The point is that it has never been considered by healthcare professionals their job to deal with that side of things. Therefore, you add a layer of administration and costs to trying to recoup costs, which on average are more than the costs of the healthcare provided anyway. The current target is £500 million a year recouped. I can't see anywhere that says that is net (so £500 mil on top of whatever they spend to collect it), so they could claim success if they spend £600 million trying to recoup £500 mil. And costs of staff, administration, advertising, training, computer systems, etc etc across all the local authorities could easily cost more than £500 million.
Every GP has a receptionist. Every hospital has a receptionist. Every dentist or optician has a receptionist who takes payments.
"Can I see your NI card please?" "Yes" "Thank you. When would you like your appointment?"
"No. I don't have it with me." "Can you tell me the number?" "Yes" "Great. Please bring your card when you come for your appointment"
"I don't have a NI number." "OK. There is a charge of £25 to see the GP,"
Do you think most UK citizens know where their NI card is, or carry it with them every time they go to the doctors, or should have it memorised? In A&E what do you do if they don't have their card nor remember their number? People freaked out at the idea of a mandatory ID card and we as a country seem generally against needing identification to vote. How many people do you think will not go to the doctor because they can't find their card? And do you not think that will have a higher economic impact than just letting them access healthcare?
Thank you for such a thoughtful article. I agree that a GONU sounds impractical the more you look at it. However if we to play Fantasy Government Formation may I suggest Minister for Exiting EU John Bercow Chancellor Diane Abbott Northern Ireland Jerry Adams Ambassador to Israel Chris Williamson
Minister for the Union (pretending that it isn't an ephemeral thing of the mayfly Johnson pm-ship), Mhairi Black.
Similarly relevant to pointing out the party affiliation of the bloke who hijacked Boris in the hospital.
(ie neither fact stopped what the person has to say being a story, but it's useful context to understand the motivations of those involved. I don't think "Cummings' wife" should be the top line of the story. But any write-through which didn't mention it would be depriving me as a reader of an important fact.)
Someone (Edmund?) suggested that the Ministers could be the chairs of the relevant Select Committees. That has several advantages - it's neat and tidy (because every department is shadowed by an SC), it's all-party, and the chairs are generally quite bright but not very contentious. A drawback is that some might refuse to serve if the GNU was unpopular, but then you move on to another senior figure on the committee.
Repeat after me. A VONC doesn't necessarily remove the PM. It could precipitate an election, until which time the PM remains in post, only without any MPs to control him.
So remainer MPs can't seem to get an agreement on who could be a temporary PM to write the extension request letter and call a GE.
They can't agree on whether to VoNC the government.
They can't agree if they want an election.
They can't agree on a Brexit deal.
And yet they are now talking of constructing a hugely complicated and unstable GoNU to avoid having to face the people and you wonder why the country is getting ever more enraged.
It is like Cummings has handed them a pre-election wish list and they are busy buying everything and wrapping it beautifully for him.
The point is that it has never been considered by healthcare professionals their job to deal with that side of things. Therefore, you add a layer of administration and costs to trying to recoup costs, which on average are more than the costs of the healthcare provided anyway. The current target is £500 million a year recouped. I can't see anywhere that says that is net (so £500 mil on top of whatever they spend to collect it), so they could claim success if they spend £600 million trying to recoup £500 mil. And costs of staff, administration, advertising, training, computer systems, etc etc across all the local authorities could easily cost more than £500 million.
Every GP has a receptionist. Every hospital has a receptionist. Every dentist or optician has a receptionist who takes payments.
"Can I see your NI card please?" "Yes" "Thank you. When would you like your appointment?"
"No. I don't have it with me." "Can you tell me the number?" "Yes" "Great. Please bring your card when you come for your appointment"
"I don't have a NI number." "OK. There is a charge of £25 to see the GP,"
Do you think most UK citizens know where their NI card is, or carry it with them every time they go to the doctors, or should have it memorised? In A&E what do you do if they don't have their card nor remember their number? People freaked out at the idea of a mandatory ID card and we as a country seem generally against needing identification to vote. How many people do you think will not go to the doctor because they can't find their card? And do you not think that will have a higher economic impact than just letting them access healthcare?
1) I've explicitly already said emergency care is not included 2) NI number is used all the time. I know mine off by heart. 3) everyone gets issued a card at 16. If it was mandatory to show, people would apply for a replacement.
I'm going to look a damned fool if there's a VONC this week and a caretaker government in place by the weekend, aren't I?
Not at all. It will just mean that something you (IMO) correctly diagnose as unlikely has come to pass. Which should not surprise us unduly because although most unlikely things by definition do not happen, most things that do happen are nevertheless unlikely. Generally, I mean, not just in politics.
Someone (Edmund?) suggested that the Ministers could be the chairs of the relevant Select Committees. That has several advantages - it's neat and tidy (because every department is shadowed by an SC), it's all-party, and the chairs are generally quite bright but not very contentious. A drawback is that some might refuse to serve if the GNU was unpopular, but then you move on to another senior figure on the committee.
The answer to parliament being essential to hold the government to account is not to suddenly leave all select committees without their chair
There's just more to it than first meets the eye. Same goes for everything in life.
We've had at least three coalition govts in the past century: all achieved their main objective, though all had their probs.
From which the next GONU can learn.
GONU tend to happen when the country is in the mood to come together (world war I and II)
The only two other times its happened was in 1931 (that was basically a landslide Conservative government but with a Labour PM at the insistence of the King) and Cameron's coalition which really happened by accident because Cameron was too useless to secure a majority again Brown in 2010.
Given how divided the country is at the moment it's more likely to ne a government if national disunity. It's hard to see it getting off the ground.
More likely is that Cobryn is put in as a minority Labour government to write the extension letter and then fire the starting gun for the general election - But then thinking about it even that seems highly unlikely.
The point is that it has never been considered by healthcare professionals their job to deal with that side of things. Therefore, you add a layer of administration and costs to trying to recoup costs, which on average are more than the costs of the healthcare provided anyway. The current target is £500 million a year recouped. I can't see anywhere that says that is net (so £500 mil on top of whatever they spend to collect it), so they could claim success if they spend £600 million trying to recoup £500 mil. And costs of staff, administration, advertising, training, computer systems, etc etc across all the local authorities could easily cost more than £500 million.
Every GP has a receptionist. Every hospital has a receptionist. Every dentist or optician has a receptionist who takes payments.
"Can I see your NI card please?" "Yes" "Thank you. When would you like your appointment?"
"No. I don't have it with me." "Can you tell me the number?" "Yes" "Great. Please bring your card when you come for your appointment"
"I don't have a NI number." "OK. There is a charge of £25 to see the GP,"
Do you think most UK citizens know where their NI card is, or carry it with them every time they go to the doctors, or should have it memorised? In A&E what do you do if they don't have their card nor remember their number? People freaked out at the idea of a mandatory ID card and we as a country seem generally against needing identification to vote. How many people do you think will not go to the doctor because they can't find their card? And do you not think that will have a higher economic impact than just letting them access healthcare?
And the cost of setting up a system to collect large numbers of small payments, many in cash, would probably exceed the revenue generated in most GP surgeries. Admin costs in the NHS are amongst the lowest of any health system anywhere, partly because it is financed centrally and does not have to invoice patients, insurance companies etc etc.
Too right too foreigners need to pay, they don't get it free...
My dad works for a local CCG; it probably wouldn't surprise you to learn that it usually costs more in administration and contract fees to charge people than to not.
I'm a pretty liberal sort of guy - but that just feels wrong. My recollection of the time I visited a GP whilst on holiday in Australia you pay upfront and then reclaim.
I mean, the NHS isn't designed for anyone to pay up front, the idea is you walk through the door, you get seen (eventually), you go once healthy. Doctors and nurses and whatnot are not trained (rightly so imo) to question people whether they "should" be paying, nor are they trained to tell patients they need to pay up. Universal healthcare is known to be cheaper if it is just that; universal. Otherwise you need an entire extra wing of a finance department just to process payments. "Health tourism" is less than half a % of NHS costs, current estimates put it at around 0.3%. It is not an issue.
Doesn't everyone entitled to healthcare have a NI number?
Obviously emergency care is different, but for stuff like GPs/dentists/ongoing care you could validate this when you book/arrive.
The point is that it has never been considered by healthcare professionals their job to deal with that side of things. Therefore, you add a layer of administration and costs to trying to recoup costs, which on average are more than the costs of the healthcare provided anyway. The current target is £500 million a year recouped. I can't see anywhere that says that is net (so £500 mil on top of whatever they spend to collect it), so they could claim success if they spend £600 million trying to recoup £500 mil. And costs of staff, administration, advertising, training, computer systems, etc etc across all the local authorities could easily cost more than £500 million.
Every GP has a receptionist. Every hospital has a receptionist. Every dentist or optician has a receptionist who takes payments.
"Can I see your NI card please?" "Yes" "Thank you. When would you like your appointment?"
"No. I don't have it with me." "Can you tell me the number?" "Yes" "Great. Please bring your card when you come for your appointment"
"I don't have a NI number." "OK. There is a charge of £25 to see the GP,"
The point is that it has never been considered by healthcare professionals their job to deal with that side of things. Therefore, you add a layer of administration and costs to trying to recoup costs, which on average are more than the costs of the healthcare provided anyway. The current target is £500 million a year recouped. I can't see anywhere that says that is net (so £500 mil on top of whatever they spend to collect it), so they could claim success if they spend £600 million trying to recoup £500 mil. And costs of staff, administration, advertising, training, computer systems, etc etc across all the local authorities could easily cost more than £500 million.
Every GP has a receptionist. Every hospital has a receptionist. Every dentist or optician has a receptionist who takes payments.
"Can I see your NI card please?" "Yes" "Thank you. When would you like your appointment?"
"No. I don't have it with me." "Can you tell me the number?" "Yes" "Great. Please bring your card when you come for your appointment"
"I don't have a NI number." "OK. There is a charge of £25 to see the GP,"
Do you think most UK citizens know where their NI card is, or carry it with them every time they go to the doctors, or should have it memorised? In A&E what do you do if they don't have their card nor remember their number? People freaked out at the idea of a mandatory ID card and we as a country seem generally against needing identification to vote. How many people do you think will not go to the doctor because they can't find their card? And do you not think that will have a higher economic impact than just letting them access healthcare?
And the cost of setting up a system to collect large numbers of small payments, many in cash, would probably exceed the revenue generated in most GP surgeries. Admin costs in the NHS are amongst the lowest of any health system anywhere, partly because it is financed centrally and does not have to invoice patients, insurance companies etc etc.
Dentists and opticians manage to do this. As do pharmacies. And all GPs already have receptionists, so no extra cost.
Repeat after me. A VONC doesn't necessarily remove the PM. It could precipitate an election, until which time the PM remains in post, only without any MPs to control him.
So remainer MPs can't seem to get an agreement on who could be a temporary PM to write the extension request letter and call a GE.
They can't agree on whether to VoNC the government.
They can't agree if they want an election.
They can't agree on a Brexit deal.
And yet they are now talking of constructing a hugely complicated and unstable GoNU to avoid having to face the people and you wonder why the country is getting ever more enraged.
It is like Cummings has handed them a pre-election wish list and they are busy buying everything and wrapping it beautifully for him.
The point is that it has never been considered by healthcare professionals their job to deal with that side of things. Therefore, you add a layer of administration and costs to trying to recoup costs, which on average are more than the costs of the healthcare provided anyway. The current target is £500 million a year recouped. I can't see anywhere that says that is net (so £500 mil on top of whatever they spend to collect it), so they could claim success if they spend £600 million trying to recoup £500 mil. And costs of staff, administration, advertising, training, computer systems, etc etc across all the local authorities could easily cost more than £500 million.
Every GP has a receptionist. Every hospital has a receptionist. Every dentist or optician has a receptionist who takes payments.
"Can I see your NI card please?" "Yes" "Thank you. When would you like your appointment?"
"No. I don't have it with me." "Can you tell me the number?" "Yes" "Great. Please bring your card when you come for your appointment"
"I don't have a NI number." "OK. There is a charge of £25 to see the GP,"
Do you think most UK citizens know where their NI card is, or carry it with them every time they go to the doctors, or should have it memorised? In A&E what do you do if they don't have their card nor remember their number? People freaked out at the idea of a mandatory ID card and we as a country seem generally against needing identification to vote. How many people do you think will not go to the doctor because they can't find their card? And do you not think that will have a higher economic impact than just letting them access healthcare?
1) I've explicitly already said emergency care is not included 2) NI number is used all the time. I know mine off by heart. 3) everyone gets issued a card at 16. If it was mandatory to show, people would apply for a replacement.
1) That's fine, but then how else do you recoup cost without administrative costs as well in those circumstances? 2) Okay, that's you, how many of the general public do you think fall in that bracket? 3) So will NI Cards be reissued for free? Do you think people won't lose it, reapply for them and lose them again, all at cost to taxpayer? Or should government refuse to reissue them without payment, taxing people again for the privilege of their healthcare?
It is a minimal cost to the system that people who aren't "supposed" to use the NHS for free do. It makes the system as a whole less efficient to recoup that small cost. I do not see it as a significant moral or practical issue.
There's just more to it than first meets the eye. Same goes for everything in life.
We've had at least three coalition govts in the past century: all achieved their main objective, though all had their probs.
From which the next GONU can learn.
It's hard to see it getting off the ground.
Not for anyone who's started a business, developed a new product, built a house - or run a successful political campaign. All face challenges: all can be overcome with application.
The parallel with Brexit collapses because Brexit only ever made sense to people in denial of its internal contradictions. Every politician worth her salt knows the problems with coalitions.
Similarly relevant to pointing out the party affiliation of the bloke who hijacked Boris in the hospital.
(ie neither fact stopped what the person has to say being a story, but it's useful context to understand the motivations of those involved. I don't think "Cummings' wife" should be the top line of the story. But any write-through which didn't mention it would be depriving me as a reader of an important fact.)
Prime Minister: Margaret Beckett Chancellor: Jo Swinson Home Secretary: Amber Rudd Foreign Secretary: Emily Thornberry Justice: Dominic Grieve DExEU: Keir Starmer Health: Ed Davey DWP; John McDonnell Guru: Jeremy Corbyn
@Richard_Nabavi : I've been beating an occasional drum on another potential pitfall, namely the Labour party rulebook.
This is very restrictive on who can be PM should Labour go into government. It explicitly envisions that Labour in government should have its leader as PM and, only in the event of 'permanent unavailability' of the leader can this change. It then mandates that the Deputy Leader assumes that role. I don't know if a lawyer could get a sheet of paper into the wording used, but it looks to me reasonably clear.
So my reading is that Corbyn cannot just let someone else be PM if Labour joins the government. His only way is resigning, and then Watson would automatically assume the primacy for PM candidate.
To my mind Labour's conference shenanigans were less some vague panic at future succession, but a much more immediate need to be able to put forward somebody else in the event Corbyn could not command confidence after a VoNC, and wanted to push a lefty successor as the alternative within what was allowed by Labour's rules.
On the other hand Corbyn has said he would do everything necessary to prevent No Deal, his clarity on that must surely include considering compromise candidates if he is rejected, else he might choke on those words. This applies even though Watson is still the heir apparent.
One irony. If Labour were in government, there is much more flexibility as to who would assume if Corbyn resigned. It is chicken and egg though: Corbyn would have to become PM to gain such freedom of succession.
I think the way round might be this. Labour stay in opposition, performing a DUP type role, but release the whip temporarily from some of the preferred succession and unthreatening grandees. A few should suffice. If they can get a Long Bailey or some such in as PM candidate, fantastic.
This leaves some pretty bare looking government benches, Boris as Loto and Corbyn and Labour squeezed up tight to the Tories on the current SNP benches. What a lovefest that would be
As a final aside, I had a bit of a hunt round for what the Labour rules and approach were in 1940 when Attlee joined the national government. I didn't find good much, other than that the bringing down of Chamberlain seems to have been well timed around a Labour spring conference and Attlee went off to see the NEC in Bournemouth before Labour joined the government. Of course 'just get NEC approval for a rulebook change / exemption' seems a natural short-circuit to all the spiel above but, given what happened at conference, I'm not sure that is a good assumption.
Oh god, I miss the Zoolander era. Never such innocence again.
Zoolander came out in the States in September 2001.
An acquaintance of mine writes musicals, and had a bit of a break in 2001, when one of his works was due to transfer to Broadway having been a success in the West End.
The fact it was due to open in late September 2001 was really unlucky. What was worse, though, was that it focused on the Moors in Spain and ended with an Islamic flag fluttering over the smouldering ruins of a defeated city. Oops. It was quietly dropped before the first performance.
@Richard_Nabavi : I've been beating an occasional drum on another potential pitfall, namely the Labour party rulebook.
This is very restrictive on who can be PM should Labour go into government. It explicitly envisions that Labour in government should have its leader as PM and, only in the event of 'permanent unavailability' of the leader can this change. It then mandates that the Deputy Leader assumes that role. I don't know if a lawyer could get a sheet of paper into the wording used, but it looks to me reasonably clear.
So my reading is that Corbyn cannot just let someone else be PM if Labour joins the government. His only way is resigning, and then Watson would automatically assume the primacy for PM candidate.
To my mind Labour's conference shenanigans were less some vague panic at future succession, but a much more immediate need to be able to put forward somebody else in the event Corbyn could not command confidence after a VoNC, and wanted to push a lefty successor as the alternative within what was allowed by Labour's rules.
On the other hand Corbyn has said he would do everything necessary to prevent No Deal, his clarity on that must surely include considering compromise candidates if he is rejected, else he might choke on those words. This applies even though Watson is still the heir apparent.
One irony. If Labour were in government, there is much more flexibility as to who would assume if Corbyn resigned. It is chicken and egg though: Corbyn would have to become PM to gain such freedom of succession.
I think the way round might be this. Labour stay in opposition, performing a DUP type role, but release the whip temporarily from some of the preferred succession and unthreatening grandees. A few should suffice. If they can get a Long Bailey or some such in as PM candidate, fantastic.
This leaves some pretty bare looking government benches, Boris as Loto and Corbyn and Labour squeezed up tight to the Tories on the current SNP benches. What a lovefest that would be
As a final aside, I had a bit of a hunt round for what the Labour rules and approach were in 1940 when Attlee joined the national government. I didn't find good much, other than that the bringing down of Chamberlain seems to have been well timed around a Labour spring conference and Attlee went off to see the NEC in Bournemouth before Labour joined the government. Of course 'just get NEC approval for a rulebook change / exemption' seems a natural short-circuit to all the spiel above but, given what happened at conference, I'm not sure that is a good assumption.
I think you have identified the solution. It also makes compiling a Cabinet for an anti-no deal government rather easier, because the Corbynites can maintain the purity of opposition for now.
Assuming you've read that link? The third word is estimate, and 'rough' appears not much further down. And the 'figures' are from FY13. I have no idea how big the issue is, but your post is inherently contradictory. If we have no handle on it, we have no handle on it. We can't then claim with confidence that it's a non issue.
If we 'have no handle' on something it means we cannot make a reasonable estimate of its quantum. Conversely if we can make a reasonable estimate then it means we DO have a handle on it.
Examples -
Handle - the percentage of rapes that are not reported. Less Handle - the percentage of Remain voters who have visited a tanning salon. No Handle - the number of life forms in the known universe.
I would think that 'Health Tourism' is somewhere between the first two.
It makes complete sense. Use him up, then toss him aside like a scrunched-up tissue.
Or... All of those dire warnings we heard over the weekend that Boris would be removed from office this week were nothing more than piss and wind as Mike would say!
@Pro_Rata - You raise a good point. Even if Labour's formal rules could be circumvented, there is still the political issue of getting it past the NEC, unions and broader membership. None of that can be taken for granted.
A similar problem is true of the LibDems.
Also, I didn't mention the SNP, but it's not hard to imagine them insisting on something which the other players wouldn't be prepared to grant.
It makes complete sense. Use him up, then toss him aside like a scrunched-up tissue.
You do get decidely tumescent when you discuss thwarting Brexit. But chacun son gout.
Incidentally, you imply in your more blood-curdling posts that there is a way of reversing Brexit, and it will happen "in due course" etc etc. What is it?
Genuine question. I am quite neutral on Brexit these days. The fires have burned out. I have no more energy to expend on it, as it sucks in all energy. So vexing is pointless.
But I am still curious as to how it might pan out, and welcome theories thereto.
It makes complete sense. Use him up, then toss him aside like a scrunched-up tissue.
What if Boris resigns his seat, David Davis-style before the Benn Act deadline, and persuades enough fellow Tories to do the same? Wouldn’t Bercow have to call on Corbyn to do his duty?
As Richard's article states actually replacing the Government is going to be hard work - letting Boris carry on is the easiest option - as Pro-rota's excellent post more than confirms...
I mean, it seems most politically reasonable. Make sure Johnson is willing to to enforce the law passed. If he refuses, it gives them a bigger stick to hit him with later on. If he goes through with it, it can be used against him in a GE.
It seems unlikely they can form a GNU, so any VoNC is just a delayed call for a GE. I don't think any of the opposition parties want parliament dissolved on Oct 31st. So No VoNC and no passing legislation for GE until early Nov (at the earliest) seems likely.
I'm still thinking we may be looking at a Boxing Day GE; 4th of November is first Monday after Brexit Day, if there is a VoNC 14 days takes us to the 18th, if you have a 5 week GE that takes us to 26th being the Thursday of that week.
I mean, it seems most politically reasonable. Make sure Johnson is willing to to enforce the law passed. If he refuses, it gives them a bigger stick to hit him with later on. If he goes through with it, it can be used against him in a GE.
It seems unlikely they can form a GNU, so any VoNC is just a delayed call for a GE. I don't think any of the opposition parties want parliament dissolved on Oct 31st. So No VoNC and no passing legislation for GE until early Nov (at the earliest) seems likely.
I'm still thinking we may be looking at a Boxing Day GE; 4th of November is first Monday after Brexit Day, if there is a VoNC 14 days takes us to the 18th, if you have a 5 week GE that takes us to 26th being the Thursday of that week.
Presumably public holidays are excluded from the dates than can be election days?
It makes complete sense. Use him up, then toss him aside like a scrunched-up tissue.
If they're agreed on a plan, personnel and in what circumstances they'd be deployed, then it's probably clever politics. Forcing Boris/the Tories into an extension will turn the buccaneering "Do or Die" hero into one more windbag who can't keep his promises. Even if some/most voters blamed the opposition, enough of them would angrily (and in my view unwisely) peel off to Farage to cost Boris a majority.
On the other hand, if the opposition parties are fighting like rats in a sack over the plan, personnel and in what circumstances they'd be deployed.. and this statement is just can-kicking.. it's not a great omen for their prospects, especially if they need to do something in a hurry when Boris comes up with a cunning plan.
I mean, it seems most politically reasonable. Make sure Johnson is willing to to enforce the law passed. If he refuses, it gives them a bigger stick to hit him with later on. If he goes through with it, it can be used against him in a GE.
It seems unlikely they can form a GNU, so any VoNC is just a delayed call for a GE. I don't think any of the opposition parties want parliament dissolved on Oct 31st. So No VoNC and no passing legislation for GE until early Nov (at the earliest) seems likely.
I'm still thinking we may be looking at a Boxing Day GE; 4th of November is first Monday after Brexit Day, if there is a VoNC 14 days takes us to the 18th, if you have a 5 week GE that takes us to 26th being the Thursday of that week.
Presumably public holidays are excluded from the dates than can be election days?
General Election on Christmas day. Absolubte scenes.
I mean, it seems most politically reasonable. Make sure Johnson is willing to to enforce the law passed. If he refuses, it gives them a bigger stick to hit him with later on. If he goes through with it, it can be used against him in a GE.
It seems unlikely they can form a GNU, so any VoNC is just a delayed call for a GE. I don't think any of the opposition parties want parliament dissolved on Oct 31st. So No VoNC and no passing legislation for GE until early Nov (at the earliest) seems likely.
I'm still thinking we may be looking at a Boxing Day GE; 4th of November is first Monday after Brexit Day, if there is a VoNC 14 days takes us to the 18th, if you have a 5 week GE that takes us to 26th being the Thursday of that week.
Presumably public holidays are excluded from the dates than can be election days?
Other options include 2nd of Jan or 9th Jan... I mean, besides the issue of postal voting during Christmas season, a public holiday is a great time for an election, because most people won't be at work and would have the whole day to vote. Hence why some places have / want voting days to be national holidays.
If I were Johnson I'd call up the Telegraph and get a photo op set up with an unsigned letter for the 19th 'I will never sign this letter'. Having termed it a "surrender act" I think he's got to go all in whether it means a creative interpretation of the law or not.
I mean, it seems most politically reasonable. Make sure Johnson is willing to to enforce the law passed. If he refuses, it gives them a bigger stick to hit him with later on. If he goes through with it, it can be used against him in a GE.
It seems unlikely they can form a GNU, so any VoNC is just a delayed call for a GE. I don't think any of the opposition parties want parliament dissolved on Oct 31st. So No VoNC and no passing legislation for GE until early Nov (at the earliest) seems likely.
I'm still thinking we may be looking at a Boxing Day GE; 4th of November is first Monday after Brexit Day, if there is a VoNC 14 days takes us to the 18th, if you have a 5 week GE that takes us to 26th being the Thursday of that week.
My comment was more a cry of pain, I think.
Like the rest of the country, I am now sick of Brexit. Sick of everything about it, sick of the miasma that surrounds it, sick of the contortions required to justify it, or justify its thwarting. It is a disease infecting us.
Cut it out, get it done. Apply it or annul it, I am beyond caring. Most of all, give us a bloody election where, if the politicians won't do it, we will elect politicians that do have the bollocks: to enact or reject it.
This endless stasis is sickening, and here is just another example of cowardly politicians kicking the decision down the lane. PFFFFFFF
I mean, it seems most politically reasonable. Make sure Johnson is willing to to enforce the law passed. If he refuses, it gives them a bigger stick to hit him with later on. If he goes through with it, it can be used against him in a GE.
It seems unlikely they can form a GNU, so any VoNC is just a delayed call for a GE. I don't think any of the opposition parties want parliament dissolved on Oct 31st. So No VoNC and no passing legislation for GE until early Nov (at the earliest) seems likely.
I'm still thinking we may be looking at a Boxing Day GE; 4th of November is first Monday after Brexit Day, if there is a VoNC 14 days takes us to the 18th, if you have a 5 week GE that takes us to 26th being the Thursday of that week.
My comment was more a cry of pain, I think.
Like the rest of the country, I am now sick of Brexit. Sick of everything about it, sick of the miasma that surrounds it, sick of the contortions required to justify it, or justify its thwarting. It is a disease infecting us.
Cut it out, get it done. Apply it or annul it, I am beyond caring. Most of all, give us a bloody election where, if the politicians won't do it, we will elect politicians that do have the bollocks: to enact or reject it.
This endless stasis is sickening, and here is just another example of cowardly politicians kicking the decision down the lane. PFFFFFFF
There is no end to Brexit. Every scenario leaves this festering scab on our polity for a generation. The only "unifying" scenario I can see is a Norwayesque Brexit where the moderate Leave, moderate Remain and the other don't really cares can all go "yeah, it doesn't completely ruin everything, but allows us to actually leave the technical polity of the EU".
Mr Justice Wilkie said in his sentencing remarks: "I have to consider schedule 21 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. There is no doubt that this murder was done for the purpose of advancing a political, racial and ideological cause namely that of violent white supremacism and exclusive nationalism most associated with Nazism and its modern forms. That is one of the indices of an offence of exceptionally high seriousness for which the appropriate starting point is a whole life term."
Too right too foreigners need to pay, they don't get it free...
My dad works for a local CCG; it probably wouldn't surprise you to learn that it usually costs more in administration and contract fees to charge people than to not.
I'm a pretty liberal sort of guy - but that just feels wrong. My recollection of the time I visited a GP whilst on holiday in Australia you pay upfront and then reclaim.
I mean, the NHS isn't designed for anyone to pay up front, the idea is you walk through the door, you get seen (eventually), you go once healthy. Doctors and nurses and whatnot are not trained (rightly so imo) to question people whether they "should" be paying, nor are they trained to tell patients they need to pay up. Universal healthcare is known to be cheaper if it is just that; universal. Otherwise you need an entire extra wing of a finance department just to process payments. "Health tourism" is less than half a % of NHS costs, current estimates put it at around 0.3%. It is not an issue.
Doesn't everyone entitled to healthcare have a NI number?
Obviously emergency care is different, but for stuff like GPs/dentists/ongoing care you could validate this when you book/arrive.
The point is that it has never been considered by healthcare professionals their job to deal with that side of things. Therefore, you add a layer of administration and costs to trying to recoup costs, which on average are more than the costs of the healthcare provided anyway. The current target is £500 million a year recouped. I can't see anywhere that says that is net (so £500 mil on top of whatever they spend to collect it), so they could claim success if they spend £600 million trying to recoup £500 mil. And costs of staff, administration, advertising, training, computer systems, etc etc across all the local authorities could easily cost more than £500 million.
Community (retail) pharmacists have to deal with taking money from 20% of their prescription customers.Usually it's fine; most people who expect to pay pay up, although if there are three or four items on the prescriptions £27 or £36 can come as a shock to the Just About Managing, especially in the third week of the month. And it's no fun being asked 'which of these have I got to have' or 'which is the most important' by a distressed JAM mother. Even though I understand that nowadays one can use a credit card.
I mean, it seems most politically reasonable. Make sure Johnson is willing to to enforce the law passed. If he refuses, it gives them a bigger stick to hit him with later on. If he goes through with it, it can be used against him in a GE.
It seems unlikely they can form a GNU, so any VoNC is just a delayed call for a GE. I don't think any of the opposition parties want parliament dissolved on Oct 31st. So No VoNC and no passing legislation for GE until early Nov (at the earliest) seems likely.
I'm still thinking we may be looking at a Boxing Day GE; 4th of November is first Monday after Brexit Day, if there is a VoNC 14 days takes us to the 18th, if you have a 5 week GE that takes us to 26th being the Thursday of that week.
If the date of the opposition VONC is known, shouldn't BJ put forward a one line bill enabling a GE the day before?
Give a date for the GE, and get rid of the 14 day period where another could theoretically gain the confidence of the house and become PM for an undefined period.
Boris will come back with a slightly prettier version of May's deal and put it to parliament. Are remainers who have been 'beside themselves with worry' about a no-deal seriously going to vote it down? It would look utterly ridiculous to the country and strip them of any credibility they still possess.
Their obvious political game playing would still be thwarted because the government would resign before submitting the extension request...there is precisely zero political upside in writing that letter.
Remainer groups would then form a circular firing squad to ensure nobody was left standing after 14 days of trying to come up with a temporary PM to do the deed. Or even more ludicrously, try and form a GoNU.
And at the end of all this game playing they will have to face the country finally and get slaughtered...at least Labour will.
It is barmy, and unnecessary, vote the deal through and then the main parties* can go to the country on a domestically focused platform to the relief of the vast majority of voters.
*LD's and SNP can make hay with their post-Brexit positioning.
If I were Johnson I'd call up the Telegraph and get a photo op set up with an unsigned letter for the 19th 'I will never sign this letter'. Having termed it a "surrender act" I think he's got to go all in whether it means a creative interpretation of the law or not.
And what does that actual solve - we already know Boris doesn't want to sign the letter. Whether he is happy to go to jail (for failing to sign the letter as the law requires) and be sued for potentially billions (as the consequence of not signing that letter) instead of signing the letter is the bigger question.
After all we know Boris lies - he's been fired twice for doing so...
I mean, it seems most politically reasonable. Make sure Johnson is willing to to enforce the law passed. If he refuses, it gives them a bigger stick to hit him with later on. If he goes through with it, it can be used against him in a GE.
It seems unlikely they can form a GNU, so any VoNC is just a delayed call for a GE. I don't think any of the opposition parties want parliament dissolved on Oct 31st. So No VoNC and no passing legislation for GE until early Nov (at the earliest) seems likely.
I'm still thinking we may be looking at a Boxing Day GE; 4th of November is first Monday after Brexit Day, if there is a VoNC 14 days takes us to the 18th, if you have a 5 week GE that takes us to 26th being the Thursday of that week.
My comment was more a cry of pain, I think.
Like the rest of the country, I am now sick of Brexit. Sick of everything about it, sick of the miasma that surrounds it, sick of the contortions required to justify it, or justify its thwarting. It is a disease infecting us.
Cut it out, get it done. Apply it or annul it, I am beyond caring. Most of all, give us a bloody election where, if the politicians won't do it, we will elect politicians that do have the bollocks: to enact or reject it.
This endless stasis is sickening, and here is just another example of cowardly politicians kicking the decision down the lane. PFFFFFFF
There is no end to Brexit. Every scenario leaves this festering scab on our polity for a generation. The only "unifying" scenario I can see is a Norwayesque Brexit where the moderate Leave, moderate Remain and the other don't really cares can all go "yeah, it doesn't completely ruin everything, but allows us to actually leave the technical polity of the EU".
I fear you are right. What a fucking mess.
But there must be a resolution, even a great big fucking mess gets cleared up in the end.
A 2nd referendum looks increasingly likely to me. Perhaps it is the only route out, however invidious and problematic.
As Richard's article states actually replacing the Government is going to be hard work - letting Boris carry on is the easiest option - as Pro-rota's excellent post more than confirms...
How will the government be forced to carry on if parliament votes down the deal that is brought back?
This is the way to go. Johnson needs to be allowed to fail to get a Deal. The Deal that he has promised is a virtual certainty. In fact IMO the Benn Act was premature because it gives him an effective soundbite ('Surrender Act') and a semblance of an excuse for the failure. That parliament ruined his leverage by taking No Deal away. Bollox, of course, but nevertheless it would IMO have been better to have humoured him, played along, held off on all the resistance activity until after the summit. Then jugular.
I think you would have to maximise the payroll vote in a GNU. This might mean extending the number of ministers and spliting up current roles. All MPs who support GNU would then be tied into it to sustain a majority and give them a reason to support it. I dont think a skeleton cabinet is the way forward and i dont fear Corbyn/McDonnell as they will not have a majority for extreame socialist measures.
Presumably all these ministers would get pay-rises and pensions...
I mean, it seems most politically reasonable. Make sure Johnson is willing to to enforce the law passed. If he refuses, it gives them a bigger stick to hit him with later on. If he goes through with it, it can be used against him in a GE.
It seems unlikely they can form a GNU, so any VoNC is just a delayed call for a GE. I don't think any of the opposition parties want parliament dissolved on Oct 31st. So No VoNC and no passing legislation for GE until early Nov (at the earliest) seems likely.
I'm still thinking we may be looking at a Boxing Day GE; 4th of November is first Monday after Brexit Day, if there is a VoNC 14 days takes us to the 18th, if you have a 5 week GE that takes us to 26th being the Thursday of that week.
I agree it is is very unlikely that a motion for a GE, or VONC, will be carried until after 4 November (which is the day of the election of the new speaker) and so the earliest possible election date is well into December. But in reality I think it would be delayed until after Christmas - perhaps quite a long time after. The EU has always said it would allow an extension for an election so if it was asked to go to. say, 31st March rather than 31st January, that would not be a problem.
And what does that actual solve - we already know Boris doesn't want to sign the letter. Whether he is happy to go to jail (for failing to sign the letter as the law requires) and be sued for potentially billions (as the consequence of not signing that letter) instead of signing the letter is the bigger question.
After all we know Boris lies - he's been fired twice for doing so...
Or the government resigns when remainer MPs vote down the deal brought back.
How will the government be forced to carry on if parliament votes down the deal that is brought back?
The opposition's tactics are predicated on the assumption that there will not be a Deal done at the summit. If there is one, that will be game-changer. Personally, I would be extremely surprised.
How will the government be forced to carry on if parliament votes down the deal that is brought back?
The opposition's tactics are predicated on the assumption that there will not be a Deal done at the summit. If there is one, that will be game-changer. Personally, I would be extremely surprised.
NI Only backstop, rebranded as Boris' amazing deal.
I've just realised that one of the reasons I visit this site is because I subconsciously hope that one day a commenter will pop on here, with an amazing insight, that begins
"OK guys, I've got it. I've worked out what will happen with Brexit"
The commenter will then explain, with dazzling lucidity, exactly what will occur, and why, over the next months and years, and I will finally be able to forget about this tedious cavalcade of cack.
I mean, it seems most politically reasonable. Make sure Johnson is willing to to enforce the law passed. If he refuses, it gives them a bigger stick to hit him with later on. If he goes through with it, it can be used against him in a GE.
It seems unlikely they can form a GNU, so any VoNC is just a delayed call for a GE. I don't think any of the opposition parties want parliament dissolved on Oct 31st. So No VoNC and no passing legislation for GE until early Nov (at the earliest) seems likely.
I'm still thinking we may be looking at a Boxing Day GE; 4th of November is first Monday after Brexit Day, if there is a VoNC 14 days takes us to the 18th, if you have a 5 week GE that takes us to 26th being the Thursday of that week.
My comment was more a cry of pain, I think.
Like the rest of the country, I am now sick of Brexit. Sick of everything about it, sick of the miasma that surrounds it, sick of the contortions required to justify it, or justify its thwarting. It is a disease infecting us.
Cut it out, get it done. Apply it or annul it, I am beyond caring. Most of all, give us a bloody election where, if the politicians won't do it, we will elect politicians that do have the bollocks: to enact or reject it.
This endless stasis is sickening, and here is just another example of cowardly politicians kicking the decision down the lane. PFFFFFFF
There is no end to Brexit. Every scenario leaves this festering scab on our polity for a generation.
You would think so but then "events" can move on very quickly.
I mean around 1910 people were seriously thinking we might have a civil war over the People's Budget impasse but within five years that had all been forgotten about and we had a unity government during a World War.
And no I'm not predicting another world war just saying that things can move on a lot quicker than people might expect.
Dentists and opticians manage to do this. As do pharmacies. And all GPs already have receptionists, so no extra cost.
Pharmacies sell many other products besides NHS prescriptions. And dentists generally do substantial amounts of private work, unlike NHS GP surgeries. Setting up a payment system to collect small amounts of cash from a small minority of visitors to NHS GPs is unlikely to be cost effective. And it would undoubtedly lead to cases of the elderly and vulnerable (being the least likely to remember or have a record of their NI number) not visiting their GP when they should.
A payment system involves more than just receptionists - there would be cash handling (very expensive bank charges), bank accounts, accounting systems, audits etc etc.
This is the way to go. Johnson needs to be allowed to fail to get a Deal. The Deal that he has promised is a virtual certainty. In fact IMO the Benn Act was premature because it gives him an effective soundbite ('Surrender Act') and a semblance of an excuse for the failure. That parliament ruined his leverage by taking No Deal away. Bollox, of course, but nevertheless it would IMO have been better to have humoured him, played along, held off on all the resistance activity until after the summit. Then jugular.
If I were feeling particularly spiteful, I'd table a VoNC tomorrow evening, blow up BoJo's conference speech plans, use the VoNC debate to lecture him on 'What we will make you do and what we will do in response' (in the fashion of a Bond baddie expositing his plans), then fail to move / provide tellers / abstain on the VoNC vote itself.
BoJo seems more a Johnny English (or perhaps No Johnny English) character than a Bond, so chances are that, hopefully, he won't wriggle out of the plan, even though it has been explained to him in full.
I mean, it seems most politically reasonable. Make sure Johnson is willing to to enforce the law passed. If he refuses, it gives them a bigger stick to hit him with later on. If he goes through with it, it can be used against him in a GE.
It seems unlikely they can form a GNU, so any VoNC is just a delayed call for a GE. I don't think any of the opposition parties want parliament dissolved on Oct 31st. So No VoNC and no passing legislation for GE until early Nov (at the earliest) seems likely.
I'm still thinking we may be looking at a Boxing Day GE; 4th of November is first Monday after Brexit Day, if there is a VoNC 14 days takes us to the 18th, if you have a 5 week GE that takes us to 26th being the Thursday of that week.
My comment was more a cry of pain, I think.
Like the rest of the country, I am now sick of Brexit. Sick of everything about it, sick of the miasma that surrounds it, sick of the contortions required to justify it, or justify its thwarting. It is a disease infecting us.
Cut it out, get it done. Apply it or annul it, I am beyond caring. Most of all, give us a bloody election where, if the politicians won't do it, we will elect politicians that do have the bollocks: to enact or reject it.
This endless stasis is sickening, and here is just another example of cowardly politicians kicking the decision down the lane. PFFFFFFF
There is no end to Brexit. Every scenario leaves this festering scab on our polity for a generation.
You would think so but then "events" can move on very quickly.
I mean around 1910 people were seriously thinking we might have a civil war over the People's Budget impasse but within five years that had all been forgotten about and we had a unity government during a World War.
And no I'm not predicting another world war just saying that things can move on a lot quicker than people might think.
There was a bit of bother about Ireland 1912 onwards, too!
I mean, it seems most politically reasonable. Make sure Johnson is willing to to enforce the law passed. If he refuses, it gives them a bigger stick to hit him with later on. If he goes through with it, it can be used against him in a GE.
It seems unlikely they can form a GNU, so any VoNC is just a delayed call for a GE. I don't think any of the opposition parties want parliament dissolved on Oct 31st. So No VoNC and no passing legislation for GE until early Nov (at the earliest) seems likely.
I'm still thinking we may be looking at a Boxing Day GE; 4th of November is first Monday after Brexit Day, if there is a VoNC 14 days takes us to the 18th, if you have a 5 week GE that takes us to 26th being the Thursday of that week.
My comment was more a cry of pain, I think.
Like the rest of the country, I am now sick of Brexit. Sick of everything about it, sick of the miasma that surrounds it, sick of the contortions required to justify it, or justify its thwarting. It is a disease infecting us.
Cut it out, get it done. Apply it or annul it, I am beyond caring. Most of all, give us a bloody election where, if the politicians won't do it, we will elect politicians that do have the bollocks: to enact or reject it.
This endless stasis is sickening, and here is just another example of cowardly politicians kicking the decision down the lane. PFFFFFFF
There is no end to Brexit. Every scenario leaves this festering scab on our polity for a generation.
You would think so but then "events" can move on very quickly.
I mean around 1910 people were seriously thinking we might have a civil war over the People's Budget impasse but within five years that had all been forgotten about and we had a unity government during a World War.
And no I'm not predicting another world war just saying that things can move on a lot quicker than people might expect.
Irreversible catastrophic ecological collapse? That makes everything else moot.
The opposition's tactics are predicated on the assumption that there will not be a Deal done at the summit. If there is one, that will be game-changer. Personally, I would be extremely surprised.
I'd be very surprised if a deal wasn't brought back.
I'm pretty sure we all know it will be little different to May's deal other than the odd tweak in the hope it gives enough remainers the wriggle room to back it.
Surely MPs must be sick enough now to vote it through, it isn't as if even the most ultra-remainer MP couldn't say they fought the whole process.
I mean, it seems most politically reasonable. Make sure Johnson is willing to to enforce the law passed. If he refuses, it gives them a bigger stick to hit him with later on. If he goes through with it, it can be used against him in a GE.
It seems unlikely they can form a GNU, so any VoNC is just a delayed call for a GE. I don't think any of the opposition parties want parliament dissolved on Oct 31st. So No VoNC and no passing legislation for GE until early Nov (at the earliest) seems likely.
I'm still thinking we may be looking at a Boxing Day GE; 4th of November is first Monday after Brexit Day, if there is a VoNC 14 days takes us to the 18th, if you have a 5 week GE that takes us to 26th being the Thursday of that week.
My comment was more a cry of pain, I think.
Like the rest of the country, I am now sick of Brexit. Sick of everything about it, sick of the miasma that surrounds it, sick of the contortions required to justify it, or justify its thwarting. It is a disease infecting us.
Cut it out, get it done. Apply it or annul it, I am beyond caring. Most of all, give us a bloody election where, if the politicians won't do it, we will elect politicians that do have the bollocks: to enact or reject it.
This endless stasis is sickening, and here is just another example of cowardly politicians kicking the decision down the lane. PFFFFFFF
There is no end to Brexit. Every scenario leaves this festering scab on our polity for a generation.
You would think so but then "events" can move on very quickly.
I mean around 1910 people were seriously thinking we might have a civil war over the People's Budget impasse but within five years that had all been forgotten about and we had a unity government during a World War.
And no I'm not predicting another world war just saying that things can move on a lot quicker than people might think.
There was a bit of bother about Ireland 1912 onwards, too!
Dentists and opticians manage to do this. As do pharmacies. And all GPs already have receptionists, so no extra cost.
Pharmacies sell many other products besides NHS prescriptions. And dentists generally do substantial amounts of private work, unlike NHS GP surgeries. Setting up a payment system to collect small amounts of cash from a small minority of visitors to NHS GPs is unlikely to be cost effective. And it would undoubtedly lead to cases of the elderly and vulnerable (being the least likely to remember or have a record of their NI number) not visiting their GP when they should.
A payment system involves more than just receptionists - there would be cash handling (very expensive bank charges), bank accounts, accounting systems, audits etc etc.
Over the next couple of decades we are going to see increasing amounts of migration caused by climate change.
Free at the point of use healthcare is barely sustainable for a fixed population within one country; opening it up to the globe is totally unsustainable. It will come; it's a question of when. Like May's proposals for social care, and pension ages being pushed out.
I've just realised that one of the reasons I visit this site is because I subconsciously hope that one day a commenter will pop on here, with an amazing insight, that begins
"OK guys, I've got it. I've worked out what will happen with Brexit"
The commenter will then explain, with dazzling lucidity, exactly what will occur, and why, over the next months and years, and I will finally be able to forget about this tedious cavalcade of cack. ...
You got it already - a tedious cavalcade of cack. That's it.
Apropos of nothing I 've confirmed the reason both private and public health care in Spain is way more cost effective than in the UK. Doctora verage salary around €58,000. Having experienced their care they are worth every cent and some!
NI Only backstop, rebranded as Boris' amazing deal.
If there is one, I guess it will be that. And it WOULD be amazing. It would be amazing in 2 senses of the word. It would be great. And I would be amazed.
Interesting article in the NYT; "What's the Matter with Republicans", which will no doubt annoy a good number of people.
Seems reasonable acute to me, FWIW.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/opinion/republicans-trump-impeachment.html ...Month after month, with one outrageous, norm-shattering comment or action giving way to another, Republicans who in the past could never have envisioned being Trump acolytes, have been ground down. Accommodation has kicked in, which is a psychological relief to many of them. For those who view Mr. Trump as a model politician who voices their grievances and fights with a viciousness they have long hoped for from Republicans, the accommodation is not just a relief but a source of delight.
As the psychologist I spoke to put it to me, many Republicans “are nearly unrecognizable versions of themselves pre-Trump. At this stage it’s less about defending Trump; they are defending their own defense of Trump.”
“At this point,” this person went on, “condemnation of Trump is condemnation of themselves. They’ve let too much go by to try and assert moral high ground now. Calling out another is one thing; calling out yourself is quite another.”
As a result, many in Mr. Trump’s party not only refuse to challenge his maliciousness; they have adopted his approach. They have embraced his “will to power” worldview. After dealing with Mr. Trump, “you’re definitely denuded and jaded,” one Republican who has interacted recently with members of Congress told me. “Your sense of perspective is totally warped.”
Many Republicans now find themselves in a place they never envisioned — not only defending Mr. Trump but doing so with gusto. Those who once defended traditional values now relish siding with the Great Transgressor. “Owning the libs” turns out to be a lot of fun. But it also comes at a high cost...
Hmm. Not a huge problem, I think, but the touchscreen on my HP Envy 5020 printer has decided responding is optional. Must have entered the stroppy teenager phase.
How will the government be forced to carry on if parliament votes down the deal that is brought back?
The opposition's tactics are predicated on the assumption that there will not be a Deal done at the summit. If there is one, that will be game-changer. Personally, I would be extremely surprised.
If Johnson is forced to seek the extension, as I think he will be, a VONC may not be possible as I think the rebel Tories would not back it in those circumstances. Having obtained the extension some of them at least would be seeking to regain the Tory whip, and Johnson would then be in a very weak position and would have to give in to pressure from Tory moderate MP and readmit them.
How will the government be forced to carry on if parliament votes down the deal that is brought back?
The opposition's tactics are predicated on the assumption that there will not be a Deal done at the summit. If there is one, that will be game-changer. Personally, I would be extremely surprised.
If Johnson is forced to seek the extension, as I think he will be, a VONC may not be possible as I think the rebel Tories would not back it in those circumstances. Having obtained the extension some of them at least would be seeking to regain the Tory whip, and Johnson would then be in a very weak position and would have to give in to pressure from Tory moderate MP and readmit them.
Johnson lost his majority before sacking the rebels though.
I've just realised that one of the reasons I visit this site is because I subconsciously hope that one day a commenter will pop on here, with an amazing insight, that begins
"OK guys, I've got it. I've worked out what will happen with Brexit"
The commenter will then explain, with dazzling lucidity, exactly what will occur, and why, over the next months and years, and I will finally be able to forget about this tedious cavalcade of cack.
Hasn't happened yet, natch.
1. United Kingdom votes to leave the EU with over 17 million votes cast in favour.
2. Remainer dominated parliament use all means to thwart the referendum result whilst hiding from electorate.
3. Tory PM gives them final chance in the form of a deal which they refuse to accept instead resorting to a final legislative tantrum which fails because...
4. Government resigns; temporary PM (of Labour flavour) has to submit extension request and has to call GE.
5. Labour decimated at the GE and Tory PM is returned with mandate and MPs to finally implement the will of the people.
Too right too foreigners need to pay, they don't get it free...
Ummm, that's not the issue. Why is the NHS handing over confidential data to a private company? I don't want to Experian to know my medical history.
Good job that's not being shared then.
The information - including name, address, date of birth and NHS number"
That's the sort of data which is routine shared - assuming you have the appropriate GDPR approvals - with credit agencies
Name, address, dob and the fact that you have sought medical treatment. That's an intensely private combination of data. It doesn't belong in the hands of anyone without my explicit consent. Obviously that consent extends to the health service. But I have never given my consent for Experian to know, and nor have I any desire to. Furthermore, it is not necessary for my treatment for Experian to know.
Comments
There's just more to it than first meets the eye. Same goes for everything in life.
We've had at least three coalition govts in the past century: all achieved their main objective, though all had their probs.
From which the next GONU can learn.
Why isn't everyone at the show laughing their nipples to bits?
Zoolander was too restrained, if anything.
They can't agree on whether to VoNC the government.
They can't agree if they want an election.
They can't agree on a Brexit deal.
And yet they are now talking of constructing a hugely complicated and unstable GoNU to avoid having to face the people and you wonder why the country is getting ever more enraged.
It is like Cummings has handed them a pre-election wish list and they are busy buying everything and wrapping it beautifully for him.
Tomorrows worthwhile use of time
2) NI number is used all the time. I know mine off by heart.
3) everyone gets issued a card at 16. If it was mandatory to show, people would apply for a replacement.
The only two other times its happened was in 1931 (that was basically a landslide Conservative government but with a Labour PM at the insistence of the King) and Cameron's coalition which really happened by accident because Cameron was too useless to secure a majority again Brown in 2010.
Given how divided the country is at the moment it's more likely to ne a government if national disunity. It's hard to see it getting off the ground.
More likely is that Cobryn is put in as a minority Labour government to write the extension letter and then fire the starting gun for the general election - But then thinking about it even that seems highly unlikely.
2) Okay, that's you, how many of the general public do you think fall in that bracket?
3) So will NI Cards be reissued for free? Do you think people won't lose it, reapply for them and lose them again, all at cost to taxpayer? Or should government refuse to reissue them without payment, taxing people again for the privilege of their healthcare?
It is a minimal cost to the system that people who aren't "supposed" to use the NHS for free do. It makes the system as a whole less efficient to recoup that small cost. I do not see it as a significant moral or practical issue.
The parallel with Brexit collapses because Brexit only ever made sense to people in denial of its internal contradictions. Every politician worth her salt knows the problems with coalitions.
It came out two weeks after 9/11, which maybe explains its original bad reviews (given that it is now a cult favourite)
It has a very brief cameo from Donald and Melania Trump.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOs_A-nzesA
... which in turn leads to the observation that Melania Trump was, in her youth, just unbelievably good looking. Stunningly lovely. Haunting.
Probably the most beautiful wife of a US president, or any major leader of a major nation, in history. She makes Carla Bruni* look plain.
*That's the same Carla Bruni as had an affair with Trump. For an orange coloured buffoon, Trump has quite the strike rate.
Prime Minister: Margaret Beckett
Chancellor: Jo Swinson
Home Secretary: Amber Rudd
Foreign Secretary: Emily Thornberry
Justice: Dominic Grieve
DExEU: Keir Starmer
Health: Ed Davey
DWP; John McDonnell
Guru: Jeremy Corbyn
This is very restrictive on who can be PM should Labour go into government. It explicitly envisions that Labour in government should have its leader as PM and, only in the event of 'permanent unavailability' of the leader can this change. It then mandates that the Deputy Leader assumes that role. I don't know if a lawyer could get a sheet of paper into the wording used, but it looks to me reasonably clear.
So my reading is that Corbyn cannot just let someone else be PM if Labour joins the government. His only way is resigning, and then Watson would automatically assume the primacy for PM candidate.
To my mind Labour's conference shenanigans were less some vague panic at future succession, but a much more immediate need to be able to put forward somebody else in the event Corbyn could not command confidence after a VoNC, and wanted to push a lefty successor as the alternative within what was allowed by Labour's rules.
On the other hand Corbyn has said he would do everything necessary to prevent No Deal, his clarity on that must surely include considering compromise candidates if he is rejected, else he might choke on those words. This applies even though Watson is still the heir apparent.
One irony. If Labour were in government, there is much more flexibility as to who would assume if Corbyn resigned. It is chicken and egg though: Corbyn would have to become PM to gain such freedom of succession.
I think the way round might be this. Labour stay in opposition, performing a DUP type role, but release the whip temporarily from some of the preferred succession and unthreatening grandees. A few should suffice. If they can get a Long Bailey or some such in as PM candidate, fantastic.
This leaves some pretty bare looking government benches, Boris as Loto and Corbyn and Labour squeezed up tight to the Tories on the current SNP benches. What a lovefest that would be
As a final aside, I had a bit of a hunt round for what the Labour rules and approach were in 1940 when Attlee joined the national government. I didn't find good much, other than that the bringing down of Chamberlain seems to have been well timed around a Labour spring conference and Attlee went off to see the NEC in Bournemouth before Labour joined the government. Of course 'just get NEC approval for a rulebook change / exemption' seems a natural short-circuit to all the spiel above but, given what happened at conference, I'm not sure that is a good assumption.
I think Sam Cam has a decent claim on the title of "hottest wife of a British prime minister"
THESE are the important issues. Priorities, everyone.
Just pathetic.
The fact it was due to open in late September 2001 was really unlucky. What was worse, though, was that it focused on the Moors in Spain and ended with an Islamic flag fluttering over the smouldering ruins of a defeated city. Oops. It was quietly dropped before the first performance.
Examples -
Handle - the percentage of rapes that are not reported.
Less Handle - the percentage of Remain voters who have visited a tanning salon.
No Handle - the number of life forms in the known universe.
I would think that 'Health Tourism' is somewhere between the first two.
A similar problem is true of the LibDems.
Also, I didn't mention the SNP, but it's not hard to imagine them insisting on something which the other players wouldn't be prepared to grant.
Incidentally, you imply in your more blood-curdling posts that there is a way of reversing Brexit, and it will happen "in due course" etc etc. What is it?
Genuine question. I am quite neutral on Brexit these days. The fires have burned out. I have no more energy to expend on it, as it sucks in all energy. So vexing is pointless.
But I am still curious as to how it might pan out, and welcome theories thereto.
It seems unlikely they can form a GNU, so any VoNC is just a delayed call for a GE. I don't think any of the opposition parties want parliament dissolved on Oct 31st. So No VoNC and no passing legislation for GE until early Nov (at the earliest) seems likely.
I'm still thinking we may be looking at a Boxing Day GE; 4th of November is first Monday after Brexit Day, if there is a VoNC 14 days takes us to the 18th, if you have a 5 week GE that takes us to 26th being the Thursday of that week.
Which seemed to imply that the information was available to them - since if it wasn't, their lack of interest would not be particularly relevant.
But if I got the wrong of the stick, good news.
Most certain to prevent a "No Deal" Brexit ? Nope.
On the other hand, if the opposition parties are fighting like rats in a sack over the plan, personnel and in what circumstances they'd be deployed.. and this statement is just can-kicking.. it's not a great omen for their prospects, especially if they need to do something in a hurry when Boris comes up with a cunning plan.
Like the rest of the country, I am now sick of Brexit. Sick of everything about it, sick of the miasma that surrounds it, sick of the contortions required to justify it, or justify its thwarting. It is a disease infecting us.
Cut it out, get it done. Apply it or annul it, I am beyond caring. Most of all, give us a bloody election where, if the politicians won't do it, we will elect politicians that do have the bollocks: to enact or reject it.
This endless stasis is sickening, and here is just another example of cowardly politicians kicking the decision down the lane. PFFFFFFF
re: Jo Cox murder
Mr Justice Wilkie said in his sentencing remarks:
"I have to consider schedule 21 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. There is no doubt that this murder was done for the purpose of advancing a political, racial and ideological cause namely that of violent white supremacism and exclusive nationalism most associated with Nazism and its modern forms. That is one of the indices of an offence of exceptionally high seriousness for which the appropriate starting point is a whole life term."
Ok. But not because of Brexit then.
Any word on whether that hurricane's going to hit us or not?
And it's no fun being asked 'which of these have I got to have' or 'which is the most important' by a distressed JAM mother. Even though I understand that nowadays one can use a credit card.
Give a date for the GE, and get rid of the 14 day period where another could theoretically gain the confidence of the house and become PM for an undefined period.
Boris will come back with a slightly prettier version of May's deal and put it to parliament. Are remainers who have been 'beside themselves with worry' about a no-deal seriously going to vote it down? It would look utterly ridiculous to the country and strip them of any credibility they still possess.
Their obvious political game playing would still be thwarted because the government would resign before submitting the extension request...there is precisely zero political upside in writing that letter.
Remainer groups would then form a circular firing squad to ensure nobody was left standing after 14 days of trying to come up with a temporary PM to do the deed. Or even more ludicrously, try and form a GoNU.
And at the end of all this game playing they will have to face the country finally and get slaughtered...at least Labour will.
It is barmy, and unnecessary, vote the deal through and then the main parties* can go to the country on a domestically focused platform to the relief of the vast majority of voters.
*LD's and SNP can make hay with their post-Brexit positioning.
(iNews claims Queen 'sought advice' on under precisely what circumstances she can sack the PM.)
After all we know Boris lies - he's been fired twice for doing so...
But there must be a resolution, even a great big fucking mess gets cleared up in the end.
A 2nd referendum looks increasingly likely to me. Perhaps it is the only route out, however invidious and problematic.
In an age when populations are increasingly on the move, no questions asked healthcare will become unsustainable. It's not so much if, but when.
What then?
There would almost certainly be one or two idiots who wouldn't sign away their rights which would be used heavily in a GE campaign.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49881980
The information - including name, address, date of birth and NHS number"
That's the sort of data which is routine shared - assuming you have the appropriate GDPR approvals - with credit agencies
"OK guys, I've got it. I've worked out what will happen with Brexit"
The commenter will then explain, with dazzling lucidity, exactly what will occur, and why, over the next months and years, and I will finally be able to forget about this tedious cavalcade of cack.
Hasn't happened yet, natch.
I mean around 1910 people were seriously thinking we might have a civil war over the People's Budget impasse but within five years that had all been forgotten about and we had a unity government during a World War.
And no I'm not predicting another world war
A payment system involves more than just receptionists - there would be cash handling (very expensive bank charges), bank accounts, accounting systems, audits etc etc.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7520143/Piers-Morgan-accuses-David-Lammy-spreading-fake-news.html
and what we will do in response' (in the fashion of a Bond baddie expositing his plans), then fail to move / provide tellers / abstain on the VoNC vote itself.
BoJo seems more a Johnny English (or perhaps No Johnny English) character than a Bond, so chances are that, hopefully, he won't wriggle out of the plan, even though it has been explained to him in full.
I'm pretty sure we all know it will be little different to May's deal other than the odd tweak in the hope it gives enough remainers the wriggle room to back it.
Surely MPs must be sick enough now to vote it through, it isn't as if even the most ultra-remainer MP couldn't say they fought the whole process.
Free at the point of use healthcare is barely sustainable for a fixed population within one country; opening it up to the globe is totally unsustainable. It will come; it's a question of when. Like May's proposals for social care, and pension ages being pushed out.
That's it.
Seems reasonable acute to me, FWIW.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/opinion/republicans-trump-impeachment.html
...Month after month, with one outrageous, norm-shattering comment or action giving way to another, Republicans who in the past could never have envisioned being Trump acolytes, have been ground down. Accommodation has kicked in, which is a psychological relief to many of them. For those who view Mr. Trump as a model politician who voices their grievances and fights with a viciousness they have long hoped for from Republicans, the accommodation is not just a relief but a source of delight.
As the psychologist I spoke to put it to me, many Republicans “are nearly unrecognizable versions of themselves pre-Trump. At this stage it’s less about defending Trump; they are defending their own defense of Trump.”
“At this point,” this person went on, “condemnation of Trump is condemnation of themselves. They’ve let too much go by to try and assert moral high ground now. Calling out another is one thing; calling out yourself is quite another.”
As a result, many in Mr. Trump’s party not only refuse to challenge his maliciousness; they have adopted his approach. They have embraced his “will to power” worldview. After dealing with Mr. Trump, “you’re definitely denuded and jaded,” one Republican who has interacted recently with members of Congress told me. “Your sense of perspective is totally warped.”
Many Republicans now find themselves in a place they never envisioned — not only defending Mr. Trump but doing so with gusto. Those who once defended traditional values now relish siding with the Great Transgressor. “Owning the libs” turns out to be a lot of fun. But it also comes at a high cost...
2. Remainer dominated parliament use all means to thwart the referendum result whilst hiding from electorate.
3. Tory PM gives them final chance in the form of a deal which they refuse to accept instead resorting to a final legislative tantrum which fails because...
4. Government resigns; temporary PM (of Labour flavour) has to submit extension request and has to call GE.
5. Labour decimated at the GE and Tory PM is returned with mandate and MPs to finally implement the will of the people.
The end.