One child shouted "boobies" while looking at a copy of the [Incredible Hulk] book, to which Mr Johnson replied: "Those aren't boobies, they are muscles."
BBC: Prime Minister Boris Johnson tells the BBC the A&E waiting time figures released today- which are the worst since records began -“is basically caused by the huge demand that there is on the NHS".
So it is our fault for daring to have accidents and encounter medical emergencies.
Actually, if for a moment people could stop trying to score silly partisan points and try instead to understand what is going on (I know, I know...), they would do well to ponder the second graph in this article:
As you can see, the number of attendances at A & E has gone up from around 1.7 million in a typical month in 2011 to around 2.1 million now. That's a pretty extraordinary increase, which puts the increase in waiting times into context.
The drivers of that increase in attendances are no doubt complex, but they certainly won't all be the 'fault' of the government.
My guess is that it has something to do with the aging population. The figures can be found at:
BBC: Prime Minister Boris Johnson tells the BBC the A&E waiting time figures released today- which are the worst since records began -“is basically caused by the huge demand that there is on the NHS".
So it is our fault for daring to have accidents and encounter medical emergencies.
Actually, if for a moment people could stop trying to score silly partisan points and try instead to understand what is going on (I know, I know...), they would do well to ponder the second graph in this article:
As you can see, the number of attendances at A & E has gone up from around 1.7 million in a typical month in 2011 to around 2.1 million now. That's a pretty extraordinary increase, which puts the increase in waiting times into context.
The drivers of that increase in attendances are no doubt complex, but they certainly won't all be the 'fault' of the government.
Folk unable to get a GP appointment, because there are not enough GPs, is certainly a big factor. And that is down to the government.
I would have thought that if it were that simple we'd know. Probably there are multiple causes. The cuts to social care likely haven't helped.
BBC: Prime Minister Boris Johnson tells the BBC the A&E waiting time figures released today- which are the worst since records began -“is basically caused by the huge demand that there is on the NHS".
So it is our fault for daring to have accidents and encounter medical emergencies.
Actually, if for a moment people could stop trying to score silly partisan points and try instead to understand what is going on (I know, I know...), they would do well to ponder the second graph in this article:
As you can see, the number of attendances at A & E has gone up from around 1.7 million in a typical month in 2011 to around 2.1 million now. That's a pretty extraordinary increase, which puts the increase in waiting times into context.
The drivers of that increase in attendances are no doubt complex, but they certainly won't all be the 'fault' of the government.
Folk unable to get a GP appointment, because there are not enough GPs, is certainly a big factor. And that is down to the government.
GPs per capita in England has fallen, but only to levels of around 2003. Either GP productivity has fallen, or per capita demand has risen, in the last 15 years. I imagine both.
BBC: Prime Minister Boris Johnson tells the BBC the A&E waiting time figures released today- which are the worst since records began -“is basically caused by the huge demand that there is on the NHS".
So it is our fault for daring to have accidents and encounter medical emergencies.
If you ever to A&E (I haven't been in one since I was 10, but know other people who have been quite recently), there are plenty of people there who really ought not to be there.
How do you define "people who really ought not to be there?". I have huge experience of going to A & E. People who are there need medical assistance they cannot get immediatly elsewhere, you may not think it is important until it happens to you....
The NHS website says these conditions should use A&E.
"A&E is for emergencies only, which include:
life or limb-threatening injuries serious head injuries chest pain severe abdominal (stomach) pain heavy bleeding broken limbs and fractures choking breathing difficulties"
My local A&E sorted out the waiting times by installing an outpatient GP service down the corridor. All cases classed as not for A&E sent there and the mahoosive queue, changed attitudes within a very short space of time.
I must have missed the seats UKIP won a plurality in that shows me to be wrong. UKIP voters had their votes counted. They lost. That's fair enough.
If a football team loses a match 2 - 1 then they got a third of the goals scored so are they entitled to one point in your world or does the winning team get all 3 points? Liverpool have won 4 games so far this Premier League season on a 2-1 scoreline and won all 12 possible points from those games - should we dock them 3 points because the losers got a goal?
As far as the national referendum was concerned we were part of one constituency called the United Kingdom for that referendum, but even if you look at local constituencies Leave won still.
FPTP is fine if you're mostly electing individuals, with their own consciences and the freedom to act on that conscience. People vote for parties, and they elect representatives of those parties, rather than representatives of their constituency.
Therefore we should use a voting system that is suitable for electing parties rather than individuals. British Proportional Representation is my favourite version, but there are others.
We are electing individuals with a party label, our system manages both. MPs individualism trumps their party label as we have seen in recent years: Johnson could not ruthlessly enforce party discipline, if he stripped an MP of the whip that didn't strip them of their seat they remained in Parliament for the rest of their term as an elected individual.
We also see every week in Parliament people bringing up their own local constituents concerns. Yes there are national issues but there are also issues of local concern that can be brought up to our local MPs. Going to national PR breaks that local link.
British Proportional Representation is the compromise between national PR and FPTP that we need. You could have 3-5 MPs per constituency, so they would still represent a distinct local area. We wouldn't have the abomination of party lists.
None of the MPs who Johnson had prevented from standing as Conservative candidates are likely to win re-election. That's a fairly effective purge of his political opponents, not in keeping with the theoretical principles of FPTP.
That's a fudge trying to reverse engineer a solution to suit yourself. So you don't either have one MP taking responsibility for a local constituency, nor do you look at the aggregate votes. No thanks.
It is also inaccurate if you count Wollaston as one of the Tories cast into the wilderness. She will stroll Totnes (admittedly as 'the Wollaston candidate' rather because she is a LD).
BBC: Prime Minister Boris Johnson tells the BBC the A&E waiting time figures released today- which are the worst since records began -“is basically caused by the huge demand that there is on the NHS".
So it is our fault for daring to have accidents and encounter medical emergencies.
Actually, if for a moment people could stop trying to score silly partisan points and try instead to understand what is going on (I know, I know...), they would do well to ponder the second graph in this article:
As you can see, the number of attendances at A & E has gone up from around 1.7 million in a typical month in 2011 to around 2.1 million now. That's a pretty extraordinary increase, which puts the increase in waiting times into context.
The drivers of that increase in attendances are no doubt complex, but they certainly won't all be the 'fault' of the government.
Folk unable to get a GP appointment, because there are not enough GPs, is certainly a big factor. And that is down to the government.
Well it certainly isn't because fat cat GPs don't get paid enough! It is the highest paid safe job in the world. I would love to see how much money could be saved to the NHS if the top 10% of earners took a 15% pay cut, and were unable to take private patients to add to their already large salaries and pensions.
Oh dear, we aren't supposed to knock public sector workers for greed are we?
BBC: Prime Minister Boris Johnson tells the BBC the A&E waiting time figures released today- which are the worst since records began -“is basically caused by the huge demand that there is on the NHS".
So it is our fault for daring to have accidents and encounter medical emergencies.
Actually, if for a moment people could stop trying to score silly partisan points and try instead to understand what is going on (I know, I know...), they would do well to ponder the second graph in this article:
As you can see, the number of attendances at A & E has gone up from around 1.7 million in a typical month in 2011 to around 2.1 million now. That's a pretty extraordinary increase, which puts the increase in waiting times into context.
The drivers of that increase in attendances are no doubt complex, but they certainly won't all be the 'fault' of the government.
Where I am in Spain I can get a doctors appointment normally within three days, surgery is open 6 hours a day for 5 days. Outside of those hours 24 x 7 I have access to a medical center 2 km away staffed by a doctor and nursing staff who have X-ray equipment and other diagnostic tools. Then 15km is the nearest full service hospital, on the few occasions I have used it even if they consider you low priority I have been seen within 2 hours.
On the subject of parties standing down to allow a 'Remain' (by which I think they mean 'Revoke') candidate to stand, Labour can't have it both ways. If you want to be part of a Remain alliance, you need to concentrate all your messaging on Remain, and strip out all the controversial stuff which other potential members of the alliance aren't comfortable with (Cobyn, anti-Semitism, spaffing zillions at hundreds of random walls, a four-day week for NHS staff, that sort of thing). Instead, Labour wants to talk as much as possible about precisely their madcap policies which aren't about Brexit. So how on earth could they possibly expect anyone to vote for them purely on Brexit?
Just catching up both on here and Twitter. There does seem to be some absolutely desperate screeching going on at the temerity of the Liberal Democrats to exist. "But you'll let in the Tories!" isn't enough in 2019, not when Labour is synonymous with anti-semitism.
Unite to Remain approached "we'll negotiate a deal to Leave the European Union" Labour Party and amazingly enough were rebuffed. So thats why the leave supporting Labour Party isn't in the remain alliance - it refused. That means that any Labour MP - even staunch remainers - are elected either to vote through Labour's leave deal or to rebel against their party in which case why stand as a Labour MP at all?
Had Labour been prepared to stand aside in seats they haven't a hope of winning then a deal could have been done to do the same. They haven't, and we know why, its because they genuinely believe that Labour will win this election and win it big because the Tories are Evil and as soon as He speaks to normal people they will all be converted to vote for Him like that chap in Dundee was.
If Labour lose its because the voters don't want them.
BBC: Prime Minister Boris Johnson tells the BBC the A&E waiting time figures released today- which are the worst since records began -“is basically caused by the huge demand that there is on the NHS".
So it is our fault for daring to have accidents and encounter medical emergencies.
If you ever to A&E (I haven't been in one since I was 10, but know other people who have been quite recently), there are plenty of people there who really ought not to be there.
I have. Last five years. Unpleasant circumstances. It is not easy to say who is malingering and who is not. Top tip: if you need to go, best do it around 3am. It's still staffed and the queues are much shorter.
I had my second ever visit (when not escorting injured pupils) on Tuesday. I’m still here (not in A&E but on one of the wards).
BBC: Prime Minister Boris Johnson tells the BBC the A&E waiting time figures released today- which are the worst since records began -“is basically caused by the huge demand that there is on the NHS".
So it is our fault for daring to have accidents and encounter medical emergencies.
If you ever to A&E (I haven't been in one since I was 10, but know other people who have been quite recently), there are plenty of people there who really ought not to be there.
How do you define "people who really ought not to be there?". I have huge experience of going to A & E. People who are there need medical assistance they cannot get immediatly elsewhere, you may not think it is important until it happens to you....
The NHS website says these conditions should use A&E.
"A&E is for emergencies only, which include:
life or limb-threatening injuries serious head injuries chest pain severe abdominal (stomach) pain heavy bleeding broken limbs and fractures choking breathing difficulties"
My local A&E sorted out the waiting times by installing an outpatient GP service down the corridor. All cases classed as not for A&E sent there and the mahoosive queue, changed attitudes within a very short space of time.
Well thats good but i dont think it is wise for obviously politically inspired pontification on who is worthy and who is not. I find the lack of enlightenment in some of the comments here very depressing.
Yes, I class LUCK as including when, where, to whom you are born. Birth circumstances. It's the biggie. It surely on balance and on the whole outweighs the luck you may have in the course of your life. But that is influential too.
Indeed. Being born - or becoming - a citizen of a country with sound institutions and the rule of law is massively important for material life outcome. And I would add wealthy before country there. Although I suppose the two things usually go together.
I seem to remember seeing a large building being built back in the Blair government days and being told it was for HMRC. Maybe those dastardly Tories made them move! Either way, whenever I call HMRC I always get a Glaswegian accent, so maybe those of us that have a grievance about the HMRC should refer to it as the "Scottish HMRC"?
Where I am in Spain I can get a doctors appointment normally within three days, surgery is open 6 hours a day for 5 days. Outside of those hours 24 x 7 I have access to a medical center 2 km away staffed by a doctor and nursing staff who have X-ray equipment and other diagnostic tools. Then 15km is the nearest full service hospital, on the few occasions I have used it even if they consider you low priority I have been seen within 2 hours.
The Spanish system does seem to be extremely efficient - they spend something like 25% to 30% less than we do.
Quite funny seeing the Tory boys on here wriggling and squirming trying to blame everybody and everything on these dreadful A&E figures, bar themselves. Public wont wear it boys.
It is also inaccurate if you count Wollaston as one of the Tories cast into the wilderness. She will stroll Totnes (admittedly as 'the Wollaston candidate' rather because she is a LD).
I can tell you have not been near a doorstep in the Totnes constituency.....
Where I am in Spain I can get a doctors appointment normally within three days, surgery is open 6 hours a day for 5 days. Outside of those hours 24 x 7 I have access to a medical center 2 km away staffed by a doctor and nursing staff who have X-ray equipment and other diagnostic tools. Then 15km is the nearest full service hospital, on the few occasions I have used it even if they consider you low priority I have been seen within 2 hours.
The Spanish system does seem to be extremely efficient - they spend something like 25% to 30% less than we do.
Their doctors get paid a fraction of what ours do, they don't moonlight to other employers and the system itself is not a political holy cow. Both these factors may have a big bearing.
Where I am in Spain I can get a doctors appointment normally within three days, surgery is open 6 hours a day for 5 days. Outside of those hours 24 x 7 I have access to a medical center 2 km away staffed by a doctor and nursing staff who have X-ray equipment and other diagnostic tools. Then 15km is the nearest full service hospital, on the few occasions I have used it even if they consider you low priority I have been seen within 2 hours.
The Spanish system does seem to be extremely efficient - they spend something like 25% to 30% less than we do.
I think they pay their staff a lot less! It's also much more decentralised, rather like the original Conservative plan for a national health service in 1945. They also make sensible use of privately-run hospitals and clinics, much as the Conservatives would like the NHS to do to a greater extent here.
I seem to remember seeing a large building being built back in the Blair government days and being told it was for HMRC. Maybe those dastardly Tories made them move! Either way, whenever I call HMRC I always get a Glaswegian accent, so maybe those of us that have a grievance about the HMRC should refer to it as the "Scottish HMRC"?
Surely it's only narrow minded Nats who split the good British volk into constituent regions?
You maybe confusing it with the flagship Edinburgh UK Government Hub which opens next year and is very definitely UKanian.
It is also inaccurate if you count Wollaston as one of the Tories cast into the wilderness. She will stroll Totnes (admittedly as 'the Wollaston candidate' rather because she is a LD).
I can tell you have not been near a doorstep in the Totnes constituency.....
When you door knock for a party, do you knock all known voters, or all known party voters? Coz I can imagine that Wollaston will lose the majority of Tory voters, but might make it up elsewhere. I could be wrong, and will defer to your knowledge, but I know most of the knocking by parties is aimed specifically at people known to be party friendly / wavering / party faithfuls in an attempt to drive turn out and target "maybes", so it isn't necessarily a representative sample.
SNP the only party retaining both their Remain voters and their Leave voters. Surely due to SNP voters being far more motivated by Scottish independence than by attitudes to the EU.
Are unionists similarly focused in Scotland? This one is. Not sure about some of those Lib Dems though. They're a bit flaky.
No. Glad to hear it. Your doubt is justified (cf Wales). All over the place.
So as we near the 4pm deadline the way things have worked out with BXP are probably as good as it gets for the Tories. With no official pact it will be much harder for Corbyn to suggest Boris and Farage are best mates.
No BXP in the 317 means losses will be limited and then BXP splitting votes in Labour held seats, but targeting Labour voters and not campaigning heavily in most of the Tory/Lab marginals probably won't have a huge negative effect on the blues.
Compared to the arrangement between the Lib Dems and Labour this seems very favourable.
I seem to remember seeing a large building being built back in the Blair government days and being told it was for HMRC. Maybe those dastardly Tories made them move! Either way, whenever I call HMRC I always get a Glaswegian accent, so maybe those of us that have a grievance about the HMRC should refer to it as the "Scottish HMRC"?
Surely it's only narrow minded Nats who split the good British volk into constituent regions?
You maybe confusing it with the flagship Edinburgh UK Government Hub which opens next year and is very definitely UKanian.
I was being a little tongue-in-cheek at your chutzpah. Your original post seemed to want to do the normal chippy nat thing and suggest some venerable Scottish institution (yea a sectarian based football club) was being discriminated against by a "British" HMRC, when most of HMRC employees are Scottish. I suppose most could be sectarian Celtic supporters lol.
BBC: Prime Minister Boris Johnson tells the BBC the A&E waiting time figures released today- which are the worst since records began -“is basically caused by the huge demand that there is on the NHS".
So it is our fault for daring to have accidents and encounter medical emergencies.
Actually, if for a moment people could stop trying to score silly partisan points and try instead to understand what is going on (I know, I know...), they would do well to ponder the second graph in this article:
As you can see, the number of attendances at A & E has gone up from around 1.7 million in a typical month in 2011 to around 2.1 million now. That's a pretty extraordinary increase, which puts the increase in waiting times into context.
The drivers of that increase in attendances are no doubt complex, but they certainly won't all be the 'fault' of the government.
BBC: Prime Minister Boris Johnson tells the BBC the A&E waiting time figures released today- which are the worst since records began -“is basically caused by the huge demand that there is on the NHS".
So it is our fault for daring to have accidents and encounter medical emergencies.
Actually, if for a moment people could stop trying to score silly partisan points and try instead to understand what is going on (I know, I know...), they would do well to ponder the second graph in this article:
As you can see, the number of attendances at A & E has gone up from around 1.7 million in a typical month in 2011 to around 2.1 million now. That's a pretty extraordinary increase, which puts the increase in waiting times into context.
The drivers of that increase in attendances are no doubt complex, but they certainly won't all be the 'fault' of the government.
Folk unable to get a GP appointment, because there are not enough GPs, is certainly a big factor. And that is down to the government.
I've been in a London A&E - late on a Sunday - where it is quite clear people are using it instead of going to a GP. I'm assuming most will use the A&E on a Sunday night, or late at night or in the small hours, to avoid the really longer queues.
Whether it's because of a lack of GP coverage, or whether for transient communities it's just easier to use the nearest A&E, I don't know.
A Neil reads out Matt Hancocks response to worst ever NHS figures in incredulity.
"These figures show why we need to keep Jeremy Corbyn out of Downing Street .... "
Many will agree. Labour barely leads on the NHS.
A Neil thought it was a ridiculous way to respond to the worst NHS numbers in history. Try recruiting some staff to the 150,000 vacancies or resolving the pension tax that's stopping Consultants working extra hours.
Only 60 000 vacancies, I think.
The obvious question though is that with these unfilled vacancies, how can we recruit the extra posts promised?
Jon Ashworth was good on this yesterday, he spoke thoughtfully about staff retention, which is in many ways better than recruitment.
According to nuffield trust there were 94000 FTE advertised vacancies in Q3 2018, and I doubt it has since fallen. This may equate to 150,000 total vacancies as many will be part time. Whilst retention is a good focus, there is also a need to remove bureaucratic obstacles to career development which encourage good staff to leave the NHS. I know a Senior Registrar who holds a clinical lecturer position at one of the country's top teaching hospitals, has a Ph.D from another (as well as her medical degree and membership of the RCS since whe was 29). In her mid-30s she is still waiting for her consultant appointment because she had 2 maternity leaves and has to complete a fixed number of hours as a junior to qualify. She is constantly getting offers, especially from the States, where she often lectures.
My Twitter, usually covered in something of a #FBPE consensus, is currently running turf battles between Labour and LibDems, some open to compromise, some not.
BBC: Prime Minister Boris Johnson tells the BBC the A&E waiting time figures released today- which are the worst since records began -“is basically caused by the huge demand that there is on the NHS".
So it is our fault for daring to have accidents and encounter medical emergencies.
If you ever to A&E (I haven't been in one since I was 10, but know other people who have been quite recently), there are plenty of people there who really ought not to be there.
How do you define "people who really ought not to be there?". I have huge experience of going to A & E. People who are there need medical assistance they cannot get immediatly elsewhere, you may not think it is important until it happens to you....
The NHS website says these conditions should use A&E.
"A&E is for emergencies only, which include:
life or limb-threatening injuries serious head injuries chest pain severe abdominal (stomach) pain heavy bleeding broken limbs and fractures choking breathing difficulties"
My local A&E sorted out the waiting times by installing an outpatient GP service down the corridor. All cases classed as not for A&E sent there and the mahoosive queue, changed attitudes within a very short space of time.
Well thats good but i dont think it is wise for obviously politically inspired pontification on who is worthy and who is not. I find the lack of enlightenment in some of the comments here very depressing.
Can I recommend the 111 service for finding out if you should go?
Benpointer said: "Overwhelmingly, the main driver for success is having wealthy parents."
Stocky said: "Wealth helps, but not the main driver. The main driver is the intelligence of the parents."
148grss said: "How do you come to this conclusion?"
FirstIy it`s a very plausible conclusion to draw from basic genetics, and, secondly, I have experience of state and private schools and see it all the time.
Intelligent children (whose parents are clearly intelligent and have careers which correspond) do well whether they are educated privately or via the state system. They are the cream that always comes to the top, and are sought after by schools and then universities.
In the private system, I see wealthy parents trying unsuccessfully to gain advantage for their less-than-intelligent offspring. Money doesn`t help much.
Bursaries are granted to the ultra smart ones - making the intelligent/ not intelligent spectrum even more unfair.
There's a jet aircraft circling at a reasonably high altitude in a reasonably large but accurate circle over Edinburgh. It's not on the flight radar website. It's not the British Meteorological research aircraft.
Anyone have a guess what it might be?
If the profile is around 30,000' and a circle then it is likely to be an AWACS (E3D).
If the altitude is low 20's and more of a race track pattern it is possibly a tanker although overland re-fuelling above an urban area would be very unusual.
BBC: Prime Minister Boris Johnson tells the BBC the A&E waiting time figures released today- which are the worst since records began -“is basically caused by the huge demand that there is on the NHS".
So it is our fault for daring to have accidents and encounter medical emergencies.
If you ever to A&E (I haven't been in one since I was 10, but know other people who have been quite recently), there are plenty of people there who really ought not to be there.
How do you define "people who really ought not to be there?". I have huge experience of going to A & E. People who are there need medical assistance they cannot get immediatly elsewhere, you may not think it is important until it happens to you....
The clue is in the name. It's people who go there because they just don't feel well. I remember Evan Davies on Radio 4 asking an NHS person, "if people just want to go and sit in A&E, why not take funding away from GPs and put more money into A&E departments?" - I think he had a point.
Just because someone in A & E does not have a leg missing or blood gushing from them does not mean they have nothing wrong with them! I am classed as being severely dissabled but on your criterion, there is nothing wrong with me.
Lord Ashcroft nearly died of sepsis and no doubt felt unwell, should he of not sort medical advice? (It saved his life - Indeed he was flown to the US, which is something you dont get on the nhs). I actually find your comment depressing and based on ignorance...
I think there is a balance on this question. Most people in A&E need to be there, but there are some sub groups that make you wonder. Every year I see sports casualties carted off to A&E for no good reason. In the last 10 years I have done knee ligaments, ripped a cartilage, had a shoulder separation and broken fingers (all playing cricket) and have been told every time to go to A&E. In none of these cases would I have benefitted from doing so and did not go - but most people do, even when they know perfectly well what they have done and the necessary treatment.
BBC: Prime Minister Boris Johnson tells the BBC the A&E waiting time figures released today- which are the worst since records began -“is basically caused by the huge demand that there is on the NHS".
So it is our fault for daring to have accidents and encounter medical emergencies.
Actually, if for a moment people could stop trying to score silly partisan points and try instead to understand what is going on (I know, I know...), they would do well to ponder the second graph in this article:
As you can see, the number of attendances at A & E has gone up from around 1.7 million in a typical month in 2011 to around 2.1 million now. That's a pretty extraordinary increase, which puts the increase in waiting times into context.
The drivers of that increase in attendances are no doubt complex, but they certainly won't all be the 'fault' of the government.
BBC: Prime Minister Boris Johnson tells the BBC the A&E waiting time figures released today- which are the worst since records began -“is basically caused by the huge demand that there is on the NHS".
So it is our fault for daring to have accidents and encounter medical emergencies.
Actually, if for a moment people could stop trying to score silly partisan points and try instead to understand what is going on (I know, I know...), they would do well to ponder the second graph in this article:
As you can see, the number of attendances at A & E has gone up from around 1.7 million in a typical month in 2011 to around 2.1 million now. That's a pretty extraordinary increase, which puts the increase in waiting times into context.
The drivers of that increase in attendances are no doubt complex, but they certainly won't all be the 'fault' of the government.
Folk unable to get a GP appointment, because there are not enough GPs, is certainly a big factor. And that is down to the government.
I've been in a London A&E - late on a Sunday - where it is quite clear people are using it instead of going to a GP. I'm assuming most will use the A&E on a Sunday night, or late at night or in the small hours, to avoid the really longer queues.
Whether it's because of a lack of GP coverage, or whether for transient communities it's just easier to use the nearest A&E, I don't know.
It’s virtually impossible to see a GP at the weekend.
One child shouted "boobies" while looking at a copy of the [Incredible Hulk] book, to which Mr Johnson replied: "Those aren't boobies, they are muscles."
It is also inaccurate if you count Wollaston as one of the Tories cast into the wilderness. She will stroll Totnes (admittedly as 'the Wollaston candidate' rather because she is a LD).
I can tell you have not been near a doorstep in the Totnes constituency.....
When you door knock for a party, do you knock all known voters, or all known party voters? Coz I can imagine that Wollaston will lose the majority of Tory voters, but might make it up elsewhere. I could be wrong, and will defer to your knowledge, but I know most of the knocking by parties is aimed specifically at people known to be party friendly / wavering / party faithfuls in an attempt to drive turn out and target "maybes", so it isn't necessarily a representative sample.
Quite right. First job target known party voters, then undecided, finally if time and resources allow voters from other parties.
I seem to remember seeing a large building being built back in the Blair government days and being told it was for HMRC. Maybe those dastardly Tories made them move! Either way, whenever I call HMRC I always get a Glaswegian accent, so maybe those of us that have a grievance about the HMRC should refer to it as the "Scottish HMRC"?
Surely it's only narrow minded Nats who split the good British volk into constituent regions?
You maybe confusing it with the flagship Edinburgh UK Government Hub which opens next year and is very definitely UKanian.
I seem to remember seeing a large building being built back in the Blair government days and being told it was for HMRC. Maybe those dastardly Tories made them move! Either way, whenever I call HMRC I always get a Glaswegian accent, so maybe those of us that have a grievance about the HMRC should refer to it as the "Scottish HMRC"?
Surely it's only narrow minded Nats who split the good British volk into constituent regions?
You maybe confusing it with the flagship Edinburgh UK Government Hub which opens next year and is very definitely UKanian.
I was being a little tongue-in-cheek at your chutzpah. Your original post seemed to want to do the normal chippy nat thing and suggest some venerable Scottish institution (yea a sectarian based football club) was being discriminated against by a "British" HMRC, when most of HMRC employees are Scottish. I suppose most could be sectarian Celtic supporters lol.
Whoosh. I was (obviously I thought) pointing out the irony of 'The Queen's 11' supporters who have the Union flag tattooed on their psyches ranting paranoically about The Queen's Revenue & Customs doing them over. I see I shall have to turn my sarcasm settings to 'lumbering' in the future.
A Neil reads out Matt Hancocks response to worst ever NHS figures in incredulity.
"These figures show why we need to keep Jeremy Corbyn out of Downing Street .... "
Many will agree. Labour barely leads on the NHS.
A Neil thought it was a ridiculous way to respond to the worst NHS numbers in history. Try recruiting some staff to the 150,000 vacancies or resolving the pension tax that's stopping Consultants working extra hours.
Only 60 000 vacancies, I think.
The obvious question though is that with these unfilled vacancies, how can we recruit the extra posts promised?
Jon Ashworth was good on this yesterday, he spoke thoughtfully about staff retention, which is in many ways better than recruitment.
According to nuffield trust there were 94000 FTE advertised vacancies in Q3 2018, and I doubt it has since fallen. This may equate to 150,000 total vacancies as many will be part time. Whilst retention is a good focus, there is also a need to remove bureaucratic obstacles to career development which encourage good staff to leave the NHS. I know a Senior Registrar who holds a clinical lecturer position at one of the country's top teaching hospitals, has a Ph.D from another (as well as her medical degree and membership of the RCS since whe was 29). In her mid-30s she is still waiting for her consultant appointment because she had 2 maternity leaves and has to complete a fixed number of hours as a junior to qualify. She is constantly getting offers, especially from the States, where she often lectures.
As I mentioned earlier, she cannot complain about her salary. Of the leading industrialised nations only the US and Switzerland pays doctors more. The latter has a ridiculously high cost of living, so in real terms this is likely to be less.
Retention is a potentially very good strategy, with a focus on removing the obsession with "consultant" status as a hallmark of career "arrival". Efficiency would be another good area, but this is unlikely to ever be seriously addressed while the NHS remains a political football. Too much emotion means rational decisions cannot be made
I think they pay their staff a lot less! It's also much more decentralised, rather like the original Conservative plan for a national health service in 1945. They also make sensible use of privately-run hospitals and clinics, much as the Conservatives would like the NHS to do to a greater extent here.
Yeah, I was vaguely aware you can opt out of state healthcare, but still get some form of subsidised insurance.
But curiously, looking at the figures their per capita private spend is pretty normal - that element is pretty steady across most of the developed world at about $1k, with the exception of the US ($5k per person, and the state also spends another $5k, about 50% more than the NHS!) https://www.statista.com/statistics/283221/per-capita-health-expenditure-by-country/
Unite to Remain approached "we'll negotiate a deal to Leave the European Union" Labour Party and amazingly enough were rebuffed. So thats why the leave supporting Labour Party isn't in the remain alliance - it refused. That means that any Labour MP - even staunch remainers - are elected either to vote through Labour's leave deal or to rebel against their party in which case why stand as a Labour MP at all?
In the unlikely event of the Cons losing this GE and thus Labour Brexit policy being enacted we will get a Referendum asking us to choose between (i) Remaining in all but name, and (ii) Remaining. A choice so skewed that Leavers would likely (and with good reason) scream foul. Therefore it really is not accurate to refer to the "Leave supporting Labour Party".
It is also inaccurate if you count Wollaston as one of the Tories cast into the wilderness. She will stroll Totnes (admittedly as 'the Wollaston candidate' rather because she is a LD).
I can tell you have not been near a doorstep in the Totnes constituency.....
When you door knock for a party, do you knock all known voters, or all known party voters? Coz I can imagine that Wollaston will lose the majority of Tory voters, but might make it up elsewhere. I could be wrong, and will defer to your knowledge, but I know most of the knocking by parties is aimed specifically at people known to be party friendly / wavering / party faithfuls in an attempt to drive turn out and target "maybes", so it isn't necessarily a representative sample.
Don't even bother. Mark is the poster who believes his canvassing in Torbay can be extrapolated everywhere from Thurrock to Guildford to Glasgow.
Benpointer said: "Overwhelmingly, the main driver for success is having wealthy parents."
Stocky said: "Wealth helps, but not the main driver. The main driver is the intelligence of the parents."
Benpointer said: "How do you come to this conclusion?"
FirstIy its a very plausible conclusion to draw from basic genetics, and, secondly, I have experience of state and private schools and see it all the time.
Intelligent children (whose parents are clearly intelligent and have careers which correspond) do well whether they are educated privately or via the state system. They are the cream that always comes to the top, and are sought after by schools and then universities.
In the private system, I see wealthy parents trying unsuccessfully to gain advantage for their less-than-intelligent offspring. Money doesn`t help much.
Bursaries are granted to the ultra smart ones - making the intelligent/ not intelligent spectrum even more unfair.
Okay, so, why do you think intelligence is a genetic things and not an environmental thing? With the same evidence you provide, I could argue that: those intelligent parents probably came from comfortable backgrounds and are able to provide comfortable environments for their children. Comfortable environments are better for learning, and educational achievement.
Beyond that their is a great body of research into child development and intellect that disagrees with the idea intelligence is a mostly genetic trait. Lots of evidence points to children who spend more physical time with adults tend to have better educational outcomes later in life. We know poverty can impact educational attainment; if you're a hungry child, you don't learn as well, if you have a broken home, you don't learn as well, if you have to care for family members who are disabled, you don't attain as high grades. We know things like lead poisoning literally causes brain damage, and that poorer people are more likely to live in poorer housing conditions, some of which include lead paint.
Intelligence is certainly not solely genetic, arguably not mostly genetic, and has a lot to do with environment and socialisation.
A Neil reads out Matt Hancocks response to worst ever NHS figures in incredulity.
"These figures show why we need to keep Jeremy Corbyn out of Downing Street .... "
Many will agree. Labour barely leads on the NHS.
A Neil thought it was a ridiculous way to respond to the worst NHS numbers in history. Try recruiting some staff to the 150,000 vacancies or resolving the pension tax that's stopping Consultants working extra hours.
Only 60 000 vacancies, I think.
The obvious question though is that with these unfilled vacancies, how can we recruit the extra posts promised?
Jon Ashworth was good on this yesterday, he spoke thoughtfully about staff retention, which is in many ways better than recruitment.
According to nuffield trust there were 94000 FTE advertised vacancies in Q3 2018, and I doubt it has since fallen. This may equate to 150,000 total vacancies as many will be part time. Whilst retention is a good focus, there is also a need to remove bureaucratic obstacles to career development which encourage good staff to leave the NHS. I know a Senior Registrar who holds a clinical lecturer position at one of the country's top teaching hospitals, has a Ph.D from another (as well as her medical degree and membership of the RCS since whe was 29). In her mid-30s she is still waiting for her consultant appointment because she had 2 maternity leaves and has to complete a fixed number of hours as a junior to qualify. She is constantly getting offers, especially from the States, where she often lectures.
As I mentioned earlier, she cannot complain about her salary. Of the leading industrialised nations only the US and Switzerland pays doctors more. The latter has a ridiculously high cost of living, so in real terms this is likely to be less.
Retention is a potentially very good strategy, with a focus on removing the obsession with "consultant" status as a hallmark of career "arrival". Efficiency would be another good area, but this is unlikely to ever be seriously addressed while the NHS remains a political football. Too much emotion means rational decisions cannot be made
She is not complaining, and I agree about retention. The point I am making is that a stupid bureaucratic rule risks her being poached elsewhere (probably to an academic post).
I seem to remember seeing a large building being built back in the Blair government days and being told it was for HMRC. Maybe those dastardly Tories made them move! Either way, whenever I call HMRC I always get a Glaswegian accent, so maybe those of us that have a grievance about the HMRC should refer to it as the "Scottish HMRC"?
Surely it's only narrow minded Nats who split the good British volk into constituent regions?
You maybe confusing it with the flagship Edinburgh UK Government Hub which opens next year and is very definitely UKanian.
I was being a little tongue-in-cheek at your chutzpah. Your original post seemed to want to do the normal chippy nat thing and suggest some venerable Scottish institution (yea a sectarian based football club) was being discriminated against by a "British" HMRC, when most of HMRC employees are Scottish. I suppose most could be sectarian Celtic supporters lol.
Whoosh. I was (obviously I thought) pointing out the irony of 'The Queen's 11' supporters who have the Union flag tattooed on their psyches ranting paranoically about The Queen's Revenue & Custom's doing them over. I see I shall have to turn my sarcasm settings to 'lumbering' in the future.
My apologies irony is not a skill I normally associate with nationalists. Sarcasm doesn't work too well when you get parochial with a broader audience. Try leaving that to your mate Malcolm, he is more expert and more characteristically (for a nat) thuggish about it.
BBC: Prime Minister Boris Johnson tells the BBC the A&E waiting time figures released today- which are the worst since records began -“is basically caused by the huge demand that there is on the NHS".
So it is our fault for daring to have accidents and encounter medical emergencies.
If you ever to A&E (I haven't been in one since I was 10, but know other people who have been quite recently), there are plenty of people there who really ought not to be there.
I have. Last five years. Unpleasant circumstances. It is not easy to say who is malingering and who is not. Top tip: if you need to go, best do it around 3am. It's still staffed and the queues are much shorter.
I had my second ever visit (when not escorting injured pupils) on Tuesday. I’m still here (not in A&E but on one of the wards).
(1) I do wish people would stop saying he’s been “uncorked” every time he says something. This is getting a little old now. (2) He’s now come out for Remain, whilst he’d previously have preferred a soft Brexit.
I’m not sure how helpful this is in winning over convincible Conservatives to the Remain side. Like Antoinette Sandbach it makes it look he was a secret Europhile all along. And he’s just ‘outed’ himself.
It would be much more powerful - particularly given he’s an independent and can take his own line - if he said something like, “I favoured a soft Brexit but that’s clearly not possible anymore. I also recognise the strong reasons that lay behind the electorate’s original decision to Leave. Therefore, I will be campaigning for the UK to stay in a reformed relationship with the EU that addresses those concerns, by arguing for the reestablishment of Cameron’s Deal for non-euro EU countries but firm up that we’d be outside political union and will press for further migration controls, including an emergency brake.”
Unite to Remain approached "we'll negotiate a deal to Leave the European Union" Labour Party and amazingly enough were rebuffed. So thats why the leave supporting Labour Party isn't in the remain alliance - it refused. That means that any Labour MP - even staunch remainers - are elected either to vote through Labour's leave deal or to rebel against their party in which case why stand as a Labour MP at all?
In the unlikely event of the Cons losing this GE and thus Labour Brexit policy being enacted we will get a Referendum asking us to choose between (i) Remaining in all but name, and (ii) Remaining. A choice so skewed that Leavers would likely (and with good reason) scream foul. Therefore it really is not accurate to refer to the "Leave supporting Labour Party".
Problem with leavers is they don't know what "Leave" is. I was on an ITV boat cruise yesterday with the Stockton South candidates and Mr Brexit started talking about will of the people. "Yes, I voted leave and have changed my mind. But the people who still want leave is the will of the people your clean break Brexit, is it his (Tory) deal Brexit which your (Brexit) boss says isn't Brexit, or is it his boss's (Labour) "jobs first" Brexit which BOTH or your bosses say isn't Brexit. Yet you all claim will of the people"
I do not want to leave the EU. That means not voting for a party who will: 1. Negotiate a deal to leave the EU 2. Hold a conference where Corbyn acolytes will rig the vote again 3. Campaign to support their deal to leave the EU.
Parties who want to remain in the EU don't do any of those. Johnson's deal IS NOT BREXIT according to Farage who nonetheless is backing it. Corbyn's deal will NOT BE BREXIT yet in the referendum Farage Johnson and Corbyn will all be backing it.
Benpointer said: "Overwhelmingly, the main driver for success is having wealthy parents."
Stocky said: "Wealth helps, but not the main driver. The main driver is the intelligence of the parents."
148grss said: "How do you come to this conclusion?"
FirstIy it`s a very plausible conclusion to draw from basic genetics, and, secondly, I have experience of state and private schools and see it all the time.
Intelligent children (whose parents are clearly intelligent and have careers which correspond) do well whether they are educated privately or via the state system. They are the cream that always comes to the top, and are sought after by schools and then universities.
In the private system, I see wealthy parents trying unsuccessfully to gain advantage for their less-than-intelligent offspring. Money doesn`t help much.
Bursaries are granted to the ultra smart ones - making the intelligent/ not intelligent spectrum even more unfair.
I am sure Corbyn and Macdonnell are working on schemes for taxing intelligence. Corbyn will actually be better off under the scheme.
148grss said: "Intelligence is certainly not solely genetic, arguably not mostly genetic, and has a lot to do with environment and socialisation."
We are going to have to disagree on this. I suspect - though cannot prove - that intelligence (by which I mean IQ) is solely genetic.
In any case, this is not the point that I am making. I am arguing that our system favours intelligence over wealth, and that this holds whether the intelligence comes from nature or nurture.
So if in a population of 101, 99 Conservatives of various hues stand and 1 of only 2 Socialist stands. The Socialist would win getting double the vote of any Conservative yet nearly 99% of the population actually want a Conservative. You think that is fair?
In an area that is 49% for party A and 25.5% for parties B & C each, with B having all its vote in the rural area and C all its vote in the town and A's vote spread across the area. The area is split into 2 constituencies down the middle. B & C get an MP each and A nothing even though A has twice the vote of each of the other 2. Still ok?
Yes. You can try all the hypothetical nonsense you like but the reality is the candidates and voters knew the rules before they stood/voted.
In example one: Why were the Conservatives so unable to work together that they refused to co-operate and stand together rather than against each other? Why did the voters not vote differently? We know who the candidates are and who voted, lets not second-guess second choices the voters made their choice freely and fairly.
In example 2 the system is working as designed. Who does the town want to represent its interests? Party C. Who does the rural area want to represent its interests? Party B. Not just OK but working as designed.
Yes it was hypothetical nonsense but made to make a point. In example 1 why should the candidates stand aside if they want to stand, why should the voters have to think about voting tactically as opposed to who they want to vote for? I wasn't really second guessing the voters intentions. I was assuming each of the Conservatives voted for themselves and the 2 socialist voted for the Socialist!
In example 2 I have exaggerated a pretty real life example and you make a good point that the town gets what they want and the countyside gets what they want and, particularly in the days before tactical voting and targeting you got exactly this with North/South divide and Countryside v Town.
In 1983 the Alliance got practically no seats on a high vote because of this. Theoretically they could have got nearly 50% of the vote and no seats and just over 50% and all of the seats. The system is bonkers.
In reality because their vote was evenly spread it meant that they got very few but if they had got into the upper 30% they would not only have got a majority but won nearly all the seat.
And because of this you get gerrymandering. Doing this is the very definition of gerrymandering. Fortunately here it is much harder, but still all the political parties try it on with the boundary commission.
Benpointer said: "Overwhelmingly, the main driver for success is having wealthy parents."
Wealth helps, but not the main driver. The main driver is the intelligence of the parents.
In intelligence terms yes but not all intelligent people are wealthy e.g. academics.
Having wealthy parents makes it more likely you will be wealthy, intelligent or not, if mainly through inheritance and having intelligent and wealthy parents makes you most likely to be successful of all through inheritance and genes
I think they pay their staff a lot less! It's also much more decentralised, rather like the original Conservative plan for a national health service in 1945. They also make sensible use of privately-run hospitals and clinics, much as the Conservatives would like the NHS to do to a greater extent here.
Yeah, I was vaguely aware you can opt out of state healthcare, but still get some form of subsidised insurance.
But curiously, looking at the figures their per capita private spend is pretty normal - that element is pretty steady across most of the developed world at about $1k, with the exception of the US ($5k per person, and the state also spends another $5k, about 50% more than the NHS!) https://www.statista.com/statistics/283221/per-capita-health-expenditure-by-country/
I didn't mean the spending on private healthcare by individuals, I meant the state healthcare system subcontracting to private (commercial and charitable) hospitals, clinics and other facilities. I think doing more of that would be one of the best ways of improving the NHS for a given level of expenditure, but for purely ideological reasons and because of cynical weaponisation by Labour of the NHS, it's hard to do politically. Patients suffer as a result.
Benpointer said: "Overwhelmingly, the main driver for success is having wealthy parents."
Wealth helps, but not the main driver. The main driver is the intelligence of the parents.
In intelligence terms yes but not all intelligent people are wealthy e.g. academics.
Having wealthy parents makes it more likely you will be wealthy, intelligent or not, if mainly through inheritance and having intelligent and wealthy parents makes you most likely to be successful of all through inheritance and genes
Yes but he said "success", not wealth. Relative success (particularly relative to your peers or immediate family) is most certainly driven by intelligence. There are always exceptions, though. One would not expect a dullard to become LoTO, but it has happened.
148grss said: "Intelligence is certainly not solely genetic, arguably not mostly genetic, and has a lot to do with environment and socialisation."
We are going to have to disagree on this. I suspect - though cannot prove - that intelligence (by which I mean IQ) is solely genetic.
In any case, this is not the point that I am making. I am arguing that our system favours intelligence over wealth, and that this holds whether the intelligence comes from nature or nurture.
I mean, it is hard to prove things, but all we need to do is disprove that IQ is solely genetic and your hypothesis is wrong. And modern psychology has done that. (I also wouldn't put much truck in IQ as a measurement of intelligence, because IQ has a pretty circular definition of itself in relation to intelligence).
As for intelligence (meaning IQ) being a better indicator for success in our system than money, it depends on what you mean by success (making more money?) but again, we can almost certainly point out that isn't true. Take similar graduates from private school / state school backgrounds (the very thing you mentioned) and you find a 7% pay gap in favour of kids from private schools, all other things being equal.
"Yes but he said "success", not wealth. Relative success (particularly relative to your peers or immediate family) is most certainly driven by intelligence. There are always exceptions, though. One would not expect a dullard to become LoTO, but it has happened."
When you door knock for a party, do you knock all known voters, or all known party voters?
It depends. There are times you really want to explore an area the party's inexperienced in, or where an influential colleague is convinced we've underestimated a particular group.
And in the runup to a GE, if you're short of resources you might avoid areas you're sure you'll do well in. But most of the time, most of your energy will be spent trying to talk to people you're more likely than average to be getting votes from.
And therefore, it's MASSIVELY self-deceiving to believe your canvassing gives you information you can draw conclusions from about the whole of public opinion. 90% of the time, you're talking to houses more likely than most to vote for your guy or gal.
As the deadline for candidates expires in less than two hours I was looking into finding if there is a central database of which parties have submitted candidates and where?
Does anyone know of such a resource, and when it will be ready at all please?
As an aside, I was looking at whether UKIP and the CUK lot where standing, and I find that:
UKIP are going to stand in carefully selected seats where they think they can do best, and avoid splitting the Leave vote. Don't know what that means however. I presume it means this is the last hurrah and they'll stand in about 20 seats (and win none, possibly lose all their deposits) before disappearing completely next year.
CUK are standing in only three seats. Anna Soubry, Chris Leslie and Mike Gapes are restanding (the other two are not) in their seats. I imagine they will go the same was as UKIP and fail to hold any, and disappear/merge into the Lib Dems next year.
A Neil reads out Matt Hancocks response to worst ever NHS figures in incredulity.
"These figures show why we need to keep Jeremy Corbyn out of Downing Street .... "
Many will agree. Labour barely leads on the NHS.
A Neil thought it was a ridiculous way to respond to the worst NHS numbers in history. Try recruiting some staff to the 150,000 vacancies or resolving the pension tax that's stopping Consultants working extra hours.
Only 60 000 vacancies, I think.
The obvious question though is that with these unfilled vacancies, how can we recruit the extra posts promised?
Jon Ashworth was good on this yesterday, he spoke thoughtfully about staff retention, which is in many ways better than recruitment.
According to nuffield trust there were 94000 FTE advertised vacancies in Q3 2018, and I doubt it has since fallen. This may equate to 150,000 total vacancies as many will be part time. Whilst retention is a good focus, there is also a need to remove bureaucratic obstacles to career development which encourage good staff to leave the NHS. I know a Senior Registrar who holds a clinical lecturer position at one of the country's top teaching hospitals, has a Ph.D from another (as well as her medical degree and membership of the RCS since whe was 29). In her mid-30s she is still waiting for her consultant appointment because she had 2 maternity leaves and has to complete a fixed number of hours as a junior to qualify. She is constantly getting offers, especially from the States, where she often lectures.
Do we mean “vacancies” or do we mean “advertised jobs”? There’s a big difference.
If we mean vacancies, then do the figures take into account management decisions to gap posts for good reasons?
Benpointer said: "Overwhelmingly, the main driver for success is having wealthy parents."
Wealth helps, but not the main driver. The main driver is the intelligence of the parents.
In intelligence terms yes but not all intelligent people are wealthy e.g. academics.
Having wealthy parents makes it more likely you will be wealthy, intelligent or not, if mainly through inheritance and having intelligent and wealthy parents makes you most likely to be successful of all through inheritance and genes
Yes but he said "success", not wealth. Relative success (particularly relative to your peers or immediate family) is most certainly driven by intelligence. There are always exceptions, though. One would not expect a dullard to become LoTO, but it has happened.
You can be a wealthy entrepreneur, pop star, footballer or actor without being highly intelligent.
Intelligence helps get to the top of high earning professions like law and medicine but does not guarantee high earnings
I think they pay their staff a lot less! It's also much more decentralised, rather like the original Conservative plan for a national health service in 1945. They also make sensible use of privately-run hospitals and clinics, much as the Conservatives would like the NHS to do to a greater extent here.
Yeah, I was vaguely aware you can opt out of state healthcare, but still get some form of subsidised insurance.
But curiously, looking at the figures their per capita private spend is pretty normal - that element is pretty steady across most of the developed world at about $1k, with the exception of the US ($5k per person, and the state also spends another $5k, about 50% more than the NHS!) https://www.statista.com/statistics/283221/per-capita-health-expenditure-by-country/
I didn't mean the spending on private healthcare by individuals, I meant the state healthcare system subcontracting to private (commercial and charitable) hospitals, clinics and other facilities. I think doing more of that would be one of the best ways of improving the NHS for a given level of expenditure, but for purely ideological reasons and because of cynical weaponisation by Labour of the NHS, it's hard to do politically. Patients suffer as a result.
... like GPs. And indeed pharmacies of a few different kinds.
148grss said: "Intelligence is certainly not solely genetic, arguably not mostly genetic, and has a lot to do with environment and socialisation."
We are going to have to disagree on this. I suspect - though cannot prove - that intelligence (by which I mean IQ) is solely genetic.
In any case, this is not the point that I am making. I am arguing that our system favours intelligence over wealth, and that this holds whether the intelligence comes from nature or nurture.
I mean, it is hard to prove things, but all we need to do is disprove that IQ is solely genetic and your hypothesis is wrong. And modern psychology has done that. (I also wouldn't put much truck in IQ as a measurement of intelligence, because IQ has a pretty circular definition of itself in relation to intelligence).
As for intelligence (meaning IQ) being a better indicator for success in our system than money, it depends on what you mean by success (making more money?) but again, we can almost certainly point out that isn't true. Take similar graduates from private school / state school backgrounds (the very thing you mentioned) and you find a 7% pay gap in favour of kids from private schools, all other things being equal.
BBC: Prime Minister Boris Johnson tells the BBC the A&E waiting time figures released today- which are the worst since records began -“is basically caused by the huge demand that there is on the NHS".
So it is our fault for daring to have accidents and encounter medical emergencies.
If you ever to A&E (I haven't been in one since I was 10, but know other people who have been quite recently), there are plenty of people there who really ought not to be there.
I have. Last five years. Unpleasant circumstances. It is not easy to say who is malingering and who is not. Top tip: if you need to go, best do it around 3am. It's still staffed and the queues are much shorter.
I had my second ever visit (when not escorting injured pupils) on Tuesday. I’m still here (not in A&E but on one of the wards).
Hope you are okay FT
No, but I am getting better. Thanks for the good wishes.
148grss said: "Take similar graduates from private school / state school backgrounds (the very thing you mentioned) and you find a 7% pay gap in favour of kids from private schools, all other things being equal."
Yes, it`s impossible to get untangle all factors in play I guess.
Regarding your comment above: It is obvious that private school pupils (on average) do better (wealth-wise) than state school pupils. I would argue (though you would disagree) that this is because their parents are (on average) more intelligent and that intelligence is passed on genetically but also because state schools have to accept less intelligent pupils which brings their average down.
Why hasn't JC been doing to the rallies in the parks and conference centres and arenas like in 2017? The tub-thumping speeches were instrumental in energising his base and creating a powerful progressive narrative.
This time? Crickets & tumbleweed.
Can't see a surge coming unless footage emerges of Johnson throwing a migrant child into the channel.
Why hasn't JC been doing to the rallies in the parks and conference centres and arenas like in 2017? The tub-thumping speeches were instrumental in energising his base and creating a powerful progressive narrative.
This time? Crickets & tumbleweed.
Can't see a surge coming unless footage emerges of Johnson throwing a migrant child into the channel.
It would be much more powerful - particularly given he’s an independent and can take his own line - if he said something like, “I favoured a soft Brexit but that’s clearly not possible anymore. I also recognise the strong reasons that lay behind the electorate’s original decision to Leave. Therefore, I will be campaigning for the UK to stay in a reformed relationship with the EU that addresses those concerns, by arguing for the reestablishment of Cameron’s Deal for non-euro EU countries but firm up that we’d be outside political union and will press for further migration controls, including an emergency brake.”
Do you regret not campaigning for Cameron's Deal at the time?
(1) I do wish people would stop saying he’s been “uncorked” every time he says something. This is getting a little old now. (2) He’s now come out for Remain, whilst he’d previously have preferred a soft Brexit.
I’m not sure how helpful this is in winning over convincible Conservatives to the Remain side. Like Antoinette Sandbach it makes it look he was a secret Europhile all along. And he’s just ‘outed’ himself.
It would be much more powerful - particularly given he’s an independent and can take his own line - if he said something like, “I favoured a soft Brexit but that’s clearly not possible anymore. I also recognise the strong reasons that lay behind the electorate’s original decision to Leave. Therefore, I will be campaigning for the UK to stay in a reformed relationship with the EU that addresses those concerns, by arguing for the reestablishment of Cameron’s Deal for non-euro EU countries but firm up that we’d be outside political union and will press for further migration controls, including an emergency brake.”
He's a big boy. He could be sayinng that himself if it was what he meant.
It seems to be the variation between the pollsters seems to be narrowing. Tory lead ~10% which should in theory be enough for a comfortable majority.
However, the campaign hasn't really got going yet - there is still a lot to play for.
NOM at 2.8ish on Betfair Exchange seems very good value - agree?
Voters are beginning to realise that Corbyn isn't the monster of the Daily Mail's imagination and that stripped of the bluster Johnson is an empty vessel. Corbyn looks like he cares. He has the manner of a long time social worker. Johnson looks like a self absorbed dilletante.
(I'm voting Swinson because I don't like the influence of the Unions)
You should come canvassing around the Council estates in my seat Roger. They can't stand Corbyn, in 3 hours I found just one Labour voter yesterday.
148grss said: "Intelligence is certainly not solely genetic, arguably not mostly genetic, and has a lot to do with environment and socialisation."
We are going to have to disagree on this. I suspect - though cannot prove - that intelligence (by which I mean IQ) is solely genetic.
In any case, this is not the point that I am making. I am arguing that our system favours intelligence over wealth, and that this holds whether the intelligence comes from nature or nurture.
I mean, it is hard to prove things, but all we need to do is disprove that IQ is solely genetic and your hypothesis is wrong. And modern psychology has done that. (I also wouldn't put much truck in IQ as a measurement of intelligence, because IQ has a pretty circular definition of itself in relation to intelligence).
As for intelligence (meaning IQ) being a better indicator for success in our system than money, it depends on what you mean by success (making more money?) but again, we can almost certainly point out that isn't true. Take similar graduates from private school / state school backgrounds (the very thing you mentioned) and you find a 7% pay gap in favour of kids from private schools, all other things being equal.
Why hasn't JC been doing to the rallies in the parks and conference centres and arenas like in 2017? The tub-thumping speeches were instrumental in energising his base and creating a powerful progressive narrative.
This time? Crickets & tumbleweed.
Can't see a surge coming unless footage emerges of Johnson throwing a migrant child into the channel.
Because he is now very unpopular, people would not turn up. He rocks up now at places and it is no "Oh Jeremy Corbyn" it is barracking and heckling.
148grss said: "Take similar graduates from private school / state school backgrounds (the very thing you mentioned) and you find a 7% pay gap in favour of kids from private schools, all other things being equal."
Yes, it`s impossible to get untangle all factors in play I guess.
Regarding your comment above: It is obvious that private school pupils (on average) do better (wealth-wise) than state school pupils. I would argue (though you would disagree) that this is because their parents are (on average) more intelligent and that intelligence is passed on genetically but also because state schools have to accept less intelligent pupils which brings their average down.
We could go round in circles over this.
I mean, this is preposterous and I have no idea how you can't see it is preposterous. Am I alone in this?
It is also inaccurate if you count Wollaston as one of the Tories cast into the wilderness. She will stroll Totnes (admittedly as 'the Wollaston candidate' rather because she is a LD).
I can tell you have not been near a doorstep in the Totnes constituency.....
When you door knock for a party, do you knock all known voters, or all known party voters? Coz I can imagine that Wollaston will lose the majority of Tory voters, but might make it up elsewhere. I could be wrong, and will defer to your knowledge, but I know most of the knocking by parties is aimed specifically at people known to be party friendly / wavering / party faithfuls in an attempt to drive turn out and target "maybes", so it isn't necessarily a representative sample.
Don't even bother. Mark is the poster who believes his canvassing in Torbay can be extrapolated everywhere from Thurrock to Guildford to Glasgow.
I agree that as, with the "Dementia Tax", Labour's IHT reform, if it appears, will be ruthlessly misrepresented in the campaign and as a consequence perhaps cost votes out there amongst the ignorami. However, let's not do that here. We're better than that.
Mum dies, leaves house worth £1m to 4 children.
The net of tax inheritance will be HIGHER under the new system.
The extra money for each child will not in any way lessen their grief, of course, they will think about Mum every day of their lives until they themselves pass away, but it is certainly not to be sneezed at.
148grss said: "Take similar graduates from private school / state school backgrounds (the very thing you mentioned) and you find a 7% pay gap in favour of kids from private schools, all other things being equal."
Yes, it`s impossible to get untangle all factors in play I guess.
Regarding your comment above: It is obvious that private school pupils (on average) do better (wealth-wise) than state school pupils. I would argue (though you would disagree) that this is because their parents are (on average) more intelligent and that intelligence is passed on genetically but also because state schools have to accept less intelligent pupils which brings their average down.
Wot, no role for the old boy network (which has many levels) or inherited wealth? Because if you want to argue for what you're arguing for, you have to show that those factors have negligible importance - which they patently obviously don't.
148grss said: "Take similar graduates from private school / state school backgrounds (the very thing you mentioned) and you find a 7% pay gap in favour of kids from private schools, all other things being equal."
Yes, it`s impossible to get untangle all factors in play I guess.
Regarding your comment above: It is obvious that private school pupils (on average) do better (wealth-wise) than state school pupils. I would argue (though you would disagree) that this is because their parents are (on average) more intelligent and that intelligence is passed on genetically but also because state schools have to accept less intelligent pupils which brings their average down.
We could go round in circles over this.
I mean, this is preposterous and I have no idea how you can't see it is preposterous. Am I alone in this?
148grss said: "Intelligence is certainly not solely genetic, arguably not mostly genetic, and has a lot to do with environment and socialisation."
We are going to have to disagree on this. I suspect - though cannot prove - that intelligence (by which I mean IQ) is solely genetic.
In any case, this is not the point that I am making. I am arguing that our system favours intelligence over wealth, and that this holds whether the intelligence comes from nature or nurture.
I mean, it is hard to prove things, but all we need to do is disprove that IQ is solely genetic and your hypothesis is wrong. And modern psychology has done that. (I also wouldn't put much truck in IQ as a measurement of intelligence, because IQ has a pretty circular definition of itself in relation to intelligence).
As for intelligence (meaning IQ) being a better indicator for success in our system than money, it depends on what you mean by success (making more money?) but again, we can almost certainly point out that isn't true. Take similar graduates from private school / state school backgrounds (the very thing you mentioned) and you find a 7% pay gap in favour of kids from private schools, all other things being equal.
BBC: Prime Minister Boris Johnson tells the BBC the A&E waiting time figures released today- which are the worst since records began -“is basically caused by the huge demand that there is on the NHS".
So it is our fault for daring to have accidents and encounter medical emergencies.
If you ever to A&E (I haven't been in one since I was 10, but know other people who have been quite recently), there are plenty of people there who really ought not to be there.
I have. Last five years. Unpleasant circumstances. It is not easy to say who is malingering and who is not. Top tip: if you need to go, best do it around 3am. It's still staffed and the queues are much shorter.
I had my second ever visit (when not escorting injured pupils) on Tuesday. I’m still here (not in A&E but on one of the wards).
Why hasn't JC been doing to the rallies in the parks and conference centres and arenas like in 2017? The tub-thumping speeches were instrumental in energising his base and creating a powerful progressive narrative.
This time? Crickets & tumbleweed.
Can't see a surge coming unless footage emerges of Johnson throwing a migrant child into the channel.
Because he is now very unpopular, people would not turn up. He rocks up now at places and it is no "Oh Jeremy Corbyn" it is barracking and heckling.
Fundamentally, huge swathes of the public have now decided they don't like Corbyn. It is very hard for any politician to change that when people have made their mind up. Indeed most unpopular politicians find their popularity only recovers when they stop being a politician.
In my view, Corbyn's best hope is that everyone starts writing him off and the election then gets re-framed as being about the size of Boris's majority.
"Wot, no role for the old boy network (which has many levels) or for inherited wealth? Because if you want to argue for what you're arguing, you have to show that those factors have negligible importancr - which they patently obviously don't."
No - I accept that old boy network still exists and and many levels - as you say. I`m not saying that child success isn`t multi-faceted. My original point was to highlight the significance of intelligence - which I think is overlooked by many folk (generally left-wing) who are happy to bash wealth.
BBC: Prime Minister Boris Johnson tells the BBC the A&E waiting time figures released today- which are the worst since records began -“is basically caused by the huge demand that there is on the NHS".
So it is our fault for daring to have accidents and encounter medical emergencies.
Actually, if for a moment people could stop trying to score silly partisan points and try instead to understand what is going on (I know, I know...), they would do well to ponder the second graph in this article:
As you can see, the number of attendances at A & E has gone up from around 1.7 million in a typical month in 2011 to around 2.1 million now. That's a pretty extraordinary increase, which puts the increase in waiting times into context.
The drivers of that increase in attendances are no doubt complex, but they certainly won't all be the 'fault' of the government.
Folk unable to get a GP appointment, because there are not enough GPs, is certainly a big factor. And that is down to the government.
Good try, but the number of GP appointments has also slightly increased.
Population increase without increased capacity in the GP system?
I agree that as, with the "Dementia Tax", Labour's IHT reform, if it appears, will be ruthlessly misrepresented in the campaign and as a consequence perhaps cost votes out there amongst the ignorami. However, let's not do that here. We're better than that.
Mum dies, leaves house worth £1m to 4 children.
The net of tax inheritance will be HIGHER under the new system.
The extra money for each child will not in any way lessen their grief, of course, they will think about Mum every day of their lives until they themselves pass away, but it is certainly not to be sneezed at.
Average family size 2.2 children though...
It’s been 2.2 since the 70’s is it still?
I didn’t check...
If there ever is a big IHT versus lifetime gift tax debate, I wonder whether people's identities as only children or as siblings will come into play politically. E.g. "my dad left the same as his dad, but because I've got a sister and he's an only child the state took a bigger chunk of my dad's estate." Sibling status, including whether or not we have any, is an important part of how many of us view ourselves. Perhaps it even has a bigger correlation with voting patterns than gender?
Comments
One child shouted "boobies" while looking at a copy of the [Incredible Hulk] book, to which Mr Johnson replied: "Those aren't boobies, they are muscles."
https://www.mainernews.com/private-facebook-group-fans-flames-of-racist-hatred-in-maine/
https://tinyurl.com/yzz9lldh
See:
Adjusted: Monthly A&E Time series October 2019 (XLS, 354K)
The rate of emergency admissions has remained fairly constant at around 24-25%.
GOP: War, hoo, haw, what is it good for, lots and lots of money.
https://twitter.com/ally_harp/status/1194629730814685185
"A&E is for emergencies only, which include:
life or limb-threatening injuries
serious head injuries
chest pain
severe abdominal (stomach) pain
heavy bleeding
broken limbs and fractures
choking
breathing difficulties"
My local A&E sorted out the waiting times by installing an outpatient GP service down the corridor. All cases classed as not for A&E sent there and the mahoosive queue, changed attitudes within a very short space of time.
"Overwhelmingly, the main driver for success is having wealthy parents."
Wealth helps, but not the main driver. The main driver is the intelligence of the parents.
Oh dear, we aren't supposed to knock public sector workers for greed are we?
Unite to Remain approached "we'll negotiate a deal to Leave the European Union" Labour Party and amazingly enough were rebuffed. So thats why the leave supporting Labour Party isn't in the remain alliance - it refused. That means that any Labour MP - even staunch remainers - are elected either to vote through Labour's leave deal or to rebel against their party in which case why stand as a Labour MP at all?
Had Labour been prepared to stand aside in seats they haven't a hope of winning then a deal could have been done to do the same. They haven't, and we know why, its because they genuinely believe that Labour will win this election and win it big because the Tories are Evil and as soon as He speaks to normal people they will all be converted to vote for Him like that chap in Dundee was.
If Labour lose its because the voters don't want them.
https://tinyurl.com/ydugj3t7
Yes, I class LUCK as including when, where, to whom you are born. Birth circumstances. It's the biggie. It surely on balance and on the whole outweighs the luck you may have in the course of your life. But that is influential too.
@Noo
Indeed. Being born - or becoming - a citizen of a country with sound institutions and the rule of law is massively important for material life outcome. And I would add wealthy before country there. Although I suppose the two things usually go together.
I shall go away now and decide how to spend my rebate.
Public wont wear it boys.
I suspect my doubts about a Tory majority are mostly cognitive bias after 2017 (recency?) but the odds 'feel' too skinny for Boris.
I've also got a lay sat buried on Con Seats at @1.83 which will need some downward pressure before it gets taken out.
You maybe confusing it with the flagship Edinburgh UK Government Hub which opens next year and is very definitely UKanian.
https://tinyurl.com/yesrvupq
Glad to hear it.
Your doubt is justified (cf Wales).
All over the place.
No BXP in the 317 means losses will be limited and then BXP splitting votes in Labour held seats, but targeting Labour voters and not campaigning heavily in most of the Tory/Lab marginals probably won't have a huge negative effect on the blues.
Compared to the arrangement between the Lib Dems and Labour this seems very favourable.
Whether it's because of a lack of GP coverage, or whether for transient communities it's just easier to use the nearest A&E, I don't know.
Whilst retention is a good focus, there is also a need to remove bureaucratic obstacles to career development which encourage good staff to leave the NHS. I know a Senior Registrar who holds a clinical lecturer position at one of the country's top teaching hospitals, has a Ph.D from another (as well as her medical degree and membership of the RCS since whe was 29). In her mid-30s she is still waiting for her consultant appointment because she had 2 maternity leaves and has to complete a fixed number of hours as a junior to qualify. She is constantly getting offers, especially from the States, where she often lectures.
Very little of that in 2017.
"Overwhelmingly, the main driver for success is having wealthy parents."
Stocky said:
"Wealth helps, but not the main driver. The main driver is the intelligence of the parents."
148grss said:
"How do you come to this conclusion?"
FirstIy it`s a very plausible conclusion to draw from basic genetics, and, secondly, I have experience of state and private schools and see it all the time.
Intelligent children (whose parents are clearly intelligent and have careers which correspond) do well whether they are educated privately or via the state system. They are the cream that always comes to the top, and are sought after by schools and then universities.
In the private system, I see wealthy parents trying unsuccessfully to gain advantage for their less-than-intelligent offspring. Money doesn`t help much.
Bursaries are granted to the ultra smart ones - making the intelligent/ not intelligent spectrum even more unfair.
If the altitude is low 20's and more of a race track pattern it is possibly a tanker although overland re-fuelling above an urban area would be very unusual.
It shouldn’t be.
I was (obviously I thought) pointing out the irony of 'The Queen's 11' supporters who have the Union flag tattooed on their psyches ranting paranoically about The Queen's Revenue & Customs doing them over. I see I shall have to turn my sarcasm settings to 'lumbering' in the future.
Retention is a potentially very good strategy, with a focus on removing the obsession with "consultant" status as a hallmark of career "arrival". Efficiency would be another good area, but this is unlikely to ever be seriously addressed while the NHS remains a political football. Too much emotion means rational decisions cannot be made
Yeah, I was vaguely aware you can opt out of state healthcare, but still get some form of subsidised insurance.
But curiously, looking at the figures their per capita private spend is pretty normal - that element is pretty steady across most of the developed world at about $1k, with the exception of the US ($5k per person, and the state also spends another $5k, about 50% more than the NHS!)
https://www.statista.com/statistics/283221/per-capita-health-expenditure-by-country/
https://twitter.com/moguloilman/status/1194970977706348544
Beyond that their is a great body of research into child development and intellect that disagrees with the idea intelligence is a mostly genetic trait. Lots of evidence points to children who spend more physical time with adults tend to have better educational outcomes later in life. We know poverty can impact educational attainment; if you're a hungry child, you don't learn as well, if you have a broken home, you don't learn as well, if you have to care for family members who are disabled, you don't attain as high grades. We know things like lead poisoning literally causes brain damage, and that poorer people are more likely to live in poorer housing conditions, some of which include lead paint.
Intelligence is certainly not solely genetic, arguably not mostly genetic, and has a lot to do with environment and socialisation.
(1) I do wish people would stop saying he’s been “uncorked” every time he says something. This is getting a little old now.
(2) He’s now come out for Remain, whilst he’d previously have preferred a soft Brexit.
I’m not sure how helpful this is in winning over convincible Conservatives to the Remain side. Like Antoinette Sandbach it makes it look he was a secret Europhile all along. And he’s just ‘outed’ himself.
It would be much more powerful - particularly given he’s an independent and can take his own line - if he said something like, “I favoured a soft Brexit but that’s clearly not possible anymore. I also recognise the strong reasons that lay behind the electorate’s original decision to Leave. Therefore, I will be campaigning for the UK to stay in a reformed relationship with the EU that addresses those concerns, by arguing for the reestablishment of Cameron’s Deal for non-euro EU countries but firm up that we’d be outside political union and will press for further migration controls, including an emergency brake.”
I do not want to leave the EU. That means not voting for a party who will:
1. Negotiate a deal to leave the EU
2. Hold a conference where Corbyn acolytes will rig the vote again
3. Campaign to support their deal to leave the EU.
Parties who want to remain in the EU don't do any of those. Johnson's deal IS NOT BREXIT according to Farage who nonetheless is backing it. Corbyn's deal will NOT BE BREXIT yet in the referendum Farage Johnson and Corbyn will all be backing it.
"Intelligence is certainly not solely genetic, arguably not mostly genetic, and has a lot to do with environment and socialisation."
We are going to have to disagree on this. I suspect - though cannot prove - that intelligence (by which I mean IQ) is solely genetic.
In any case, this is not the point that I am making. I am arguing that our system favours intelligence over wealth, and that this holds whether the intelligence comes from nature or nurture.
In example 2 I have exaggerated a pretty real life example and you make a good point that the town gets what they want and the countyside gets what they want and, particularly in the days before tactical voting and targeting you got exactly this with North/South divide and Countryside v Town.
In 1983 the Alliance got practically no seats on a high vote because of this. Theoretically they could have got nearly 50% of the vote and no seats and just over 50% and all of the seats. The system is bonkers.
In reality because their vote was evenly spread it meant that they got very few but if they had got into the upper 30% they would not only have got a majority but won nearly all the seat.
And because of this you get gerrymandering. Doing this is the very definition of gerrymandering. Fortunately here it is much harder, but still all the political parties try it on with the boundary commission.
Having wealthy parents makes it more likely you will be wealthy, intelligent or not, if mainly through inheritance and having intelligent and wealthy parents makes you most likely to be successful of all through inheritance and genes
"anecdote from Labour held marginal Croydon Central"
Bookies have narrow odds-on for the Tories in that constituency. I`ll leave alone at those odds. TBP will be competing which could hurt Tories.
As for intelligence (meaning IQ) being a better indicator for success in our system than money, it depends on what you mean by success (making more money?) but again, we can almost certainly point out that isn't true. Take similar graduates from private school / state school backgrounds (the very thing you mentioned) and you find a 7% pay gap in favour of kids from private schools, all other things being equal.
https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/pr/graduate_earnings_301014.pdf
Poorer kids who get better grades earlier get worse grades later in life.
https://www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Missing-Talent-final-june.pdf
"Yes but he said "success", not wealth. Relative success (particularly relative to your peers or immediate family) is most certainly driven by intelligence. There are always exceptions, though. One would not expect a dullard to become LoTO, but it has happened."
Or POTUS!
" We went to bed as Great Britain and we woke up as Little Britain.....'
https://www.indy100.com/article/farmer-boris-johnson-brexit-little-britain-bishop-auckland-election-9201031
Farmer From British Auckland For Prime Minister!
And in the runup to a GE, if you're short of resources you might avoid areas you're sure you'll do well in. But most of the time, most of your energy will be spent trying to talk to people you're more likely than average to be getting votes from.
And therefore, it's MASSIVELY self-deceiving to believe your canvassing gives you information you can draw conclusions from about the whole of public opinion. 90% of the time, you're talking to houses more likely than most to vote for your guy or gal.
Does anyone know of such a resource, and when it will be ready at all please?
As an aside, I was looking at whether UKIP and the CUK lot where standing, and I find that:
UKIP are going to stand in carefully selected seats where they think they can do best, and avoid splitting the Leave vote. Don't know what that means however. I presume it means this is the last hurrah and they'll stand in about 20 seats (and win none, possibly lose all their deposits) before disappearing completely next year.
CUK are standing in only three seats. Anna Soubry, Chris Leslie and Mike Gapes are restanding (the other two are not) in their seats. I imagine they will go the same was as UKIP and fail to hold any, and disappear/merge into the Lib Dems next year.
If we mean vacancies, then do the figures take into account management decisions to gap posts for good reasons?
Intelligence helps get to the top of high earning professions like law and medicine but does not guarantee high earnings
Yes, it`s impossible to get untangle all factors in play I guess.
Regarding your comment above: It is obvious that private school pupils (on average) do better (wealth-wise) than state school pupils. I would argue (though you would disagree) that this is because their parents are (on average) more intelligent and that intelligence is passed on genetically but also because state schools have to accept less intelligent pupils which brings their average down.
We could go round in circles over this.
This time? Crickets & tumbleweed.
Can't see a surge coming unless footage emerges of Johnson throwing a migrant child into the channel.
Idiot.
In my view, Corbyn's best hope is that everyone starts writing him off and the election then gets re-framed as being about the size of Boris's majority.
"Wot, no role for the old boy network (which has many levels) or for inherited wealth? Because if you want to argue for what you're arguing, you have to show that those factors have negligible importancr - which they patently obviously don't."
No - I accept that old boy network still exists and and many levels - as you say. I`m not saying that child success isn`t multi-faceted. My original point was to highlight the significance of intelligence - which I think is overlooked by many folk (generally left-wing) who are happy to bash wealth.