poorer service than required. Genuine reform would be something like amalgamating the Fire Service and Ambulance Service, which might cost extra to implement, but would save money over the medium term and result in far better service for the public.
Very true .Another example would be amalgamating some of the 43 Police Forces in England.
Mr. Meeks, there are always differences of opinion within a country. These may or may not be exacerbated by referring to those with whom you disagree as being infected with a virus.
my local GP says he has 500 missed appointments a week. Charge 'em a tenner. And nt through an expensive system. Set up a debit card before you join the practice.
And schools; why do those with children get this massive benefit, when those who can't have kids don't. Charge 'em a bit extra through tax. Local parents to me think the world owes them a living.
I understand where you are coming from, but neither of those are necessary.
If GPs have a regular number of no-shows, then they can (I suspect they do), just fill out their appointment books a bit more, and it all averages itself out in the end. If there really is a gap in patients (never seen one), then there are always calls to make etc.
The reasons we (unfairly) benefit parents over non-parents is quite simply we need the next generation, and encouraging people to have kids is a benefit to society.
I understand the viewpoint too. I think the balance has gone too far; people abuse the system, and the system lets it happen.
"In polarised times, political leaders should be asking themselves what values and shared identity still unite people up and down the country, and what common ideal we can all get behind."
But that begs for me a troubling question: what if there aren't any? What happens next?
As I've argued on here before, the next step on from the vote to leave the EU on 23/6/16 should have been to begin the real debate about what kind of Britain, what kind of society, economy, culture and even people do we want to be in the 2020s and beyond ?
Unfortunately, a combination of the gloating triumphalism of the LEAVE side and a general fatigue following a bruising referendum campaign has prevented that from happening.
Instead, most people have withdrawn and are taking solace from May and Hammond and believing with all their might that everything will be all right and leaving the EU will be painless and we will end up in a better place. The fact the doom-laden nonsense of the REMAIN side hasn't yet come to pass has strengthened this belief that somehow "it will be all right" and "we must trust that nice Mrs May to sort everything out".
We are beyond rational debate - nobody wants to talk about it apart from confirming their own position and this is the real tragedy. We have a real opportunity to shape our own cultural economic and political identity but most people have abdicated involvement and are tired of the big questions.
my local GP says he has 500 missed appointments a week. Charge 'em a tenner. And nt through an expensive system. Set up a debit card before you join the practice.
I'm all for that but with the proviso if a patient is kept waiting more than ten minutes beyond his appointment time then he is compensated a tenner every quarter of an hour.
It would have made my doctor appointments a nice little money earner.
"In polarised times, political leaders should be asking themselves what values and shared identity still unite people up and down the country, and what common ideal we can all get behind."
But that begs for me a troubling question: what if there aren't any? What happens next?
There's a nice quote in Anthony Beevor's book about the Spanish civil war. A writer watched a beautiful upper middle class woman get on a bus in Madrid, and the Communist bus driver flashed her a look of pure hatred, rather than the expected leer. "We really are in trouble when politics is more important than lust."
We live in an age that is increasingly politicised, where politics is seen as a big part of one's identity.
my local GP says he has 500 missed appointments a week. Charge 'em a tenner. And nt through an expensive system. Set up a debit card before you join the practice.
I'm all for that but with the proviso if a patient is kept waiting more than ten minutes beyond his appointment time then he is compensated a tenner every quarter of an hour.
It would have made my doctor appointments a nice little money earner.
This is a neat example of the very high standards of service people in Britain expect.
Fascinating article by David Goodhart in the Sunday Times yesterday where he confesses that Gus O'Donnell confiding in him at a social event that he always argued for the most open borders and highest level of immigration when he was at the civil service, because he viewed his job as maximising the net welfare of humanity not of the UK.
Whenever you hear about Whitehall officials and their 'advice', just bear that in mind.
That was very revealing wasn't it.
The role of the UK in his 'world saving' role was merely to provide the money.
I wonder how many times he has been in England outside London compared with how many times he has been in foreign countries. Although I suspect he would find Nuneaton more 'foreign' than he does New York.
The belief that putting your own country first is both selfish, chauvinistic and anachronistic is, I suspect, very widespread in the senior levels of UK Civil Service.
These are the people we are employing (and paying for) to safeguard our interests.
It would certainly explain the failures of Britain's EU negotiating.
And I doubt the same mentality dominates the French Civil Service.
It's a world view that's alien to me because I don't view them as mutually exclusive.
I would put my own family and friends first, and interests of my local community first. That doesn't mean I don't give a toss about anyone else nor that my success is at their expense: "make sure your own oxygen mask is fitted first before helping others". For some reason the same logic isn't applied at a national level.
I think much of the educated English / British elites are simply embarrassed by their own country, its idiosyncrasies, traditions and history, and believe they have attained a higher plane.
They'd much rather it just quietly marched off into the history books.
Mr. Meeks, there are always differences of opinion within a country. These may or may not be exacerbated by referring to those with whom you disagree as being infected with a virus.
Not in Hungary there aren't, a 98% vote against accepting migrants AT ALL is realistically as close as you'll get to unanimity, and I am sure that the plan to put any that do slip through the net into shipping containers has a similarly broad measure of support. Who would voluntarily spend time in such a hellhole?
If we are playing at diagnosis, perhaps it is worth identifying the co-morbidity affecting the mouthier Remain vote, consisting of chronic Can't-be-Arsed Syndrome prior to the vote and advanced Post Brexit Butthurt Disorder thereafter.
Broad summary - Corbyn's position among members is weaker than last year but would still win if an election was forced at once; however, most members think he should resign if certain adverse effects occur, but not others. If he did resign, McDonnell and Cooper lead, but it's a pretty wide open field. Members trust Corbyn to be truthful, others not so much, the media hardly at all. A tenth often brood on whether to stay members or not, though most never consider lapsing. All quite nuanced.
my local GP says he has 500 missed appointments a week. Charge 'em a tenner. And nt through an expensive system. Set up a debit card before you join the practice.
I'm all for that but with the proviso if a patient is kept waiting more than ten minutes beyond his appointment time then he is compensated a tenner every quarter of an hour.
It would have made my doctor appointments a nice little money earner.
suppose the surgery is open 9 hrs no breaks and each apt is 10 mins that's 9x6=54 appts a day 5 days a week.. that 2 the equivalent of 2 GP's doing nothing a week and I find that hard to believe.
"In polarised times, political leaders should be asking themselves what values and shared identity still unite people up and down the country, and what common ideal we can all get behind."
But that begs for me a troubling question: what if there aren't any? What happens next?
There's a nice quote in Anthony Beevor's book about the Spanish civil war. A writer watched a beautiful upper middle class woman get on a bus in Madrid, and the Communist bus driver flashed her a look of pure hatred, rather than the expected leer. "We really are in trouble when politics is more important than lust."
We live in an age that is increasingly politicised, where politics is seen as a big part of one's identity.
I've already extended a gracious offer to Alastair to be the stripper at our Leave party.
We are beyond rational debate - nobody wants to talk about it apart from confirming their own position and this is the real tragedy. We have a real opportunity to shape our own cultural economic and political identity but most people have abdicated involvement and are tired of the big questions.
We have endless and constant arguments about what sort of country we want and we get to vote on it every 5 years or so.
Mr. Borough, I put 50p on Sarkozy as a saving bet at 200/1 last week.
Mr. F, wrapping morality into politics is alarming, and barely a step removed from doing likewise with religion.
One reason why I've never been convinced by the argument that without religion, we'd all live in harmony. People find endless reasons to hate each other.
my local GP says he has 500 missed appointments a week. Charge 'em a tenner. And nt through an expensive system. Set up a debit card before you join the practice.
I'm all for that but with the proviso if a patient is kept waiting more than ten minutes beyond his appointment time then he is compensated a tenner every quarter of an hour.
It would have made my doctor appointments a nice little money earner.
suppose the surgery is open 9 hrs no breaks and each apt is 10 mins that's 9x6=54 appts a day 5 days a week.. that 2 the equivalent of 2 GP's doing nothing a week and I find that hard to believe.
Here is a figure of 8 per individual GP per week, which is equivalent to a 60 GP practice, or a 30 GP practice somewhere twice as bad as the average (and I find it credible that there is that degree of variation between practices).
We are beyond rational debate - nobody wants to talk about it apart from confirming their own position and this is the real tragedy. We have a real opportunity to shape our own cultural economic and political identity but most people have abdicated involvement and are tired of the big questions.
We have endless and constant arguments about what sort of country we want and we get to vote on it every 5 years or so.
No we don't. There are rarely two wildly discordant programmes on offer and no Party, other than UKIP, has advocated taking us out of the EU since Labour in 1983. Indeed, one could argue that with the possible exception of Brown, we were governed from 1990 to 2016 by a remarkably similar form of social democracy whether it was led by Major or Blair.
On 23/6/16, we took a decisive turn and the consequences of that vote will reverberate for generations. I'm arguing part of that vote was about the future and we now need to think about it and have a part in shaping it. Unfortunately, that has been abdicated to people who think the future is in the past and rebooting the British Empire is a jolly good idea.
I think the likes of Australia, New Zealand, India and Canada have other concerns but are probably just too polite to say No.
On 23/6/16, we took a decisive turn and the consequences of that vote will reverberate for generations. I'm arguing part of that vote was about the future and we now need to think about it and have a part in shaping it. Unfortunately, that has been abdicated to people who think the future is in the past and rebooting the British Empire is a jolly good idea.
I think the likes of Australia, New Zealand, India and Canada have other concerns but are probably just too polite to say No.
I think that's overstating it a bit. No one is suggesting imperialism, just free trade. Why not start with the countries that we have closer ties with?
Mr. Borough, I put 50p on Sarkozy as a saving bet at 200/1 last week.
Mr. F, wrapping morality into politics is alarming, and barely a step removed from doing likewise with religion.
One reason why I've never been convinced by the argument that without religion, we'd all live in harmony. People find endless reasons to hate each other.
Scapegoating religions and nations for the flaws of humanity is a proxy for the more ideologically driven who see them as a hindrance to global nirvana. Sadly, this is a short-sighted fallacy to which very many intelligent people fall victim.
I see no reason why abolishing either should result in universal bliss any more than experiments in abolishing inequality did in the communist bloc in the 1930s-1980s.
On 23/6/16, we took a decisive turn and the consequences of that vote will reverberate for generations. I'm arguing part of that vote was about the future and we now need to think about it and have a part in shaping it. Unfortunately, that has been abdicated to people who think the future is in the past and rebooting the British Empire is a jolly good idea.
I think the likes of Australia, New Zealand, India and Canada have other concerns but are probably just too polite to say No.
I think that's overstating it a bit. No one is suggesting imperialism, just free trade. Why not start with the countries that we have closer ties with?
Why not start with those countries with which we do the bulk of our business and then look at moving into expanding and developing markets of which India is one and the likes of China and Brazil are others ?
Everyone's talking about four or five countries as though our economic future will be sorted if we get plenty of NZ lamb and butter but "Global Britain" should be much more than that.
On 23/6/16, we took a decisive turn and the consequences of that vote will reverberate for generations. I'm arguing part of that vote was about the future and we now need to think about it and have a part in shaping it. Unfortunately, that has been abdicated to people who think the future is in the past and rebooting the British Empire is a jolly good idea.
I think the likes of Australia, New Zealand, India and Canada have other concerns but are probably just too polite to say No.
I think that's overstating it a bit. No one is suggesting imperialism, just free trade. Why not start with the countries that we have closer ties with?
Why not start with those countries with which we do the bulk of our business and then look at moving into expanding and developing markets of which India is one and the likes of China and Brazil are others ?
Everyone's talking about four or five countries as though our economic future will be sorted if we get plenty of NZ lamb and butter but "Global Britain" should be much more than that.
Well we will be doing a deal with the EU after we've left. We can't negotiate on that until we have left. As for India, I thought that was already up there in terms of priority.
We are beyond rational debate - nobody wants to talk about it apart from confirming their own position and this is the real tragedy. We have a real opportunity to shape our own cultural economic and political identity but most people have abdicated involvement and are tired of the big questions.
We have endless and constant arguments about what sort of country we want and we get to vote on it every 5 years or so.
No we don't. There are rarely two wildly discordant programmes on offer and no Party, other than UKIP, has advocated taking us out of the EU since Labour in 1983. Indeed, one could argue that with the possible exception of Brown, we were governed from 1990 to 2016 by a remarkably similar form of social democracy whether it was led by Major or Blair.
On 23/6/16, we took a decisive turn and the consequences of that vote will reverberate for generations. I'm arguing part of that vote was about the future and we now need to think about it and have a part in shaping it. Unfortunately, that has been abdicated to people who think the future is in the past and rebooting the British Empire is a jolly good idea.
I think the likes of Australia, New Zealand, India and Canada have other concerns but are probably just too polite to say No.
I think that there was much more public unhappiness with the political settlement of 1990-2016 than many politicians realised. I agree that 23/6 was a turning point.
Mr. Borough, I put 50p on Sarkozy as a saving bet at 200/1 last week.
Mr. F, wrapping morality into politics is alarming, and barely a step removed from doing likewise with religion.
One reason why I've never been convinced by the argument that without religion, we'd all live in harmony. People find endless reasons to hate each other.
Scapegoating religions and nations for the flaws of humanity is a proxy for the more ideologically driven who see them as a hindrance to global nirvana. Sadly, this is a short-sighted fallacy to which very many intelligent people fall victim.
I see no reason why abolishing either should result in universal bliss any more than experiments in abolishing inequality did in the communist bloc in the 1930s-1980s.
A classic strawmanning argument; which just doesn't work against the more realistic view that sufficiently repressing various flavours of religion would reduce unwanted pregnancies, overpopulation and child rape, and terrorist killings, and that those reductions would be welcome even if they were only of the order of single-figure percentages.
My last move was to lay Juppe at 13, I am now underwater on him to about 300 - including £100 @ 10-1 back. If he quits at 10-30 logically Fillon and Baroin should both shorten a bit.
Mr. Borough, I put 50p on Sarkozy as a saving bet at 200/1 last week.
Mr. F, wrapping morality into politics is alarming, and barely a step removed from doing likewise with religion.
One reason why I've never been convinced by the argument that without religion, we'd all live in harmony. People find endless reasons to hate each other.
'South Pacific’ quote' racism is "not born in you! It happens after you’re born...” And as someone who has three granddaughters at a ‘wildly’ multi-racial school that seems to be true.
However, as one who was carefully taught never to say ‘never’ none of the girls have got to the boyfriend stage yet!
We are beyond rational debate - nobody wants to talk about it apart from confirming their own position and this is the real tragedy. We have a real opportunity to shape our own cultural economic and political identity but most people have abdicated involvement and are tired of the big questions.
We have endless and constant arguments about what sort of country we want and we get to vote on it every 5 years or so.
No we don't. There are rarely two wildly discordant programmes on offer and no Party, other than UKIP, has advocated taking us out of the EU since Labour in 1983. Indeed, one could argue that with the possible exception of Brown, we were governed from 1990 to 2016 by a remarkably similar form of social democracy whether it was led by Major or Blair.
On 23/6/16, we took a decisive turn and the consequences of that vote will reverberate for generations. I'm arguing part of that vote was about the future and we now need to think about it and have a part in shaping it. Unfortunately, that has been abdicated to people who think the future is in the past and rebooting the British Empire is a jolly good idea.
I think the likes of Australia, New Zealand, India and Canada have other concerns but are probably just too polite to say No.
I think that there was much more public unhappiness with the political settlement of 1990-2016 than many politicians realised. I agree that 23/6 was a turning point.
Yes. Dave offered a Tweedledum vs Tweedledee choice on EU/Immigration/Identity whilst, IMHO, offering a much more sensible economic plan than Miliband. Eurosceptics had no party to vote for. I think the political lesson to be learned is the danger of not offering voters a real choice, or seeking to repress honestly and decently held views. 'Rubbing their noses in it' backfired spectacularly.
On 23/6/16, we took a decisive turn and the consequences of that vote will reverberate for generations. I'm arguing part of that vote was about the future and we now need to think about it and have a part in shaping it. Unfortunately, that has been abdicated to people who think the future is in the past and rebooting the British Empire is a jolly good idea.
I think the likes of Australia, New Zealand, India and Canada have other concerns but are probably just too polite to say No.
I think that's overstating it a bit. No one is suggesting imperialism, just free trade. Why not start with the countries that we have closer ties with?
If you read the Times article it's (guess what?) Whitehall civil servants calling it Empire 2.0, not ministers. The latter are merely calling for closer Commonwealth trading and investment links, particularly in Africa.
Which - in and of itself - is very revealing.
I expect a significant number of UK civil servants to be actively working against the policy objectives of HMG during the Brexit negotiations, which we will find out about in the papers.
Juppe not running. Fillon will surely not be challenged by anyone else. Bet Sarkozy has had a hand in this , he will now want to be the one to pick up the pieces after Fillon crashes out in round 1, and pave the way for his next political comeback
What's crazy about this race is how irrelevant Hamon and the left generally has been. I don't remember the last time I saw them on the news in France. Hamons inability to get coverage probably bodes well for Macron sweeping up a lot of his voters in round 1
Have to say I'm pleased about the big red number next to him on Betfair now.
Agreed!
This is not good, for those of us with an all green, except for obscure black swans. If Fillon drops out now who will run? Someone not in my book?
You could lay Macron, Le Pen & Fillon at 84% if you so wish on Betfair.
I personally wouldn't but the option is there. Backing all the apparent runners in this type of race from a technical level isn't actually going "All green"...
As I said late last night (when you were probably tucked up in bed, Mr Dancer):
I think Baroin may yet be the answer to this conundrum.
Fillon is stubbornly refusing to stand down and his Party are pleading with him to do so. He said this afternoon that if the people wanted Juppe's policies they would have voted for him in the November Primaries. He very clearly will not stand down, voluntarily, in favour Juppe, reasonably arguing that it would give Le Pen even more chance of victory.
The two sides are at an impasse and Fillon has a strong hand, but must know his chances of winning, with this scandal hanging over him are not good. If the Party are desperate enough for him to depart the stage, they may allow Fillon to choose his successor to run on Fillon's policy platform. His closest friend and keenest supporter is Baroin and could still play a big part in this.
We are beyond rational debate - nobody wants to talk about it apart from confirming their own position and this is the real tragedy. We have a real opportunity to shape our own cultural economic and political identity but most people have abdicated involvement and are tired of the big questions.
We have endless and constant arguments about what sort of country we want and we get to vote on it every 5 years or so.
No we don't. There are rarely two wildly discordant programmes on offer and no Party, other than UKIP, has advocated taking us out of the EU since Labour in 1983. Indeed, one could argue that with the possible exception of Brown, we were governed from 1990 to 2016 by a remarkably similar form of social democracy whether it was led by Major or Blair.
On 23/6/16, we took a decisive turn and the consequences of that vote will reverberate for generations. I'm arguing part of that vote was about the future and we now need to think about it and have a part in shaping it. Unfortunately, that has been abdicated to people who think the future is in the past and rebooting the British Empire is a jolly good idea.
I think the likes of Australia, New Zealand, India and Canada have other concerns but are probably just too polite to say No.
I think that there was much more public unhappiness with the political settlement of 1990-2016 than many politicians realised. I agree that 23/6 was a turning point.
Yes. Dave offered a Tweedledum vs Tweedledee choice on EU/Immigration/Identity whilst, IMHO, offering a much more sensible economic plan than Miliband. Eurosceptics had no party to vote for. I think the political lesson to be learned is the danger of not offering voters a real choice, or seeking to repress honestly and decently held views. 'Rubbing their noses in it' backfired spectacularly.
In the run up to GE15, Galloway and Farage constantly said the three main parties on offer were 'three cheeks of the same arse" / "not a fag paper between them"
Less than two years later it seems they have been proved correct. Cameron, Osborne, Clegg, Miliband all singing from the same hymn sheet. It always was loud public arguments over minute differences
On 23/6/16, we took a decisive turn and the consequences of that vote will reverberate for generations. I'm arguing part of that vote was about the future and we now need to think about it and have a part in shaping it. Unfortunately, that has been abdicated to people who think the future is in the past and rebooting the British Empire is a jolly good idea.
I think the likes of Australia, New Zealand, India and Canada have other concerns but are probably just too polite to say No.
I think that's overstating it a bit. No one is suggesting imperialism, just free trade. Why not start with the countries that we have closer ties with?
If you read the Times article it's (guess what?) Whitehall civil servants calling it Empire 2.0, not ministers. The latter are merely calling for closer Commonwealth trading and investment links, particularly in Africa.
Which - in and of itself - is very revealing.
I expect a significant number of UK civil servants to be actively working against the policy objectives of HMG during the Brexit negotiations, which we will find out about in the papers.
Has this Empire 2.0 policy been copy-pasted from Nicolas Dupont-Aignan, or is it much less ambitious?
On 23/6/16, we took a decisive turn and the consequences of that vote will reverberate for generations. I'm arguing part of that vote was about the future and we now need to think about it and have a part in shaping it. Unfortunately, that has been abdicated to people who think the future is in the past and rebooting the British Empire is a jolly good idea.
I think the likes of Australia, New Zealand, India and Canada have other concerns but are probably just too polite to say No.
I think that's overstating it a bit. No one is suggesting imperialism, just free trade. Why not start with the countries that we have closer ties with?
If you read the Times article it's (guess what?) Whitehall civil servants calling it Empire 2.0, not ministers. The latter are merely calling for closer Commonwealth trading and investment links, particularly in Africa.
Which - in and of itself - is very revealing.
I expect a significant number of UK civil servants to be actively working against the policy objectives of HMG during the Brexit negotiations, which we will find out about in the papers.
Funny how China forging trade links with Africa is "strategic vision for the 21st Century" but when we do it it's "empire 2.0".
Mr. Meeks, there are always differences of opinion within a country. These may or may not be exacerbated by referring to those with whom you disagree as being infected with a virus.
Thankfully being a PB Tory is rarely fatal.
Until the lost old recipe book for Auchentennach Fine Pies is located ....
Funny how China forging trade links with Africa is "strategic vision for the 21st Century" but when we do it it's "empire 2.0".
I didn't mention Africa though it's an idea the EU neglected and the Chinese, unencumbered by the past, have developed primarily for minerals but the revival of the railways has been a useful by-product.
The line seems to be there are some "quick wins" from Australia, New Zealand, Canada and possibly the US in terms of free trade agreements (interesting to see what they say in terms of migration to and from). My point is the world doesn't end there and quite apart from the EU there are countries such as Brazil, China, Indonesia and others with whom we will need to negotiate trade deals - markets the EU struggled to penetrate but which we will need to obtain access.
Funny how China forging trade links with Africa is "strategic vision for the 21st Century" but when we do it it's "empire 2.0".
I didn't mention Africa though it's an idea the EU neglected and the Chinese, unencumbered by the past, have developed primarily for minerals but the revival of the railways has been a useful by-product.
The line seems to be there are some "quick wins" from Australia, New Zealand, Canada and possibly the US in terms of free trade agreements (interesting to see what they say in terms of migration to and from). My point is the world doesn't end there and quite apart from the EU there are countries such as Brazil, China, Indonesia and others with whom we will need to negotiate trade deals - markets the EU struggled to penetrate but which we will need to obtain access.
Is there any doubt that the UK will try and negotiate free trade agreements with those countries?
Genius Jahadi Jez's accountant done a cracking job for his clients silly budget stunt....
Jeremy Corbyn’s team say he was paid just £27,192 in his role as Leader of the Opposition in the year 2015/16. Yet this does not tally with the government’s accounts – dug out by James Tapsfield – which say Corbyn was paid £30,587 in 2016/16. Why is Corbyn’s declaration not the same as this figure? Team Corbyn say the £27,192 figure comes from his P60. They don’t know why the government’s accounts show him being paid £30,587…
What’s more, his earnings as Leader of the Opposition are clearly a salary. As you can see above, the government accounts call it a “salary“. So why does it appear in the pensions section of his tax summary, not the salary section? Have to wonder if this tax stunt was worth it for Jez…
Comments
Mr. Royale, that's not terribly surprising, even though it's damned foolish.
I thought the 60% somewheres and 25% anywheres tallied with my experience. The more the Blues can represent the Somewheres, and the more they can pigeonhole the various oppositions as anywheres the better - for our Union, our politics and British people. Government has been for the anywheres for far too long.
The role of the UK in his 'world saving' role was merely to provide the money.
I wonder how many times he has been in England outside London compared with how many times he has been in foreign countries. Although I suspect he would find Nuneaton more 'foreign' than he does New York.
Also available at Amazon (although not on sale, as it's a Smashwords thingummyjig):
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Thaddeus-White/e/B008C6RU98/
And, whilst I'm blowing my own trumpet, there's a free short story of mine in Kraxon. +10 history points to anyone who recognises the names [they're not easy]:
http://www.kraxon.com/desert-prey/
Edited extra bit: ahem, the Smashwords' sale books are Journey to Altmortis and Kingdom Asunder (full version).
And schools; why do those with children get this massive benefit, when those who can't have kids don't. Charge 'em a bit extra through tax. Local parents to me think the world owes them a living.
"Govt depts cost up to 6 times more than private companies" - you're comparing woods with twigs. Government departments cover a huge range of tasks, services and obligations, private companies tend to be niche and specialised.
"When private companies do the job of govts through outsourcing, their costs rise too" - yes, when they have do the unprofitable statutory stuff that Government has to do yet still have to try to make a profit. One of the reasons functions are being in-sourced back into local Government is when you get a Contractor trying to charge £200 to change a toilet seat at a home for the elderly. It's not "easy" work but it has to be done. In my experience, most private sector companies don't understand and think it's a licence to print money.
Then we have a diatribe about "waste collection" which isn't a central Government but a local Government function. As for it being a "monopoly", yes and what would be the alternative ? I suppose you could have competing companies clearing the bins in a road - I would sign up to Alpha Waste Disposal, you could sign up to Beta and our bar-coded bins would tell the binmen whether it's "one of theirs" but what about street cleaning ? Would Alpha and Beta Street Cleaners go up and down the same bit of street cleaning it ?
There's a limit to the practicalities of competition - I'm sure it's something of which "senior Tories" are aware or they should be.
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/837276904503771137
Its key passage to me was:
"In polarised times, political leaders should be asking themselves what values and shared identity still unite people up and down the country, and what common ideal we can all get behind."
But that begs for me a troubling question: what if there aren't any? What happens next?
These are the people we are employing (and paying for) to safeguard our interests.
I understand where you are coming from, but neither of those are necessary.
If GPs have a regular number of no-shows, then they can (I suspect they do), just fill out their appointment books a bit more, and it all averages itself out in the end. If there really is a gap in patients (never seen one), then there are always calls to make etc.
The reasons we (unfairly) benefit parents over non-parents is quite simply we need the next generation, and encouraging people to have kids is a benefit to society.
It shows that (a) these people really do socialise and confide in one together and (b) those who voted Leave really did have a point.
Credit to David Goodhart as well who is often the sole centre-left voice at such gatherings putting the opposing point of view.
He isn't thanked for it.
There is a problem with departments wastefully spending budgets at the end of a financial year when they haven't spent all the year's money. In private industry my dad used to call this the April bonus, as the large companies he did work for started lots of fettling projects with little care for the cost. From their perspective, if they did not spend the money, they wouldn't have it allocated the next year.
As I say, it's not a perfect system, but IMO it's far better than the chaotic one we have at the moment. It might also generate meaningful discussion on spending, instead of the stupid ones we have at the moment. It would highlight the compromises that need to be made.
Mr. D, so you say, but there's a constant risk of death caused by undercooking babies.
Some of you may recall the story of a Soviet visitor to London being unable to comprehend that nobody was in charge of the bread / bakeries system. That it was free actors in a free market that made our offering so much better and cheaper than theirs. Some systems of human interaction are simply too comlex to be directed. Only free actors can drive effectiveness and efficiency.
So...government control will fail because eg the NHS is just too complex to manage. Private contractors will 'fail' by charging £200 for a loo seat - because they aren't in a freely competitive market for said loo seat. Corporatism / capitalist abuse is not the same thing as a free market.
As much as possible of our service delivery should be competitively tendered. That will drive better and cheaper service in the public sector just as it has in the private.
Possibly you/GP meant across a surgery with lots of GPs... But even then it sounds implausibly high.
Remain voters dislike the result because it was influenced by UKIP. What happens next is not the problem.
And I doubt the same mentality dominates the French Civil Service.
Sometimes, reading the comments on here, I think there are a lot of people running around with solutions looking for problems....
Unfortunately, a combination of the gloating triumphalism of the LEAVE side and a general fatigue following a bruising referendum campaign has prevented that from happening.
Instead, most people have withdrawn and are taking solace from May and Hammond and believing with all their might that everything will be all right and leaving the EU will be painless and we will end up in a better place. The fact the doom-laden nonsense of the REMAIN side hasn't yet come to pass has strengthened this belief that somehow "it will be all right" and "we must trust that nice Mrs May to sort everything out".
We are beyond rational debate - nobody wants to talk about it apart from confirming their own position and this is the real tragedy. We have a real opportunity to shape our own cultural economic and political identity but most people have abdicated involvement and are tired of the big questions.
It would have made my doctor appointments a nice little money earner.
We live in an age that is increasingly politicised, where politics is seen as a big part of one's identity.
Mr. F, wrapping morality into politics is alarming, and barely a step removed from doing likewise with religion.
I would put my own family and friends first, and interests of my local community first. That doesn't mean I don't give a toss about anyone else nor that my success is at their expense: "make sure your own oxygen mask is fitted first before helping others". For some reason the same logic isn't applied at a national level.
I think much of the educated English / British elites are simply embarrassed by their own country, its idiosyncrasies, traditions and history, and believe they have attained a higher plane.
They'd much rather it just quietly marched off into the history books.
If we are playing at diagnosis, perhaps it is worth identifying the co-morbidity affecting the mouthier Remain vote, consisting of chronic Can't-be-Arsed Syndrome prior to the vote and advanced Post Brexit Butthurt Disorder thereafter.
https://election-data.co.uk/labour-membership-poll-results-2017
Broad summary - Corbyn's position among members is weaker than last year but would still win if an election was forced at once; however, most members think he should resign if certain adverse effects occur, but not others. If he did resign, McDonnell and Cooper lead, but it's a pretty wide open field. Members trust Corbyn to be truthful, others not so much, the media hardly at all. A tenth often brood on whether to stay members or not, though most never consider lapsing. All quite nuanced.
+590 Macron
+120 Fillon
-870 Juppe
-200 Other
+140 Baroin
-140 Melenchon
-400 Hamon
2.18 on Macron is big right now I think.......
We have endless and constant arguments about what sort of country we want and we get to vote on it every 5 years or so.
http://election-data.co.uk/labour-membership-poll-results-2017
http://www.gponline.com/exclusive-patients-fail-show-14m-gp-appointments-year/article/1351972
On 23/6/16, we took a decisive turn and the consequences of that vote will reverberate for generations. I'm arguing part of that vote was about the future and we now need to think about it and have a part in shaping it. Unfortunately, that has been abdicated to people who think the future is in the past and rebooting the British Empire is a jolly good idea.
I think the likes of Australia, New Zealand, India and Canada have other concerns but are probably just too polite to say No.
Have to say I'm pleased about the big red number next to him on Betfair now.
I see no reason why abolishing either should result in universal bliss any more than experiments in abolishing inequality did in the communist bloc in the 1930s-1980s.
Everyone's talking about four or five countries as though our economic future will be sorted if we get plenty of NZ lamb and butter but "Global Britain" should be much more than that.
Might he run?
He's been in Rusholme/the curry mile, which is in the heart of the Gorton constituency
https://twitter.com/georgegalloway/status/838041818168197121
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/838676198465101824
Personally, I'm not convinced. But their prices might have further to come in.
I note my pre-Juppe announcement comment.
However, as one who was carefully taught never to say ‘never’ none of the girls have got to the boyfriend stage yet!
*plays small violin*
Which - in and of itself - is very revealing.
I expect a significant number of UK civil servants to be actively working against the policy objectives of HMG during the Brexit negotiations, which we will find out about in the papers.
I personally wouldn't but the option is there. Backing all the apparent runners in this type of race from a technical level isn't actually going "All green"...
It was a bit like a rollercoaster, and I used a bit of blind luck/hunches and understanding French to my advantage.
It was like the Iowa caucus all over again.
I think Baroin may yet be the answer to this conundrum.
Fillon is stubbornly refusing to stand down and his Party are pleading with him to do so. He said this afternoon that if the people wanted Juppe's policies they would have voted for him in the November Primaries. He very clearly will not stand down, voluntarily, in favour Juppe, reasonably arguing that it would give Le Pen even more chance of victory.
The two sides are at an impasse and Fillon has a strong hand, but must know his chances of winning, with this scandal hanging over him are not good. If the Party are desperate enough for him to depart the stage, they may allow Fillon to choose his successor to run on Fillon's policy platform. His closest friend and keenest supporter is Baroin and could still play a big part in this.
"A Labour member voted Tory because only hope Copeland has of getting Westminster to focus on the hospital."
Less than two years later it seems they have been proved correct. Cameron, Osborne, Clegg, Miliband all singing from the same hymn sheet. It always was loud public arguments over minute differences
http://www.nda-2017.fr/theme/partenariat-france-afrique
Miss Vance, quite. And it's the same people bleating about isolationist Britain criticising a desire for better trade links overseas.
Come on, get a move on to 1000.0 - I don't want to have to spend more than £2 buying him back.
Fillon isn't out the woods yet mind - Baroin's odds probably about right at 20-1 though ?
The hunt is on ....
The line seems to be there are some "quick wins" from Australia, New Zealand, Canada and possibly the US in terms of free trade agreements (interesting to see what they say in terms of migration to and from). My point is the world doesn't end there and quite apart from the EU there are countries such as Brazil, China, Indonesia and others with whom we will need to negotiate trade deals - markets the EU struggled to penetrate but which we will need to obtain access.
https://tech.slashdot.org/story/17/03/05/1828202/hidden-backdoor-discovered-in-chinese-iot-devices
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4285316/Migrants-smash-German-asylum-centre-injure-police.html
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2017/mar/05/top-gear-review-matt-leblanc
Jeremy Corbyn’s team say he was paid just £27,192 in his role as Leader of the Opposition in the year 2015/16. Yet this does not tally with the government’s accounts – dug out by James Tapsfield – which say Corbyn was paid £30,587 in 2016/16. Why is Corbyn’s declaration not the same as this figure? Team Corbyn say the £27,192 figure comes from his P60. They don’t know why the government’s accounts show him being paid £30,587…
What’s more, his earnings as Leader of the Opposition are clearly a salary. As you can see above, the government accounts call it a “salary“. So why does it appear in the pensions section of his tax summary, not the salary section? Have to wonder if this tax stunt was worth it for Jez…
https://order-order.com/2017/03/06/corbyns-numbers-dont-tally-government-accounts/