Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A dangerous vacuum or duality: A wing and a prayer isn’t good

SystemSystem Posts: 12,169
edited April 2020 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A dangerous vacuum or duality: A wing and a prayer isn’t good enough when the PM’s ill

To talk of death lightly in current circumstances might well seem not only morbid but tasteless. In the midst of a pandemic – one hitting Britain almost as hard as anywhere – leaving many thousands of people bereaved, we obviously need to be sensitive to those considerations.

Read the full story here


«134567

Comments

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,708
    "We must leave this all-powerful superstate because it's not an all-powerful superstate."
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,596
    What are the PM's powers that cannot be exercised by Cabinet or Parliament, managed by an "acting PM" designated by the Cabinet.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,119
    Good video on why we are still only at about ~20k tests a day...its all done manually, rather than automated.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLffvFdGYu8
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,596
    mwadams said:

    What are the PM's powers that cannot be exercised by Cabinet or Parliament, managed by an "acting PM" designated by the Cabinet.

    (By which I mean - yes, parties need a mechanism to ensure that the PM's soft power is exercised appropriately when the PM is incapacitated, but what are the constitutional elements that would also need to be covered?)
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    I agree with this entirely, save the last paragraph. It's not that rare for a Prime Minister to be seriously ill in office. Since 1900 it happened in 1908, 1923, 1941, 1953 and 1957, as well as this year. That's quite regularly enough to have provisions for such circumstances.

    And it has mattered this time round. Without any minister able to exert the authority required to make such decisions, the decision what to do about the current lockdown has been deferred rather than taken. That limbo is not good enough at such a moment.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,482

    "We must leave this all-powerful superstate because it's not an all-powerful superstate."
    Who's leaving now - Italy?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,370

    "We must leave this all-powerful superstate because it's not an all-powerful superstate."
    To which the United States of Europe advocates say - "The answer is more Europe"

    A pan European health service will be back at the top of the agenda, I reckon.
  • US closes all schools for the rest of the academic year
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,931
    The one beneficiary of the power vacuum is Robert Jenrick who cannot be sacked because there is no-one to sack him. Perhaps he might still feel enough shame to resign, if the Morning Star Telegraph is right in its demolition of Jenrick's claim that he is now in his main home (since he and his wife work in London, and his children go to school in London) but then who could appoint a replacement?
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/04/10/robert-jenrick-pressure-quit-claim-mansion-family-home-called/
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,370

    Good video on why we are still only at about ~20k tests a day...its all done manually, rather than automated.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLffvFdGYu8

    It is surprisingly hard to automate good lab work.

    Which why many knew that - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theranos - was bullshit from day one.
  • VerulamiusVerulamius Posts: 1,543
    When I saw the header I immediately thought of Mendelssohn.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7HM94qVmq-4
    Eton College Chappel Choir I found on UTube.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207

    "We must leave this all-powerful superstate because it's not an all-powerful superstate."
    I dont recall anyone saying it was all powerful

    That sounds like a wet dream for you TBH
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,164

    "We must leave this all-powerful superstate because it's not an all-powerful superstate."
    Not sure that is why most people wanted to leave it tbf. They just wanted to go it alone. Arguably the EU would be better if it was closer to a USE. for me living in Spain it would make more sense. However, I can fully understand why people in the UK didn't like it as it was or in the direction t seemed to be heading. None of that alters the fact that it has had, to put it mildly, a very bad pandemic. Rehashing the Brexit argument is supremely irrelevant to that grim reality for those of us living in the Mediterranean countries now. To be frank the EU needs to either show much more solidarity or ..... well.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,164

    "We must leave this all-powerful superstate because it's not an all-powerful superstate."
    To which the United States of Europe advocates say - "The answer is more Europe"

    A pan European health service will be back at the top of the agenda, I reckon.
    I have never really understood why we do not have one. It would make such good sense.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,935
    felix said:

    "We must leave this all-powerful superstate because it's not an all-powerful superstate."
    To which the United States of Europe advocates say - "The answer is more Europe"

    A pan European health service will be back at the top of the agenda, I reckon.
    I have never really understood why we do not have one. It would make such good sense.
    Depends if you are fine funding the health care system in other countries or not.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541
    mwadams said:

    mwadams said:

    What are the PM's powers that cannot be exercised by Cabinet or Parliament, managed by an "acting PM" designated by the Cabinet.

    (By which I mean - yes, parties need a mechanism to ensure that the PM's soft power is exercised appropriately when the PM is incapacitated, but what are the constitutional elements that would also need to be covered?)
    The office of Prime Minister was never established by statute - legal authority is derived primarily from ex officio post of First Lord of the Treasury he/she also holds. The Royal Prerogative is, by convention, exercised by the Monarch on the advice of he on the advice of the Prime Minister and Her Majesty's Governmen. The presidentialisation thesis has gained a lot of ground since Blair but, even today, the powers that legally cannot, rather than by convention should not, be exercised other than by a Prime Minister must be vanishingy small. I cannot think of any. If the Cabinet, during the incapacity of a Prime Minister, unanimousy asked the Monarch to exercise the Royal Prerogative a certain way, I cannot see her refusing. The fluid way the British Constitution evolves means that we may see a gradual shift back to Cabinet responsibility if the Prime Minister is incapacitated for a significant period - one of the reasons the post became as important as it is the fact that George I couldn't exercise much day to day executive power by reason of unpopularity and not speaking much English at the start of his reign, although the evidence is that it improved by the end..
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,259
    felix said:

    "We must leave this all-powerful superstate because it's not an all-powerful superstate."
    To which the United States of Europe advocates say - "The answer is more Europe"

    A pan European health service will be back at the top of the agenda, I reckon.
    I have never really understood why we do not have one. It would make such good sense.
    I've never understood why the NHS didn't routinely use spare capacity in EU hospitals. Or, indeed, routinely use capacity round the UK. If I need an operation I am quite happy to have it in Leeds or Budapest rather than Frimley Park.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,999
    edited April 2020
    Simon Jenkins says the EU is terrible.

    He's brill and so right!

    Simon Jenkins says Scottish independence is inevitable.

    *moves hurriedly on averting eyes*
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,370
    felix said:

    "We must leave this all-powerful superstate because it's not an all-powerful superstate."
    Not sure that is why most people wanted to leave it tbf. They just wanted to go it alone. Arguably the EU would be better if it was closer to a USE. for me living in Spain it would make more sense. However, I can fully understand why people in the UK didn't like it as it was or in the direction t seemed to be heading. None of that alters the fact that it has had, to put it mildly, a very bad pandemic. Rehashing the Brexit argument is supremely irrelevant to that grim reality for those of us living in the Mediterranean countries now. To be frank the EU needs to either show much more solidarity or ..... well.
    One problem is that the EEC/EU went a bit mad in the 1990s and tried to do about a century of economic integration in a decade.

    So all the countries in Europe got shovelled into a single currency on the promise that they would all turn into little Germanies - but not just yet.

    The problem was that the whole societal structure in many countries was at odds with such changes. In Greece, for example, this would mean tearing down a great many conventions about how things are done. Hence fierce resistance to such changes and the politicians not actually changing anything.

    My approach would have been a program of economic integration, probably taking many decades, before a single currency. How much and how fast would depend on the scale of the transfer payments that would have been acceptable from the rich countries. The present transfer payments do not justify a single currency area.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,708
    felix said:

    None of that alters the fact that it has had, to put it mildly, a very bad pandemic. Rehashing the Brexit argument is supremely irrelevant to that grim reality for those of us living in the Mediterranean countries now. To be frank the EU needs to either show much more solidarity or ..... well.

    Where has had a good pandemic? How would being outside the EU help Spain or Italy?
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    4.00 pm Press Conference - Pritti Patel and a full supporting cast.

    https://twitter.com/ChrisMasonBBC/status/1248974136811999232
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,751
    edited April 2020
    Nice film of Jair Bolsonaro wiping his nose on the back of his hand immediately before shaking hands with an elderly woman:
    https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/world/lockdown-defying-brazilian-president-wipes-his-nose-before-shaking-hands-elderly-woman
  • Simon Jenkins says the EU is terrible.

    He's brill!

    Simon Jenkins says Scottish independence is inevitable.

    *moves hurriedly on averting eyes*
    Can you show where I have said Simon Jenkins is brill

    And don't shoot the messenger
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,708
    dr_spyn said:

    4.00 pm Press Conference - Pritti Patel and a full supporting cast.

    https://twitter.com/ChrisMasonBBC/status/1248974136811999232

    This is her Theresa May at the Police Federation moment.
  • felix said:

    None of that alters the fact that it has had, to put it mildly, a very bad pandemic. Rehashing the Brexit argument is supremely irrelevant to that grim reality for those of us living in the Mediterranean countries now. To be frank the EU needs to either show much more solidarity or ..... well.

    Where has had a good pandemic? How would being outside the EU help Spain or Italy?
    But the whole point is that they are supposed to help Spain and Italy, the clue is in the name, European Union
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,370
    edited April 2020

    felix said:

    "We must leave this all-powerful superstate because it's not an all-powerful superstate."
    To which the United States of Europe advocates say - "The answer is more Europe"

    A pan European health service will be back at the top of the agenda, I reckon.
    I have never really understood why we do not have one. It would make such good sense.
    I've never understood why the NHS didn't routinely use spare capacity in EU hospitals. Or, indeed, routinely use capacity round the UK. If I need an operation I am quite happy to have it in Leeds or Budapest rather than Frimley Park.
    Interesting that you don't know.

    All health care systems ration. The American system, famously rations on wealth. In the UK - as in much of Europe, we ration in time and resources.

    Back when Blair was in power (IIRC) there was a moment when some EU judges ruled that *timely* healthcare was a human right. Hence the right for those waiting too long for an operation (say) to go to France, and charge it back the UK.

    This was rapidly stopped by the EU governments. It would have meant, in effect, unlimited health care across the continent.

    There was an interesting wrinkle in the UK case. Under EU law, there was no differentiation between private and public hospital provision. If you went to a hospital in France for your op, it could be public or private. Also under EU law, you would have the same right in UK... So the government was faced with the prospect of a flood of patients going to BUPA - and having their ops paid for under the NHS budget.

    A massive privatisation of the NHS.....
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,931

    felix said:

    "We must leave this all-powerful superstate because it's not an all-powerful superstate."
    Not sure that is why most people wanted to leave it tbf. They just wanted to go it alone. Arguably the EU would be better if it was closer to a USE. for me living in Spain it would make more sense. However, I can fully understand why people in the UK didn't like it as it was or in the direction t seemed to be heading. None of that alters the fact that it has had, to put it mildly, a very bad pandemic. Rehashing the Brexit argument is supremely irrelevant to that grim reality for those of us living in the Mediterranean countries now. To be frank the EU needs to either show much more solidarity or ..... well.
    One problem is that the EEC/EU went a bit mad in the 1990s and tried to do about a century of economic integration in a decade.

    So all the countries in Europe got shovelled into a single currency on the promise that they would all turn into little Germanies - but not just yet.

    The problem was that the whole societal structure in many countries was at odds with such changes. In Greece, for example, this would mean tearing down a great many conventions about how things are done. Hence fierce resistance to such changes and the politicians not actually changing anything.

    My approach would have been a program of economic integration, probably taking many decades, before a single currency. How much and how fast would depend on the scale of the transfer payments that would have been acceptable from the rich countries. The present transfer payments do not justify a single currency area.
    Worse is there is no practical escape mechanism from this flawed currency. Countries which should never have joined, now find they cannot leave without risking financial armageddon, as @rcs1000 has iirc previously discussed.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,164
    RobD said:

    felix said:

    "We must leave this all-powerful superstate because it's not an all-powerful superstate."
    To which the United States of Europe advocates say - "The answer is more Europe"

    A pan European health service will be back at the top of the agenda, I reckon.
    I have never really understood why we do not have one. It would make such good sense.
    Depends if you are fine funding the health care system in other countries or not.
    Clearly - just as in the UK I was fine with funding all the nations. It's not hard.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,885

    felix said:

    "We must leave this all-powerful superstate because it's not an all-powerful superstate."
    To which the United States of Europe advocates say - "The answer is more Europe"

    A pan European health service will be back at the top of the agenda, I reckon.
    I have never really understood why we do not have one. It would make such good sense.
    I've never understood why the NHS didn't routinely use spare capacity in EU hospitals. Or, indeed, routinely use capacity round the UK. If I need an operation I am quite happy to have it in Leeds or Budapest rather than Frimley Park.
    Interesting that you don't know.

    All health care systems ration. The American system, famously rations on wealth. In the UK - as in much of Europe, we ration in time.

    Back when Blair was in power (IIRC) there was a moment when some EU judges ruled that *timely* healthcare was a human right. Hence the right for those waiting too long for an operation (say) to go to France, and charge it back the UK.

    This was rapidly stopped by the EU governments. It would have meant, in effect, unlimited health care across the continent.

    There was an interesting wrinkle in the UK case. Under EU law, there was no differentiation between private and public hospital provision. If you went to a hospital in France for your op, it could be public or private. Also under EU law, you would have the same right in UK... So the government was faced with the prospect of a flood of patients going to BUPA - and having their ops paid for under the NHS budget.

    A massive privatisation of the NHS.....
    There is of course no such thing as a single UK NHS (despite Tory obfuscation in the form of the renaming of the Scottish Health Service to 'NHS' while there was still a Conservative satrap in St Andrew's House). But we had people in England being treated in Scottish hospitals and vice versa, quite recently in the case of a relative of mine. Not obvious to me why a Northumbrian beign treated in Melrose is OK but a Kent person cannot be treated in Calais.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,164

    felix said:

    None of that alters the fact that it has had, to put it mildly, a very bad pandemic. Rehashing the Brexit argument is supremely irrelevant to that grim reality for those of us living in the Mediterranean countries now. To be frank the EU needs to either show much more solidarity or ..... well.

    Where has had a good pandemic? How would being outside the EU help Spain or Italy?
    They could print the money themselves which they currently have to borrow under restrictions. I'd have preferred Coronabonds but they are not on offer. But again you avoid the point that the EU could be making life much easier right now for member states that are suffering greatly. The fact that it isn't is a failure. Why on earth do you need to pretend it is anything other?
  • felix said:

    felix said:

    None of that alters the fact that it has had, to put it mildly, a very bad pandemic. Rehashing the Brexit argument is supremely irrelevant to that grim reality for those of us living in the Mediterranean countries now. To be frank the EU needs to either show much more solidarity or ..... well.

    Where has had a good pandemic? How would being outside the EU help Spain or Italy?
    They could print the money themselves which they currently have to borrow under restrictions. I'd have preferred Coronabonds but they are not on offer. But again you avoid the point that the EU could be making life much easier right now for member states that are suffering greatly. The fact that it isn't is a failure. Why on earth do you need to pretend it is anything other?
    The EU is sacrosanct and beyond any form of criticism to some.

    Indeed if you are employed by them you cannot be critical
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,482

    dr_spyn said:

    4.00 pm Press Conference - Pritti Patel and a full supporting cast.

    https://twitter.com/ChrisMasonBBC/status/1248974136811999232

    This is her Theresa May at the Police Federation moment.
    In all seriousness, it's a bit of a tightrope for her.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,608

    Simon Jenkins says the EU is terrible.

    He's brill and so right!

    Simon Jenkins says Scottish independence is inevitable.

    *moves hurriedly on averting eyes*
    Remarkable how everything always pivots on Scotland......
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,935
    felix said:

    RobD said:

    felix said:

    "We must leave this all-powerful superstate because it's not an all-powerful superstate."
    To which the United States of Europe advocates say - "The answer is more Europe"

    A pan European health service will be back at the top of the agenda, I reckon.
    I have never really understood why we do not have one. It would make such good sense.
    Depends if you are fine funding the health care system in other countries or not.
    Clearly - just as in the UK I was fine with funding all the nations. It's not hard.
    I doubt that is a view shared with many, to be honest.
  • Carnyx said:

    felix said:

    "We must leave this all-powerful superstate because it's not an all-powerful superstate."
    To which the United States of Europe advocates say - "The answer is more Europe"

    A pan European health service will be back at the top of the agenda, I reckon.
    I have never really understood why we do not have one. It would make such good sense.
    I've never understood why the NHS didn't routinely use spare capacity in EU hospitals. Or, indeed, routinely use capacity round the UK. If I need an operation I am quite happy to have it in Leeds or Budapest rather than Frimley Park.
    Interesting that you don't know.

    All health care systems ration. The American system, famously rations on wealth. In the UK - as in much of Europe, we ration in time.

    Back when Blair was in power (IIRC) there was a moment when some EU judges ruled that *timely* healthcare was a human right. Hence the right for those waiting too long for an operation (say) to go to France, and charge it back the UK.

    This was rapidly stopped by the EU governments. It would have meant, in effect, unlimited health care across the continent.

    There was an interesting wrinkle in the UK case. Under EU law, there was no differentiation between private and public hospital provision. If you went to a hospital in France for your op, it could be public or private. Also under EU law, you would have the same right in UK... So the government was faced with the prospect of a flood of patients going to BUPA - and having their ops paid for under the NHS budget.

    A massive privatisation of the NHS.....
    There is of course no such thing as a single UK NHS (despite Tory obfuscation in the form of the renaming of the Scottish Health Service to 'NHS' while there was still a Conservative satrap in St Andrew's House). But we had people in England being treated in Scottish hospitals and vice versa, quite recently in the case of a relative of mine. Not obvious to me why a Northumbrian beign treated in Melrose is OK but a Kent person cannot be treated in Calais.
    Northumbrian being treated in Melrose within the UK is not remotely the same as someone from Kent being treated in Calais in France
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    Starmer surge.

    https://twitter.com/gsoh31/status/1248980448988012548

    Can't access all the small print on their site.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,999

    Simon Jenkins says the EU is terrible.

    He's brill and so right!

    Simon Jenkins says Scottish independence is inevitable.

    *moves hurriedly on averting eyes*
    Remarkable how everything always pivots on Scotland......
    Says the man who excited himself that the UK put up a temporary hospital a day quicker than China.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,164
    RobD said:

    felix said:

    RobD said:

    felix said:

    "We must leave this all-powerful superstate because it's not an all-powerful superstate."
    To which the United States of Europe advocates say - "The answer is more Europe"

    A pan European health service will be back at the top of the agenda, I reckon.
    I have never really understood why we do not have one. It would make such good sense.
    Depends if you are fine funding the health care system in other countries or not.
    Clearly - just as in the UK I was fine with funding all the nations. It's not hard.
    I doubt that is a view shared with many, to be honest.
    What - you don't agree with the UK funding a health service across its nations?
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,676
    It's like a bad David Brent comment.

    Theres good news and bad news on the Coronavirus front from the BBC.

    The bad news is more than 900 new deaths despite the BH lag the good news "Boris is playing Sudoku".
  • BannedinnParisBannedinnParis Posts: 1,884
    image

    obvious polling is obvious.

    Media having a poor time of it, as has been increasingly obvious
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,885

    Carnyx said:

    felix said:

    "We must leave this all-powerful superstate because it's not an all-powerful superstate."
    To which the United States of Europe advocates say - "The answer is more Europe"

    A pan European health service will be back at the top of the agenda, I reckon.
    I have never really understood why we do not have one. It would make such good sense.
    I've never understood why the NHS didn't routinely use spare capacity in EU hospitals. Or, indeed, routinely use capacity round the UK. If I need an operation I am quite happy to have it in Leeds or Budapest rather than Frimley Park.
    Interesting that you don't know.

    All health care systems ration. The American system, famously rations on wealth. In the UK - as in much of Europe, we ration in time.

    Back when Blair was in power (IIRC) there was a moment when some EU judges ruled that *timely* healthcare was a human right. Hence the right for those waiting too long for an operation (say) to go to France, and charge it back the UK.

    This was rapidly stopped by the EU governments. It would have meant, in effect, unlimited health care across the continent.

    There was an interesting wrinkle in the UK case. Under EU law, there was no differentiation between private and public hospital provision. If you went to a hospital in France for your op, it could be public or private. Also under EU law, you would have the same right in UK... So the government was faced with the prospect of a flood of patients going to BUPA - and having their ops paid for under the NHS budget.

    A massive privatisation of the NHS.....
    There is of course no such thing as a single UK NHS (despite Tory obfuscation in the form of the renaming of the Scottish Health Service to 'NHS' while there was still a Conservative satrap in St Andrew's House). But we had people in England being treated in Scottish hospitals and vice versa, quite recently in the case of a relative of mine. Not obvious to me why a Northumbrian beign treated in Melrose is OK but a Kent person cannot be treated in Calais.
    Northumbrian being treated in Melrose within the UK is not remotely the same as someone from Kent being treated in Calais in France
    Different countries, different funding, different health services.
  • BannedinnParisBannedinnParis Posts: 1,884
    dr_spyn said:

    Starmer surge.

    https://twitter.com/gsoh31/status/1248980448988012548

    Can't access all the small print on their site.

    obvious polling is obvious.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,608

    Simon Jenkins says the EU is terrible.

    He's brill and so right!

    Simon Jenkins says Scottish independence is inevitable.

    *moves hurriedly on averting eyes*
    Remarkable how everything always pivots on Scotland......
    Says the man who excited himself that the UK put up a temporary hospital a day quicker than China.
    Jeez, if that is your measure of excitement, I pity your significant other.....
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421
    DougSeal said:

    mwadams said:

    mwadams said:

    What are the PM's powers that cannot be exercised by Cabinet or Parliament, managed by an "acting PM" designated by the Cabinet.

    (By which I mean - yes, parties need a mechanism to ensure that the PM's soft power is exercised appropriately when the PM is incapacitated, but what are the constitutional elements that would also need to be covered?)
    The office of Prime Minister was never established by statute - legal authority is derived primarily from ex officio post of First Lord of the Treasury he/she also holds. The Royal Prerogative is, by convention, exercised by the Monarch on the advice of he on the advice of the Prime Minister and Her Majesty's Governmen. The presidentialisation thesis has gained a lot of ground since Blair but, even today, the powers that legally cannot, rather than by convention should not, be exercised other than by a Prime Minister must be vanishingy small. I cannot think of any. If the Cabinet, during the incapacity of a Prime Minister, unanimousy asked the Monarch to exercise the Royal Prerogative a certain way, I cannot see her refusing. The fluid way the British Constitution evolves means that we may see a gradual shift back to Cabinet responsibility if the Prime Minister is incapacitated for a significant period - one of the reasons the post became as important as it is the fact that George I couldn't exercise much day to day executive power by reason of unpopularity and not speaking much English at the start of his reign, although the evidence is that it improved by the end..
    The Prime Minister is not ex officio First Lord of the Treasury. It’s just that since 1902 they’ve always been the same person.

    The Prime Minister is whoever the Monarch asks to form an administration and chair the Cabinet. No other qualification is needed. That also means, however, that if the Monarch asks someone else to chair the cabinet, they would have in effect the powers of a PM.

    However, I cannot imagine that any decision on something truly drastic (e.g. a declaration of war) would not be taken by the cabinet as a whole.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,370
    Carnyx said:

    felix said:

    "We must leave this all-powerful superstate because it's not an all-powerful superstate."
    To which the United States of Europe advocates say - "The answer is more Europe"

    A pan European health service will be back at the top of the agenda, I reckon.
    I have never really understood why we do not have one. It would make such good sense.
    I've never understood why the NHS didn't routinely use spare capacity in EU hospitals. Or, indeed, routinely use capacity round the UK. If I need an operation I am quite happy to have it in Leeds or Budapest rather than Frimley Park.
    Interesting that you don't know.

    All health care systems ration. The American system, famously rations on wealth. In the UK - as in much of Europe, we ration in time.

    Back when Blair was in power (IIRC) there was a moment when some EU judges ruled that *timely* healthcare was a human right. Hence the right for those waiting too long for an operation (say) to go to France, and charge it back the UK.

    This was rapidly stopped by the EU governments. It would have meant, in effect, unlimited health care across the continent.

    There was an interesting wrinkle in the UK case. Under EU law, there was no differentiation between private and public hospital provision. If you went to a hospital in France for your op, it could be public or private. Also under EU law, you would have the same right in UK... So the government was faced with the prospect of a flood of patients going to BUPA - and having their ops paid for under the NHS budget.

    A massive privatisation of the NHS.....
    There is of course no such thing as a single UK NHS (despite Tory obfuscation in the form of the renaming of the Scottish Health Service to 'NHS' while there was still a Conservative satrap in St Andrew's House). But we had people in England being treated in Scottish hospitals and vice versa, quite recently in the case of a relative of mine. Not obvious to me why a Northumbrian beign treated in Melrose is OK but a Kent person cannot be treated in Calais.
    There is a level of co-operation and common structures that makes it fair and rational to talk of a UK NHS - as a rather federalised set of entities.

    As to the question of international healthcare provision - I think I explained above that I would upset the current Way Things Are done.

    Do you wish to be known as Not A Team Player?
  • ukpaulukpaul Posts: 649

    dr_spyn said:

    4.00 pm Press Conference - Pritti Patel and a full supporting cast.

    https://twitter.com/ChrisMasonBBC/status/1248974136811999232

    This is her Theresa May at the Police Federation moment.
    In all seriousness, it's a bit of a tightrope for her.
    The question is, will she toe the collective line or will she say the most reactionary thing she can think of when asked her opinion?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,999

    It's like a bad David Brent comment.

    Theres good news and bad news on the Coronavirus front from the BBC.

    The bad news is more than 900 new deaths despite the BH lag the good news "Boris is playing Sudoku".

    They're keeping BJ back to making and painting model buses out of wine boxes in reserve.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,164

    It's like a bad David Brent comment.

    Theres good news and bad news on the Coronavirus front from the BBC.

    The bad news is more than 900 new deaths despite the BH lag the good news "Boris is playing Sudoku".

    I fear you allow your political bias too much to cloud your views. There are fewer deaths than yesterday. Better than the other way around. The UK is probably moving through the peak period right now. The time it is most critical that people focus on ensuring the lockdown sacrifices are made worthwhile by sticking with it.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,898


    The EU is sacrosanct and beyond any form of criticism to some.

    Indeed if you are employed by them you cannot be critical

    That's true of a number of organisations of course.

    As far as the EU is concerned, if one of the pre-requisites of slowing the infection is reducing travel, closing borders to impede that travel isn't the worst idea I've ever heard and closing them to people doesn't mean closing them to goods.

    In the box of home delivered food we got last Monday from a British wholesaler, the chicken was from Holland - did I care? No. Do I demand all goods should be British? No - I'm simply happy to have the food and relieved some form of international trade and commerce is continuing.

    Most borders are still open for trade and goods are still flowing (mercifully). In terms of Government expenditure, all are suffering and going to suffer. The economic impacts are going to be severe - we know that - but I'd rather deal with that and be alive.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,885

    Carnyx said:

    felix said:

    "We must leave this all-powerful superstate because it's not an all-powerful superstate."
    To which the United States of Europe advocates say - "The answer is more Europe"

    A pan European health service will be back at the top of the agenda, I reckon.
    I have never really understood why we do not have one. It would make such good sense.
    I've never understood why the NHS didn't routinely use spare capacity in EU hospitals. Or, indeed, routinely use capacity round the UK. If I need an operation I am quite happy to have it in Leeds or Budapest rather than Frimley Park.
    Interesting that you don't know.

    All health care systems ration. The American system, famously rations on wealth. In the UK - as in much of Europe, we ration in time.

    Back when Blair was in power (IIRC) there was a moment when some EU judges ruled that *timely* healthcare was a human right. Hence the right for those waiting too long for an operation (say) to go to France, and charge it back the UK.

    This was rapidly stopped by the EU governments. It would have meant, in effect, unlimited health care across the continent.

    There was an interesting wrinkle in the UK case. Under EU law, there was no differentiation between private and public hospital provision. If you went to a hospital in France for your op, it could be public or private. Also under EU law, you would have the same right in UK... So the government was faced with the prospect of a flood of patients going to BUPA - and having their ops paid for under the NHS budget.

    A massive privatisation of the NHS.....
    There is of course no such thing as a single UK NHS (despite Tory obfuscation in the form of the renaming of the Scottish Health Service to 'NHS' while there was still a Conservative satrap in St Andrew's House). But we had people in England being treated in Scottish hospitals and vice versa, quite recently in the case of a relative of mine. Not obvious to me why a Northumbrian beign treated in Melrose is OK but a Kent person cannot be treated in Calais.
    There is a level of co-operation and common structures that makes it fair and rational to talk of a UK NHS - as a rather federalised set of entities.

    As to the question of international healthcare provision - I think I explained above that I would upset the current Way Things Are done.

    Do you wish to be known as Not A Team Player?
    Fair enough - there are such things as NICE. And I have no ojbection to people being treated at the best specialist centres, or the nearest ones - it's being paid for and (in normal times) nobody is being deprived. But the health services are fundamentally separate at a managerial and financial level. There is no union in that sense. The division goes right to the top of the various governments, to the level where they decide how to spend their money within their overall budgets.

    And that is not different from the European situation - common things like drugs testing but totally separate when ti comes to funding.

    So I cannot understand why it is somehow acceptable to send an English patient to Scotland but not to France - the logic is similar in both cases.
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,117
    https://unitedwestream.co.uk

    Live streaming Fac51 and reminiscing the Hacienda.....

    Those were the days...when you paid 20notes for an E
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    For those using the Covid-19 symptom tracker app - results:

    https://covid.joinzoe.com/data
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,226
    OMG it's Patel fronting the presser!

    The notorious "smirk" will have to be suppressed somehow.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,676
    felix said:

    It's like a bad David Brent comment.

    Theres good news and bad news on the Coronavirus front from the BBC.

    The bad news is more than 900 new deaths despite the BH lag the good news "Boris is playing Sudoku".

    I fear you allow your political bias too much to cloud your views. There are fewer deaths than yesterday. Better than the other way around. The UK is probably moving through the peak period right now. The time it is most critical that people focus on ensuring the lockdown sacrifices are made worthwhile by sticking with it.
    Todays numbers are terrible.

    It's for a BH day look back at weekend drops would have expected same effect on a BH.

    Weekend numbers for last couple of weeks have shown a circa 20% lag.

    You are right that we should be at or close to peak on new numbers infected. I fear we are not there yet on deaths peak. I think we will top 1000 new deaths next Wednesday.i really hope I am wrong.

    It's not about ones politics it's about ending up with most deaths iof any country in Europe, an honour I fear the UK may hold by this time next month.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,482
    ukpaul said:

    dr_spyn said:

    4.00 pm Press Conference - Pritti Patel and a full supporting cast.

    https://twitter.com/ChrisMasonBBC/status/1248974136811999232

    This is her Theresa May at the Police Federation moment.
    In all seriousness, it's a bit of a tightrope for her.
    The question is, will she toe the collective line or will she say the most reactionary thing she can think of when asked her opinion?
    But what is the collective line? Is it that the rules are important but the jackboot tendency among the rozzers need to rein it in a tad, or will she be foursquare behind rifling through people's shopping bags?
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    A hook and eye, helps stop this, unless it is a coordinated plot by Labour politicians to get noticed again.

    https://twitter.com/tombarton/status/1248984628234539009
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,217
    Regarding Italy and the EU, the problem is (and has always been) a stark divergence in consequences from leaving.

    The elderly may not have jobs, but thanks to being in the Eurozone, their savings are secure. They have been winners.

    The young, on the other hand, don't have jobs because Italy's economic model doesn't really work in the Eurozone. And governments (successive) have not done anything to change the Italian model, and have also lied to the people about why it doesn't work.

    In Italy, you get elected by promising the old that their savings won't get hit by leaving the Eurozone. And you promise the young, that you'll stand-up to the EU and make them change their rules, so Italy can go back to its old ways.

    Italy has always been faced with three choices -

    1. Leave the Eurozone, take the hit to savings, and allow the old Italian economic growth model to work again. (Albeit, this doesn't solve the major demographics issues, but it's better than here.)

    2. Stay in the Eurozone, but dramatically liberalise the labour market and change the laws to make company bankrupcies easier, and to allow banks to collect on debts. Basically, do the Thatcherite revolution in Italy.

    3. Economic stagnation and growing anger at the political class for allowing this to happen.

    For the last twenty years, the Italians have chosen option 3. They would be well advised to choose one of the first two.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,370
    RobD said:

    felix said:

    RobD said:

    felix said:

    "We must leave this all-powerful superstate because it's not an all-powerful superstate."
    To which the United States of Europe advocates say - "The answer is more Europe"

    A pan European health service will be back at the top of the agenda, I reckon.
    I have never really understood why we do not have one. It would make such good sense.
    Depends if you are fine funding the health care system in other countries or not.
    Clearly - just as in the UK I was fine with funding all the nations. It's not hard.
    I doubt that is a view shared with many, to be honest.
    The major problem - and one that I used to think might be triggered for the UK to leave the EU - is the funding model.

    Because most of Europe mixes public and private together, any such unified system would involve treating private hospitals just as public. Given that and under EU market rules, it would not just mean UK patients getting their operation in Calais. It would mean that BUPA would be able to do ops at a patients request and charge the NHS for them.

    I am quite sure that such an outcome would meat with total opposition from a very substantial number of people - it would amount to massive privatisation.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,563

    Simon Jenkins says the EU is terrible.

    He's brill and so right!

    Simon Jenkins says Scottish independence is inevitable.

    *moves hurriedly on averting eyes*
    I really, really don't like Simon Jenkins. But on this occasion he is right in both those comments.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,999

    Simon Jenkins says the EU is terrible.

    He's brill and so right!

    Simon Jenkins says Scottish independence is inevitable.

    *moves hurriedly on averting eyes*
    Remarkable how everything always pivots on Scotland......
    Says the man who excited himself that the UK put up a temporary hospital a day quicker than China.
    Jeez, if that is your measure of excitement, I pity your significant other.....
    Hey, I wasn't saying that was your top note excitement. I know there would need to be more BJ for you glassy eyed devotees.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,533
    edited April 2020
    Good article, though with a fast-moving pandemic the risk is that a series of deputies go down in turn. For that matter, we need some contingency planning in case the next pandemic is worse and a whole bunch of Cabinet Ministers fall ill at the same time as the PM.

    On a lighter note, thanks for the entertaining responses to my wine-and-omelette exploration. Tomorrow, I'm considering cooking pasta, also for the first time. I've got some "artisan Tortaglione" from Sainsbury (spirally things) which I bought when bargaining for 2-week isolation (all the cheap pasta had been panic-bought, but anyway I thought that pasta virginity should be broken with some good stuff), and some tomato sauce. Just boil them, right? There are rather a lot of them, I wonder if they'll keep if I eat half? (Where is Cyclefree?)

    The wine, by the way, is Politically Correct. Given to me by a leftie friend, it's 19 Crimes red wine from Australia, based on a riot in 1904 against a rum tax. The rebels were punished with a variety of trumped-up charges, and with each bottle you can find one of the crimes inscribed on the cork. I have "Assault with attempt to rob". It's very good. (The wine, not the assault.)
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868
    This sounds alarming, but should be reassuring. Covid-19 takes 20-25 days to kill victims. The paper reckons that 7m Americans were infected from March 8th to 14th, and official data show 7,000 deaths three weeks later. The resulting fatality rate is 0.1%, similar to that of flu. That is amazingly low, just a tenth of some other estimates. Perhaps it is just wrong, possibly because the death toll has been under-reported. Perhaps, though, New York’s hospitals are overflowing because the virus is so contagious that it has crammed the equivalent of a year’s worth of flu cases into one week

    https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/04/11/why-a-study-showing-that-covid-19-is-everywhere-is-good-news
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,370
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    felix said:

    "We must leave this all-powerful superstate because it's not an all-powerful superstate."
    To which the United States of Europe advocates say - "The answer is more Europe"

    A pan European health service will be back at the top of the agenda, I reckon.
    I have never really understood why we do not have one. It would make such good sense.
    I've never understood why the NHS didn't routinely use spare capacity in EU hospitals. Or, indeed, routinely use capacity round the UK. If I need an operation I am quite happy to have it in Leeds or Budapest rather than Frimley Park.
    Interesting that you don't know.

    All health care systems ration. The American system, famously rations on wealth. In the UK - as in much of Europe, we ration in time.

    Back when Blair was in power (IIRC) there was a moment when some EU judges ruled that *timely* healthcare was a human right. Hence the right for those waiting too long for an operation (say) to go to France, and charge it back the UK.

    This was rapidly stopped by the EU governments. It would have meant, in effect, unlimited health care across the continent.

    There was an interesting wrinkle in the UK case. Under EU law, there was no differentiation between private and public hospital provision. If you went to a hospital in France for your op, it could be public or private. Also under EU law, you would have the same right in UK... So the government was faced with the prospect of a flood of patients going to BUPA - and having their ops paid for under the NHS budget.

    A massive privatisation of the NHS.....
    There is of course no such thing as a single UK NHS (despite Tory obfuscation in the form of the renaming of the Scottish Health Service to 'NHS' while there was still a Conservative satrap in St Andrew's House). But we had people in England being treated in Scottish hospitals and vice versa, quite recently in the case of a relative of mine. Not obvious to me why a Northumbrian beign treated in Melrose is OK but a Kent person cannot be treated in Calais.
    There is a level of co-operation and common structures that makes it fair and rational to talk of a UK NHS - as a rather federalised set of entities.

    As to the question of international healthcare provision - I think I explained above that I would upset the current Way Things Are done.

    Do you wish to be known as Not A Team Player?
    Fair enough - there are such things as NICE. And I have no ojbection to people being treated at the best specialist centres, or the nearest ones - it's being paid for and (in normal times) nobody is being deprived. But the health services are fundamentally separate at a managerial and financial level. There is no union in that sense. The division goes right to the top of the various governments, to the level where they decide how to spend their money within their overall budgets.

    And that is not different from the European situation - common things like drugs testing but totally separate when ti comes to funding.

    So I cannot understand why it is somehow acceptable to send an English patient to Scotland but not to France - the logic is similar in both cases.
    You want to use logic in public policy? What next? Sccccccience??!!??!!!!

    You'll be saying that the man who buys ammunition for the British army should know something about ammunition, next.....
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,176

    Simon Jenkins says the EU is terrible.

    He's brill and so right!

    Simon Jenkins says Scottish independence is inevitable.

    *moves hurriedly on averting eyes*
    I really, really don't like Simon Jenkins. But on this occasion he is right in both those comments.
    Any particular reason? I don't always agree with him, but I tend to find has thought about the subject he is writing about.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,868
    I've come to the conclusion that all of the lobby journalists need to be taken out the back and shot. They've allowed the government to get away with a middling to poor response to the virus. The level of scrutiny has been absolutely shocking, the obsession with the Westminster stories on who has the launch codes is a complete waste of everyone's time and we're still behind on testing and PPE provision.

    I'm not saying either of this issues is easy to solve, they aren't. However, the lack of any kind of hard questioning has basically let the government off the hook on both while there are doctors and nurses putting themselves at risk all day every day. The lack of testing available for NHS staff means there are frontline staff working themselves to death right now and no one is taking responsibility for that. It's just not good enough.

    It's almost as though ministers think that we won't notice if they are able to keep quiet enough about it, but I have friends and family on the front line. Loads of people do, the stories are absolutely shocking at the moment. Any other profession would have gone on strike by now over the working conditions being imposed by the government.

    Overall my rating of the government response had gone from a B- to a D, no longer a passing grade. The willful endangerment of our frontline NHS staff is, IMO, beyond the pale and both Hancock needs to pay the price. Boris has serious questions to answer as well, so do all of the members of SAGE who advised the government to allow sporting and other major gatherings to take place (Cheltenham, football matches etc...) knowing that it could cause a huge spike in cases well before we would have the testing capacity and PPE provision available to give us a way out of this mess.

    I have no doubt that any other party/government would have taken exactly the same path, this isn't a party question, the government is just unlucky in that they had to deal with this mess, but bad luck isn't an excuse for bad decisions.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,217
    Here's a good piece on South Korea's response

    https://youtu.be/BE-cA4UK07c
  • ukpaulukpaul Posts: 649
    edited April 2020

    For those using the Covid-19 symptom tracker app - results:

    https://covid.joinzoe.com/data

    What study is that based on? It suggests that it is more prevalent in the North and whole swathes of the south have much less. Looking at hospital admissions that doesn't look particularly the case (although, the north west, north east and Yorkshire do appear to have shot up over the last few days as per the government figures). Just taking one example, Hartlepool is way down on patient numbers but is shown as being at 4.26% on that map.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,139
    The Deputy PM should just take over from the PM when they are incapacitated as they effectively do when the PM is on holiday. The Deputy PM should also be a post enshrined in law.

    After all in the US Vice President Bush Snr assumed the powers of the Presidency when President Reagan was undergoing surgery
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,139
    Priti Patel leading today's press conference at Downing Street as Home Secretary
  • Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    felix said:

    "We must leave this all-powerful superstate because it's not an all-powerful superstate."
    To which the United States of Europe advocates say - "The answer is more Europe"

    A pan European health service will be back at the top of the agenda, I reckon.
    I have never really understood why we do not have one. It would make such good sense.
    I've never understood why the NHS didn't routinely use spare capacity in EU hospitals. Or, indeed, routinely use capacity round the UK. If I need an operation I am quite happy to have it in Leeds or Budapest rather than Frimley Park.
    Interesting that you don't know.

    All health care systems ration. The American system, famously rations on wealth. In the UK - as in much of Europe, we ration in time.

    Back when Blair was in power (IIRC) there was a moment when some EU judges ruled that *timely* healthcare was a human right. Hence the right for those waiting too long for an operation (say) to go to France, and charge it back the UK.

    This was rapidly stopped by the EU governments. It would have meant, in effect, unlimited health care across the continent.

    There was an interesting wrinkle in the UK case. Under EU law, there was no differentiation between private and public hospital provision. If you went to a hospital in France for your op, it could be public or private. Also under EU law, you would have the same right in UK... So the government was faced with the prospect of a flood of patients going to BUPA - and having their ops paid for under the NHS budget.

    A massive privatisation of the NHS.....
    There is of course no such thing as a single UK NHS (despite Tory obfuscation in the form of the renaming of the Scottish Health Service to 'NHS' while there was still a Conservative satrap in St Andrew's House). But we had people in England being treated in Scottish hospitals and vice versa, quite recently in the case of a relative of mine. Not obvious to me why a Northumbrian beign treated in Melrose is OK but a Kent person cannot be treated in Calais.
    Northumbrian being treated in Melrose within the UK is not remotely the same as someone from Kent being treated in Calais in France
    Different countries, different funding, different health services.
    Scotland is part of the United Kingdom until and unless it becomes independent
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,708
    edited April 2020
    Priti obviously innumerate - she can't read out a 6 didit number correctly (or even nearly correctly).
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,370
    ukpaul said:

    For those using the Covid-19 symptom tracker app - results:

    https://covid.joinzoe.com/data

    What study is that based on? It suggests that it is more prevalent in the North and whole swathes of the south have much less. Looking at hospital admissions that doesn't look particularly the case (although, the north west, north east and Yorkshire do appear to have shot up over the last few days as per the government figures). Just taking one example, Hartlepool is way down on patient numbers but is shown as being at 4.26% on that map.
    It's based on self reporting via a voluntarily downloaded app on mobile phones.

    So you have massive issues of self selection, sample biases etc.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 5,191
    tlg86 said:

    Simon Jenkins says the EU is terrible.

    He's brill and so right!

    Simon Jenkins says Scottish independence is inevitable.

    *moves hurriedly on averting eyes*
    I really, really don't like Simon Jenkins. But on this occasion he is right in both those comments.
    Any particular reason? I don't always agree with him, but I tend to find has thought about the subject he is writing about.
    Of course Jenkins is right to say

    "the EU is not a true political union, like the United States or Russia or even the United Kingdom"

    who on earth ever thought it was?

    What the coronavirus shows is that the single currency was not properly thought through. But we knew that already.

    and as for
    "Nation states have been forced back (...) on their own own health resources"
    that just shows what an ignoramus Jenkins often is. The EU has never been responsible for running nation states health systems.

    Pretty rubbish article.

  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,935
    MikeL said:

    Priti obviously innumerate - she can't read out a 6 didit number correctly (or even nearly correctly).

    No wonder the immigration target was dropped. ;)
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,205
    Third trip out of the day - if anyone wants to volunteer to pick shit for a couple of hour in Derbyshire they're more than welcome ;)
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,139
    edited April 2020
    dr_spyn said:

    Starmer surge.

    https://twitter.com/gsoh31/status/1248980448988012548

    Can't access all the small print on their site.

    Starmer has a net positive rating of +50 to Corbyn's -54 in the poll though (albeit only +21% including Don't Knows) but his only gains so far seem to be from the LDs in terms of voting intention.

    Starmer most popular with younger voters, voters in London and the West Midlands and middle class ABC1 voters and graduates.

    Starmer least popular though with working class C2DE voters and those without qualifications
  • kamskikamski Posts: 5,191

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    felix said:

    "We must leave this all-powerful superstate because it's not an all-powerful superstate."
    To which the United States of Europe advocates say - "The answer is more Europe"

    A pan European health service will be back at the top of the agenda, I reckon.
    I have never really understood why we do not have one. It would make such good sense.
    I've never understood why the NHS didn't routinely use spare capacity in EU hospitals. Or, indeed, routinely use capacity round the UK. If I need an operation I am quite happy to have it in Leeds or Budapest rather than Frimley Park.
    Interesting that you don't know.

    All health care systems ration. The American system, famously rations on wealth. In the UK - as in much of Europe, we ration in time.

    Back when Blair was in power (IIRC) there was a moment when some EU judges ruled that *timely* healthcare was a human right. Hence the right for those waiting too long for an operation (say) to go to France, and charge it back the UK.

    This was rapidly stopped by the EU governments. It would have meant, in effect, unlimited health care across the continent.

    There was an interesting wrinkle in the UK case. Under EU law, there was no differentiation between private and public hospital provision. If you went to a hospital in France for your op, it could be public or private. Also under EU law, you would have the same right in UK... So the government was faced with the prospect of a flood of patients going to BUPA - and having their ops paid for under the NHS budget.

    A massive privatisation of the NHS.....
    There is of course no such thing as a single UK NHS (despite Tory obfuscation in the form of the renaming of the Scottish Health Service to 'NHS' while there was still a Conservative satrap in St Andrew's House). But we had people in England being treated in Scottish hospitals and vice versa, quite recently in the case of a relative of mine. Not obvious to me why a Northumbrian beign treated in Melrose is OK but a Kent person cannot be treated in Calais.
    There is a level of co-operation and common structures that makes it fair and rational to talk of a UK NHS - as a rather federalised set of entities.

    As to the question of international healthcare provision - I think I explained above that I would upset the current Way Things Are done.

    Do you wish to be known as Not A Team Player?
    Fair enough - there are such things as NICE. And I have no ojbection to people being treated at the best specialist centres, or the nearest ones - it's being paid for and (in normal times) nobody is being deprived. But the health services are fundamentally separate at a managerial and financial level. There is no union in that sense. The division goes right to the top of the various governments, to the level where they decide how to spend their money within their overall budgets.

    And that is not different from the European situation - common things like drugs testing but totally separate when ti comes to funding.

    So I cannot understand why it is somehow acceptable to send an English patient to Scotland but not to France - the logic is similar in both cases.
    You want to use logic in public policy? What next? Sccccccience??!!??!!!!

    You'll be saying that the man who buys ammunition for the British army should know something about ammunition, next.....
    It would be fine if the patient speaks fluent French
  • ukpaulukpaul Posts: 649

    ukpaul said:

    For those using the Covid-19 symptom tracker app - results:

    https://covid.joinzoe.com/data

    What study is that based on? It suggests that it is more prevalent in the North and whole swathes of the south have much less. Looking at hospital admissions that doesn't look particularly the case (although, the north west, north east and Yorkshire do appear to have shot up over the last few days as per the government figures). Just taking one example, Hartlepool is way down on patient numbers but is shown as being at 4.26% on that map.
    It's based on self reporting via a voluntarily downloaded app on mobile phones.

    So you have massive issues of self selection, sample biases etc.
    Ah, okay, thanks.
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 2,507
    Priti making up for not being asked before by talking longer than the rest put together.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,226
    HYUFD said:

    Priti Patel leading today's press conference at Downing Street as Home Secretary

    Yes. She's very nervous but thus far is holding up OK.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,370
    kamski said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    felix said:

    "We must leave this all-powerful superstate because it's not an all-powerful superstate."
    To which the United States of Europe advocates say - "The answer is more Europe"

    A pan European health service will be back at the top of the agenda, I reckon.
    I have never really understood why we do not have one. It would make such good sense.
    I've never understood why the NHS didn't routinely use spare capacity in EU hospitals. Or, indeed, routinely use capacity round the UK. If I need an operation I am quite happy to have it in Leeds or Budapest rather than Frimley Park.
    Interesting that you don't know.

    All health care systems ration. The American system, famously rations on wealth. In the UK - as in much of Europe, we ration in time.

    Back when Blair was in power (IIRC) there was a moment when some EU judges ruled that *timely* healthcare was a human right. Hence the right for those waiting too long for an operation (say) to go to France, and charge it back the UK.

    This was rapidly stopped by the EU governments. It would have meant, in effect, unlimited health care across the continent.

    There was an interesting wrinkle in the UK case. Under EU law, there was no differentiation between private and public hospital provision. If you went to a hospital in France for your op, it could be public or private. Also under EU law, you would have the same right in UK... So the government was faced with the prospect of a flood of patients going to BUPA - and having their ops paid for under the NHS budget.

    A massive privatisation of the NHS.....
    There is of course no such thing as a single UK NHS (despite Tory obfuscation in the form of the renaming of the Scottish Health Service to 'NHS' while there was still a Conservative satrap in St Andrew's House). But we had people in England being treated in Scottish hospitals and vice versa, quite recently in the case of a relative of mine. Not obvious to me why a Northumbrian beign treated in Melrose is OK but a Kent person cannot be treated in Calais.
    There is a level of co-operation and common structures that makes it fair and rational to talk of a UK NHS - as a rather federalised set of entities.

    As to the question of international healthcare provision - I think I explained above that I would upset the current Way Things Are done.

    Do you wish to be known as Not A Team Player?
    Fair enough - there are such things as NICE. And I have no ojbection to people being treated at the best specialist centres, or the nearest ones - it's being paid for and (in normal times) nobody is being deprived. But the health services are fundamentally separate at a managerial and financial level. There is no union in that sense. The division goes right to the top of the various governments, to the level where they decide how to spend their money within their overall budgets.

    And that is not different from the European situation - common things like drugs testing but totally separate when ti comes to funding.

    So I cannot understand why it is somehow acceptable to send an English patient to Scotland but not to France - the logic is similar in both cases.
    You want to use logic in public policy? What next? Sccccccience??!!??!!!!

    You'll be saying that the man who buys ammunition for the British army should know something about ammunition, next.....
    It would be fine if the patient speaks fluent French
    It is not particularly hard to find an English speaking doctor in most countries. Something to do with English being the second language of the world, probably.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421
    rcs1000 said:


    3. Economic stagnation and growing anger at the political class for allowing this to happen.

    For the last twenty years, the Italians have chosen option 3. They would be well advised to choose one of the first two.

    To quote the great Sir Humphrey Appleby, I think that last sentence mistakes lethargy for strategy.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421
    MikeL said:

    Priti obviously innumerate - she can't read out a 6 didit number correctly (or even nearly correctly).

    What is it with Home Secretaries and Shadow Home Secretaries that they are incapable of mastering basic numeracy?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,370
    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:


    3. Economic stagnation and growing anger at the political class for allowing this to happen.

    For the last twenty years, the Italians have chosen option 3. They would be well advised to choose one of the first two.

    To quote the great Sir Humphrey Appleby, I think that last sentence mistakes lethargy for strategy.
    I think you misunderstand. Their strategy *is* lethargy. AKA Something Will Turn Up, Hopefully After I Am Out Of Office.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 5,191

    kamski said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    felix said:

    "We must leave this all-powerful superstate because it's not an all-powerful superstate."
    To which the United States of Europe advocates say - "The answer is more Europe"

    A pan European health service will be back at the top of the agenda, I reckon.
    I have never really understood why we do not have one. It would make such good sense.
    I've never understood why the NHS didn't routinely use spare capacity in EU hospitals. Or, indeed, routinely use capacity round the UK. If I need an operation I am quite happy to have it in Leeds or Budapest rather than Frimley Park.
    Interesting that you don't know.

    All health care systems ration. The American system, famously rations on wealth. In the UK - as in much of Europe, we ration in time.

    Back when Blair was in power (IIRC) there was a moment when some EU judges ruled that *timely* healthcare was a human right. Hence the right for those waiting too long for an operation (say) to go to France, and charge it back the UK.

    This was rapidly stopped by the EU governments. It would have meant, in effect, unlimited health care across the continent.

    There was an interesting wrinkle in the UK case. Under EU law, there was no differentiation between private and public hospital provision. If you went to a hospital in France for your op, it could be public or private. Also under EU law, you would have the same right in UK... So the government was faced with the prospect of a flood of patients going to BUPA - and having their ops paid for under the NHS budget.

    A massive privatisation of the NHS.....
    There is of course no such thing as a single UK NHS (despite Tory obfuscation in the form of the renaming of the Scottish Health Service to 'NHS' while there was still a Conservative satrap in St Andrew's House). But we had people in England being treated in Scottish hospitals and vice versa, quite recently in the case of a relative of mine. Not obvious to me why a Northumbrian beign treated in Melrose is OK but a Kent person cannot be treated in Calais.
    There is a level of co-operation and common structures that makes it fair and rational to talk of a UK NHS - as a rather federalised set of entities.

    As to the question of international healthcare provision - I think I explained above that I would upset the current Way Things Are done.

    Do you wish to be known as Not A Team Player?
    Fair enough - there are such things as NICE. And I have no ojbection to people being treated at the best specialist centres, or the nearest ones - it's being paid for and (in normal times) nobody is being deprived. But the health services are fundamentally separate at a managerial and financial level. There is no union in that sense. The division goes right to the top of the various governments, to the level where they decide how to spend their money within their overall budgets.

    And that is not different from the European situation - common things like drugs testing but totally separate when ti comes to funding.

    So I cannot understand why it is somehow acceptable to send an English patient to Scotland but not to France - the logic is similar in both cases.
    You want to use logic in public policy? What next? Sccccccience??!!??!!!!

    You'll be saying that the man who buys ammunition for the British army should know something about ammunition, next.....
    It would be fine if the patient speaks fluent French
    It is not particularly hard to find an English speaking doctor in most countries. Something to do with English being the second language of the world, probably.
    Thank you for sharing. I never realised that.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300

    Good article, though with a fast-moving pandemic the risk is that a series of deputies go down in turn. For that matter, we need some contingency planning in case the next pandemic is worse and a whole bunch of Cabinet Ministers fall ill at the same time as the PM.

    On a lighter note, thanks for the entertaining responses to my wine-and-omelette exploration. Tomorrow, I'm considering cooking pasta, also for the first time. I've got some "artisan Tortaglione" from Sainsbury (spirally things) which I bought when bargaining for 2-week isolation (all the cheap pasta had been panic-bought, but anyway I thought that pasta virginity should be broken with some good stuff), and some tomato sauce. Just boil them, right? There are rather a lot of them, I wonder if they'll keep if I eat half? (Where is Cyclefree?)

    The wine, by the way, is Politically Correct. Given to me by a leftie friend, it's 19 Crimes red wine from Australia, based on a riot in 1904 against a rum tax. The rebels were punished with a variety of trumped-up charges, and with each bottle you can find one of the crimes inscribed on the cork. I have "Assault with attempt to rob". It's very good. (The wine, not the assault.)

    Breaking and entering should be inscribed on the label at the top of the bottle.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:


    3. Economic stagnation and growing anger at the political class for allowing this to happen.

    For the last twenty years, the Italians have chosen option 3. They would be well advised to choose one of the first two.

    To quote the great Sir Humphrey Appleby, I think that last sentence mistakes lethargy for strategy.
    I think you misunderstand. Their strategy *is* lethargy. AKA Something Will Turn Up, Hopefully After I Am Out Of Office.
    Government is about surviving until next century.

    Italian politics is about surviving until you don’t?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    ukpaul said:

    For those using the Covid-19 symptom tracker app - results:

    https://covid.joinzoe.com/data

    What study is that based on? It suggests that it is more prevalent in the North and whole swathes of the south have much less. Looking at hospital admissions that doesn't look particularly the case (although, the north west, north east and Yorkshire do appear to have shot up over the last few days as per the government figures). Just taking one example, Hartlepool is way down on patient numbers but is shown as being at 4.26% on that map.
    In the Hartlepool example they have 565 respondents - next door Stockton has 1682, Wandsworth, for example, as nearly 11,000. Is it perfect? Of course not, but its better than nothing.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421
    dr_spyn said:

    Good article, though with a fast-moving pandemic the risk is that a series of deputies go down in turn. For that matter, we need some contingency planning in case the next pandemic is worse and a whole bunch of Cabinet Ministers fall ill at the same time as the PM.

    On a lighter note, thanks for the entertaining responses to my wine-and-omelette exploration. Tomorrow, I'm considering cooking pasta, also for the first time. I've got some "artisan Tortaglione" from Sainsbury (spirally things) which I bought when bargaining for 2-week isolation (all the cheap pasta had been panic-bought, but anyway I thought that pasta virginity should be broken with some good stuff), and some tomato sauce. Just boil them, right? There are rather a lot of them, I wonder if they'll keep if I eat half? (Where is Cyclefree?)

    The wine, by the way, is Politically Correct. Given to me by a leftie friend, it's 19 Crimes red wine from Australia, based on a riot in 1904 against a rum tax. The rebels were punished with a variety of trumped-up charges, and with each bottle you can find one of the crimes inscribed on the cork. I have "Assault with attempt to rob". It's very good. (The wine, not the assault.)

    Breaking and entering should be inscribed on the label at the top of the bottle.
    Why? Have you lost your corkscrew?
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,729
    edited April 2020
    Is DH trying to outdo Mr Meeks for the longest thread header?
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,676
    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Priti Patel leading today's press conference at Downing Street as Home Secretary

    Yes. She's very nervous but thus far is holding up OK.
    Cant read out a simple number from an autocue.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,751
    IanB2 said:

    This sounds alarming, but should be reassuring. Covid-19 takes 20-25 days to kill victims. The paper reckons that 7m Americans were infected from March 8th to 14th, and official data show 7,000 deaths three weeks later. The resulting fatality rate is 0.1%, similar to that of flu. That is amazingly low, just a tenth of some other estimates. Perhaps it is just wrong, possibly because the death toll has been under-reported. Perhaps, though, New York’s hospitals are overflowing because the virus is so contagious that it has crammed the equivalent of a year’s worth of flu cases into one week

    https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/04/11/why-a-study-showing-that-covid-19-is-everywhere-is-good-news

    Even if it did only have a fatality rate of 0.1%, of course if left alone it would produce many more deaths than seasonal flu because the lack of immunity in the population would produce so many more cases.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 6,814
    This appears to be an “aint the police great?” presser....
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,676
    WTF is this bollocks.

    A policeman has brought a pint of milk to an elderly resident.

    Whoopee6 dooo

    Can we talk about the matter at hand by any chance.
  • HYUFD said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Starmer surge.

    https://twitter.com/gsoh31/status/1248980448988012548

    Can't access all the small print on their site.

    Starmer has a net positive rating of +50 to Corbyn's -54 in the poll though (albeit only +21% including Don't Knows) but his only gains so far seem to be from the LDs in terms of voting intention.
    And defections amongst party members...
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,492
    ukpaul said:

    For those using the Covid-19 symptom tracker app - results:

    https://covid.joinzoe.com/data

    What study is that based on? It suggests that it is more prevalent in the North and whole swathes of the south have much less. Looking at hospital admissions that doesn't look particularly the case (although, the north west, north east and Yorkshire do appear to have shot up over the last few days as per the government figures). Just taking one example, Hartlepool is way down on patient numbers but is shown as being at 4.26% on that map.
    The study is an App that can be downloaded, then you fill in some information Age, sex post coed and so on, then each day you take one minit to say is you are fully well or what systems you have, tempricher cough snesses, and so on. Presumably there is then a big algorithm, which uses the data to make full protections of the UK population.

    it has 2.2 million people using it, but it is self selection, perhaps the large numbers can mitigate the self selection problem?

    I am using it, but am rater frustrated and disported in the analysis and recommendations.

    'The number of people wiht systems is down, there for Lock-down must be working therefor we musk keep going' is poor analysis and recommendation, one data point and correlation is not causation.
This discussion has been closed.