”Walk around a supermarket in the U.S. or Europe and you will see some empty shelves once more. This isn’t due to people panic-buying toilet paper, as they did early on in the pandemic; rather it’s because supply chains are clogged at almost every stage between Asian factories and grocery stock rooms.
“But rising prices and patchy availability mean it’s only a matter of time before shoppers start purchasing in bulk again — this time to avoid future sticker shock.
“Supply lines are struggling as producers such as Vietnam, responsible for making everything from sneakers to coffee, are hurt by Covid restrictions. Surging virus cases and consumer demand are leading to congested ports. Shipping containers are in the wrong place. Sea freight costs are up tenfold. If goods do arrive at the destined ports, there are too few truck drivers to transport them to retailers. Shortages of workers to harvest and prepare foods are also adding to the pressures.”
Now, I know I'm in a posh part of LA, but I haven't seen any shortages... yet.
Today I filled up my (@Dura_Ace approved) car with petrol, without problems.
My gut - and it's just a gut - is that there is a post Covid demand boom, that is causing supply crunches everywhere. But it's most acute in the UK, simply because Covid hit almost immediately following Brexit. It meant that those who could drive could earn great money in less stressful food delivery jobs, and the normal steady flow people through training was disrupted.
And you know what, that's OK.
No-one is going to starve. Things will adjust. The cost of trucking stuff around will probably increase. And yes, that will have an impact on the price we pay for things.
That post was fine until you got to the 'it's ok' bit.
No it isn't. If you lived here you'd realise that it really, really, isn't. We have horrendous multiple crises going on in the UK at the moment. You may not be a fan of the NHS, for instance, but the situation is absolutely dire. I know several people who have had cancer diagnoses missed during the past 18 months and are now in real trouble. Try getting a face to face appointment with a GP and it's nigh-impossible.
And there are people who ARE on the bread line, especially with the cut in universal credit.
I could go on but please don't post aloof messages from sunny LA trying to tell us it's all fine. That's as bad as the Metropolitan Elite Remainers who never, ever, got the issue in the ghost towns of the north and east of England.
Great post.
On one of your points, a friend of mine found a lump in her breast. Phoned the GP - I have a lump in my chest. GP - we need an online triage with the doctor. My friend - what the **** will an online triage with the doctor do? Will he say oh well that's fine? GP - them's the rules.
So she had the online meeting and was duly summoned in to see the doctor in person two hours later.
What a monumental waste of resources. Cui Bono?
tbf I think that online consultations are now widely available is one of the upsides to come out of the pandemic, and have potential to save both patients and the NHS considerable amounts of time. My checkup for a stomach condition usually consists of a trip to Southampton (car, bus, boat, bus, walk, bus, walk) and a scheduled 20-minute appointment that basically consists of "how are things going?", "OK", "let us know if anything changes", ends, with ten more minutes of talking around the houses since a physical appointment where you get shown the door after five minutes is psychologically difficult. Similarly people are getting seen for routine matters quickly online and GPs are able to give out speedy advice without having the sniffling patient sitting in their office.
The problems are elsewhere - the load of covid patients on hospitals, the reduction in capacity due to all the precautions, the huge backlog, the cancellation of many less critical procedures, and, in a few cases, inability to meet serious demands such as the recently reported cancelled chemo treatment sessions.
Depends. A mate who is a GP said that turning off whatever the system was of instant messaging to the surgery at the weekend saved them hours as a non-trivial % of people who did so "got better" before Monday.
But then there is blanket application of the rules. Certain conditions - and finding a lump in your breast is certainly one of them - are wholly inappropriate for online consultations.
Oh and the last person I knew who had breast cancer (which I hope it is not for this friend) was the brother of a friend of mine.
Yes but by your own anecdote the time and money wasted is minimal and the patient got seen quickly anyway.
Indeed as an urgent priority! Which is the purpose of triage.
It was the third appointment she had including the description of her symptoms to the receptionist.
Is that really the most efficient way?
The old system would have involved describing the symptoms over the phone to the receptionist - required as routine by many practices nowadays and in this case to avoid the "we can fit you in next week" response.
"They demand nationalising energy as Starmer says no, they promote a £10 minimum wage only for Starmer to be photographed at a demonstration demanding £15, Starmer comes down against Rosie Duffield on the trans issue, and amazingly by 70%/30% reject AUKUS"....
AUKUS should be rejected - hatched in secrecy with a fairly hard right Australian government, a deal that is unsupported by Asia's friendly nations, its potentially in breach of the NPT (as is the UK increase in nuclear warheads) and has maanged to sour relations with one of our closest partners in Europe... there's nothing to celebrate about AUKUS unless you own shares in a few defence companies or work in a specific shipyard...
Taiwan, India and Japan have all backed AUKUS and South Korea is neutral.
Perhaps by "Asia's friendly nations" you meant North Korea, which is indeed opposed?
”Walk around a supermarket in the U.S. or Europe and you will see some empty shelves once more. This isn’t due to people panic-buying toilet paper, as they did early on in the pandemic; rather it’s because supply chains are clogged at almost every stage between Asian factories and grocery stock rooms.
“But rising prices and patchy availability mean it’s only a matter of time before shoppers start purchasing in bulk again — this time to avoid future sticker shock.
“Supply lines are struggling as producers such as Vietnam, responsible for making everything from sneakers to coffee, are hurt by Covid restrictions. Surging virus cases and consumer demand are leading to congested ports. Shipping containers are in the wrong place. Sea freight costs are up tenfold. If goods do arrive at the destined ports, there are too few truck drivers to transport them to retailers. Shortages of workers to harvest and prepare foods are also adding to the pressures.”
Now, I know I'm in a posh part of LA, but I haven't seen any shortages... yet.
Today I filled up my (@Dura_Ace approved) car with petrol, without problems.
My gut - and it's just a gut - is that there is a post Covid demand boom, that is causing supply crunches everywhere. But it's most acute in the UK, simply because Covid hit almost immediately following Brexit. It meant that those who could drive could earn great money in less stressful food delivery jobs, and the normal steady flow people through training was disrupted.
And you know what, that's OK.
No-one is going to starve. Things will adjust. The cost of trucking stuff around will probably increase. And yes, that will have an impact on the price we pay for things.
That post was fine until you got to the 'it's ok' bit.
No it isn't. If you lived here you'd realise that it really, really, isn't. We have horrendous multiple crises going on in the UK at the moment. You may not be a fan of the NHS, for instance, but the situation is absolutely dire. I know several people who have had cancer diagnoses missed during the past 18 months and are now in real trouble. Try getting a face to face appointment with a GP and it's nigh-impossible.
And there are people who ARE on the bread line, especially with the cut in universal credit.
I could go on but please don't post aloof messages from sunny LA trying to tell us it's all fine. That's as bad as the Metropolitan Elite Remainers who never, ever, got the issue in the ghost towns of the north and east of England.
I think you go a bit far - we have some enormous challenges ahead, but we always do. The NHS has had winter crisis for as long as I can remember. There will never be enough money, time, medics to do all that could be done. I'd suggest you look elsewhere. We are not uniquely struggling. Things will improve. My guess is the fuel 'crisis' will be over by the weekend.
They don't seem to be struggling quite as much as we are. In terms of loss of life expectancy, Covid has hit the UK harder than many countries, and nowhere else has has people queuing for petrol. European supermarket shelves aren't as empty as ours, either. Pasta, chopped tomatoes and kidney beans almost all gone on my last shoping trip.
BREXIT has really put us in a bad place.
Brexit is an unserious project lead by unserious people, which is the big issue we have right now. They start out by claiming shortages are a feature, not a bug, of Brexit, because they drive up wages. Then they deny that shortages actually exist, because no-one wants to do without important stuff. Or, if they can't deny it, they claim everyone else also had shortages. Finally they blame everyone else for the consequences of their own decisions; companies, the media, Remainers, the EU.
(Which is not to say a serious Brexit wasn't possible in another universe, but that Brexit wouldn't have won the referendum or subsequent election)
We should have started closely aligned (SM & CU), and diverged slowly over many years (as appropriate and once someone had worked out what we wanted to do), as many argued at the time, including myself.
We have tried to achieve a sharp break and will probably now find ourselves forced to realign slowly.
We haven't even done that. There has been no "sharp break" in reality, only in practice. Our standards remain their standards. Their practices remain our practices. We could remove the artificial barriers we have imposed very easily and very quickly.
now that would make an interesting Labour Party conference resolution..........
It would never get to the floor - like so many of the Brexit resolutions put forward over the years. Labour Conference isn't a democractic exercise - but a battle of stage management.
"They demand nationalising energy as Starmer says no, they promote a £10 minimum wage only for Starmer to be photographed at a demonstration demanding £15, Starmer comes down against Rosie Duffield on the trans issue, and amazingly by 70%/30% reject AUKUS"....
AUKUS should be rejected - hatched in secrecy with a fairly hard right Australian government, a deal that is unsupported by Asia's friendly nations, its potentially in breach of the NPT (as is the UK increase in nuclear warheads) and has maanged to sour relations with one of our closest partners in Europe... there's nothing to celebrate about AUKUS unless you own shares in a few defence companies or work in a specific shipyard...
Taiwan, India and Japan have all backed AUKUS and South Korea is neutral.
Perhaps by "Asia's friendly nations" you meant North Korea, which is indeed opposed?
Singapore, Brunei, Malaysia - there's three friendly commonwealth nations that dont want it for a start....... not to mention the rest of ASEAN and NZ
My two-year is very fluid. She identifies as a dinosaur, cat, fox, train and a car - all inside the space of a few minutes.
Can we please stop belittling gender fluidity on this site? The gammon dismissal of a serious issue with complexity and nuance is pretty revolting and off-putting. It demeans this place as a forum of polite and gentle intellectual debate.
If I say it's offensive you'll accuse me of being woke but yes it is offensive.
Perhaps you’d have more moral higher ground if you didn’t use puerile, offensive terms like gammon. A term recently deemed offensive by Ofcom, among others, or is that an acceptable term as it’s an acceptable prejudice ?
Extraordinary isn't it. I'm all for freedom of speech and like and see the humour in both gammon and men in dresses though I wouldn't use either unless in jest and in the context of the right audience. What I do think is that you can't object to one and not the other.
Would you prefer a world which bans all jocular, colourful terms such as this or one which allows all?
”Walk around a supermarket in the U.S. or Europe and you will see some empty shelves once more. This isn’t due to people panic-buying toilet paper, as they did early on in the pandemic; rather it’s because supply chains are clogged at almost every stage between Asian factories and grocery stock rooms.
“But rising prices and patchy availability mean it’s only a matter of time before shoppers start purchasing in bulk again — this time to avoid future sticker shock.
“Supply lines are struggling as producers such as Vietnam, responsible for making everything from sneakers to coffee, are hurt by Covid restrictions. Surging virus cases and consumer demand are leading to congested ports. Shipping containers are in the wrong place. Sea freight costs are up tenfold. If goods do arrive at the destined ports, there are too few truck drivers to transport them to retailers. Shortages of workers to harvest and prepare foods are also adding to the pressures.”
Now, I know I'm in a posh part of LA, but I haven't seen any shortages... yet.
Today I filled up my (@Dura_Ace approved) car with petrol, without problems.
My gut - and it's just a gut - is that there is a post Covid demand boom, that is causing supply crunches everywhere. But it's most acute in the UK, simply because Covid hit almost immediately following Brexit. It meant that those who could drive could earn great money in less stressful food delivery jobs, and the normal steady flow people through training was disrupted.
And you know what, that's OK.
No-one is going to starve. Things will adjust. The cost of trucking stuff around will probably increase. And yes, that will have an impact on the price we pay for things.
That post was fine until you got to the 'it's ok' bit.
No it isn't. If you lived here you'd realise that it really, really, isn't. We have horrendous multiple crises going on in the UK at the moment. You may not be a fan of the NHS, for instance, but the situation is absolutely dire. I know several people who have had cancer diagnoses missed during the past 18 months and are now in real trouble. Try getting a face to face appointment with a GP and it's nigh-impossible.
And there are people who ARE on the bread line, especially with the cut in universal credit.
I could go on but please don't post aloof messages from sunny LA trying to tell us it's all fine. That's as bad as the Metropolitan Elite Remainers who never, ever, got the issue in the ghost towns of the north and east of England.
Great post.
On one of your points, a friend of mine found a lump in her breast. Phoned the GP - I have a lump in my chest. GP - we need an online triage with the doctor. My friend - what the **** will an online triage with the doctor do? Will he say oh well that's fine? GP - them's the rules.
So she had the online meeting and was duly summoned in to see the doctor in person two hours later.
What a monumental waste of resources. Cui Bono?
tbf I think that online consultations are now widely available is one of the upsides to come out of the pandemic, and have potential to save both patients and the NHS considerable amounts of time. My checkup for a stomach condition usually consists of a trip to Southampton (car, bus, boat, bus, walk, bus, walk) and a scheduled 20-minute appointment that basically consists of "how are things going?", "OK", "let us know if anything changes", ends, with ten more minutes of talking around the houses since a physical appointment where you get shown the door after five minutes is psychologically difficult. Similarly people are getting seen for routine matters quickly online and GPs are able to give out speedy advice without having the sniffling patient sitting in their office.
The problems are elsewhere - the load of covid patients on hospitals, the reduction in capacity due to all the precautions, the huge backlog, the cancellation of many less critical procedures, and, in a few cases, inability to meet serious demands such as the recently reported cancelled chemo treatment sessions.
Depends. A mate who is a GP said that turning off whatever the system was of instant messaging to the surgery at the weekend saved them hours as a non-trivial % of people who did so "got better" before Monday.
But then there is blanket application of the rules. Certain conditions - and finding a lump in your breast is certainly one of them - are wholly inappropriate for online consultations.
Oh and the last person I knew who had breast cancer (which I hope it is not for this friend) was the brother of a friend of mine.
Yes but by your own anecdote the time and money wasted is minimal and the patient got seen quickly anyway.
Indeed as an urgent priority! Which is the purpose of triage.
It was the third appointment she had including the description of her symptoms to the receptionist.
Is that really the most efficient way?
Initial contact, triage by a trained clinician, face to face review within hours?
Yes, sounds pretty efficient to me, particularly for a system under massive strain.
There are examples of bad practice, but this is not one.
The Labour left have been proven right about every major foreign policy issue of the past 30 years so maybe we should listen to them.
I really don't like the left wing of the Labour Party, but this post is right on the money. They've certainly been right more than they've been wrong.
The Labour Left wouldn't have intervened in Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone or Afghanistan to target Al Qaeda, would have pulled us out of NATO and made large cuts in the defence budget. They wouldn't have stopped genocide, Somali pirates, or challenged Russian aggression. It's more likely we'd be living in a more dangerous world, not a safer one. Foreign policy is full of complicated choices that do not present easy answers and not intervening can be as dangerous as intervening.
I suspect this is cited for two reasons - Iraq and Palestine - and whilst the wisdom of Western policy on those two issues can be debated a reflexive antipathy against any form of military intervention and a policy of instinctive pacifism simply gifts the field to the most unpleasant actors with the strongest motivation to do harm.
They've certainly been wrong sometimes. Personally, I don't think that the UK's foreign and defence policy choices have made either us or the world at large safer. The two big British wars of our lifetime, Iraq and Afghanistan, were unmitigated disasters. And what have we gained from cosying up to autocratic regimes in the Gulf? And if you're talking about defence cuts, I think you will find that the Tories have presided over far bigger cuts to military spending than Labour has. Down £10bn since 2010...
The Labour left have been proven right about every major foreign policy issue of the past 30 years so maybe we should listen to them.
I really don't like the left wing of the Labour Party, but this post is right on the money. They've certainly been right more than they've been wrong.
The Labour Left wouldn't have intervened in Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone or Afghanistan to target Al Qaeda, would have pulled us out of NATO and made large cuts in the defence budget. They wouldn't have stopped genocide, Somali pirates, or challenged Russian aggression. It's more likely we'd be living in a more dangerous world, not a safer one. Foreign policy is full of complicated choices that do not present easy answers and not intervening can be as dangerous as intervening.
I suspect this is cited for two reasons - Iraq and Palestine - and whilst the wisdom of Western policy on those two issues can be debated a reflexive antipathy against any form of military intervention and a policy of instinctive pacifism simply gifts the field to the most unpleasant actors with the strongest motivation to do harm.
They've certainly been wrong sometimes. Personally, I don't think that the UK's foreign and defence policy choices have made either us or the world at large safer. The two big British wars of our lifetime, Iraq and Afghanistan, were unmitigated disasters. And what have we gained from cosying up to autocratic regimes in the Gulf? And if you're talking about defence cuts, I think you will find that the Tories have presided over far bigger cuts to military spending than Labour has. Down £10bn since 2010...
In fact the last increase to the size of the Army was under Mr T Blair in his 1997 SDR......
I see that SKS is being unexcoriated by his far left for not keeping a promise on a "£15 per hour" minimum wage.
Where was this promise?
And does setting a minimum wage at about 40% (rough number) of Median Wage work?
You know, if it is ever going to work it would be now when the labour market is incredibly tight and the supply of labour is more restricted than it was. Employers would need to focus on getting more out of their more expensive staff, even if it involved training them.
I think that you need to be very careful with policies such as the NMW so as not to overdo it and cause unnecessary unemployment but you should also take advantage of situations such as we have right now. Doing so will transfer more of the burden of financing the low paid from in work benefits to where it belongs, on those that employ them. It is an opportunity to reduce inequality and reduce government spending. I am not sure about £15 but an increase substantially beyond inflation and well over £10 makes sense.
Thankfully the market is doing a good job at the moment, of lifting many people above the minimum wage without needing any government intervention.
True, But I read on here that labour shortages are a bad thing. Or something.
They are a bad thing. Do you think the current pay rises to cover labour shortages will last once the labour pool rebalances?
If you want a sustained rise in pay and conditions you need a balanced labour market. Otherwise it is far too easy to reverse once alternate labour is available.
Actually yes, I do. Firstly wages are sticky downwards as economists say and secondly the ending of free movement means that the pool of labour is more fixed than it has been for the last 20 years. We will still need to import people with skills we lack (including, shamefully, stealing nurses and doctors from poorer countries) but the mass importation of labour we have seen in recent years destroying any bargaining power for the low paid is over. Thank god for that.
There will be disruptions and dislocations as a result, we have been very hooked on cheap labour, but over time this will prove to be a very positive policy for the UK driving training, productivity and a reduction in inequality.
We're going to look a lot more like Switzerland in terms of its walled off labour market. That means significant wage hikes at the bottom and companies having to invest in training and productivity gains to increase output per employee. Where that isn't possible prices will go up. It will end up being the most redistributive policy this nation has seen from older rich people to the younger working poor.
We're more likely to be replacing the young working poor with young unemployed poor once this has played out.
There's a million job vacancies in the UK and that number is going up for both skilled and unskilled labour. For years we've been papering over the cracks in our labour market with imported cheap workers. Now we can't.
I can't wait for our end state of being like Switzerland and paying £10 for a decaf Americano from starbux.
Yes, I'd been carrying round CHF7 (just under £6) for some years, left over from a past transit, and thought I should spend it on something while driving through this year. I got a crappy pre-wrapped tuna sandwich and a small bar of chocolate, and it was gone.
According to court documents, the Bay Area woman accused of starting the Fawn Fire in Shasta County last week was boiling bear urine so she could drink it when she allegedly set off the destructive blaze. https://twitter.com/KPIXtv/status/1442684030097444864
”Walk around a supermarket in the U.S. or Europe and you will see some empty shelves once more. This isn’t due to people panic-buying toilet paper, as they did early on in the pandemic; rather it’s because supply chains are clogged at almost every stage between Asian factories and grocery stock rooms.
“But rising prices and patchy availability mean it’s only a matter of time before shoppers start purchasing in bulk again — this time to avoid future sticker shock.
“Supply lines are struggling as producers such as Vietnam, responsible for making everything from sneakers to coffee, are hurt by Covid restrictions. Surging virus cases and consumer demand are leading to congested ports. Shipping containers are in the wrong place. Sea freight costs are up tenfold. If goods do arrive at the destined ports, there are too few truck drivers to transport them to retailers. Shortages of workers to harvest and prepare foods are also adding to the pressures.”
Now, I know I'm in a posh part of LA, but I haven't seen any shortages... yet.
Today I filled up my (@Dura_Ace approved) car with petrol, without problems.
My gut - and it's just a gut - is that there is a post Covid demand boom, that is causing supply crunches everywhere. But it's most acute in the UK, simply because Covid hit almost immediately following Brexit. It meant that those who could drive could earn great money in less stressful food delivery jobs, and the normal steady flow people through training was disrupted.
And you know what, that's OK.
No-one is going to starve. Things will adjust. The cost of trucking stuff around will probably increase. And yes, that will have an impact on the price we pay for things.
That post was fine until you got to the 'it's ok' bit.
No it isn't. If you lived here you'd realise that it really, really, isn't. We have horrendous multiple crises going on in the UK at the moment. You may not be a fan of the NHS, for instance, but the situation is absolutely dire. I know several people who have had cancer diagnoses missed during the past 18 months and are now in real trouble. Try getting a face to face appointment with a GP and it's nigh-impossible.
And there are people who ARE on the bread line, especially with the cut in universal credit.
I could go on but please don't post aloof messages from sunny LA trying to tell us it's all fine. That's as bad as the Metropolitan Elite Remainers who never, ever, got the issue in the ghost towns of the north and east of England.
Great post.
On one of your points, a friend of mine found a lump in her breast. Phoned the GP - I have a lump in my chest. GP - we need an online triage with the doctor. My friend - what the **** will an online triage with the doctor do? Will he say oh well that's fine? GP - them's the rules.
So she had the online meeting and was duly summoned in to see the doctor in person two hours later.
What a monumental waste of resources. Cui Bono?
Hold on, the GPs have made these rules for themselves and have been resisting DoH forcing them to turn back the clock to all in person appointments. GPs are the worst. It's time to get rid of the concept of a GP surgery.
Please don't get me started on GPs or the NHS.
I have previously been in a consultation with a GP where they and I together googled my symptoms* as they had no idea what to make of them.
*nothing crazy - my pupils were different sizes following a fall.
Basic neuro-anatomy and cranial nerve examination.
Bur I am not surprised, I have often found medical students at finals incapable of this basic examination and interpretation of findings.
Is it just that there's always some out of the way non-typical condition that GPs might not have come across or is it something more fundamental in the training?
Cranial nerve examination (which includes examination of the pupils) is just about the first thing I was taught as a 3rd year medical student on the wards, based on the neuro-anatomy taught in the pre-clinical years.
There has been a shift in educationalist thinking away from knowing facts to knowing where to find facts, and this is a medical example of that. I would argue differently, that this is a core body of knowledge for a doctor that enables understanding and identification of disease.
Children 12-15 are only getting one dose of Pfiser. I've just discovered that 16- 17 3/4 year olds are also only getting one dose (previously it was assumed two).
Does this mean that children will not get a vaccine certificate? If so they will therefore be classed as unvaccinated by other nations for purposes of international travel. The French rules, which are typical, are below:
"The French Government recognises the following vaccines: Pfizer, Moderna, Oxford/AstraZeneca, and Johnson & Johnson (the vaccines recognised by the European Medical Agency). “Fully vaccinated” is defined by the completion of a vaccination schedule, specifically:
1 week after the second dose of Pfizer, Moderna, Oxford/AstraZeneca"
Is anyone in the know about this? I've not seen this issue reported anywhere. If the government has overlooked this (surely not) then it is going to cause issues and will dissuade some children from getting vaccinated in the first place because it takes away the big plus of being classed as vaccinated for international travel.
One dose is probably enough for most under 18s immunologically, but it is a deviation from the manufacturer's recommendations which unlike the 12 week gap definitely won't improve efficacy this time. Other nations can mandate as they like tbh.
related/unrelate - My colleague reports the covid/mask rules in Turkey were very strict.
"They demand nationalising energy as Starmer says no, they promote a £10 minimum wage only for Starmer to be photographed at a demonstration demanding £15, Starmer comes down against Rosie Duffield on the trans issue, and amazingly by 70%/30% reject AUKUS"....
AUKUS should be rejected - hatched in secrecy with a fairly hard right Australian government, a deal that is unsupported by Asia's friendly nations, its potentially in breach of the NPT (as is the UK increase in nuclear warheads) and has maanged to sour relations with one of our closest partners in Europe... there's nothing to celebrate about AUKUS unless you own shares in a few defence companies or work in a specific shipyard...
Taiwan, India and Japan have all backed AUKUS and South Korea is neutral.
Perhaps by "Asia's friendly nations" you meant North Korea, which is indeed opposed?
Singapore, Brunei, Malaysia - there's three friendly commonwealth nations that dont want it for a start....... not to mention the rest of ASEAN and NZ
Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong welcomed the AUKUS arrangement, expressing hopes that it would “contribute constructively to the peace and stability of the region and complement the regional architecture.”
"The Labour Party-Greens coalition government in New Zealand has cautiously welcomed the AUKUS military pact announced on September 16 by US President Joe Biden and the prime ministers of Australia and the UK."
But this is all beside the point. Smaller nations depend on China (and feel no need to act as the world's policeman) are never going to be the flagbearers for an anti-China coalition.
The vague mood music I got from reading about the rail franchise thing that wasn't explicitly stated was that this was possibly systematic by the Franchise group and that all their financial dealings with the government are now suspect and will be re audited.
Any business or organisation should do that, surely? Even if you think it's a genuine mistake, you'd check all dealings to ensure the mistake hadn't been replicated to your detriment?
But in other news, I see Patisserie Valerie's auditor has been fined £2.3 million over that scandal. Reinforcing my (perhaps incorrect) view that the large accountancy firms are fairly cr@p.
According to court documents, the Bay Area woman accused of starting the Fawn Fire in Shasta County last week was boiling bear urine so she could drink it when she allegedly set off the destructive blaze. https://twitter.com/KPIXtv/status/1442684030097444864
My two-year is very fluid. She identifies as a dinosaur, cat, fox, train and a car - all inside the space of a few minutes.
Love it!
Until a few months ago my five year old was saying that when she grows up she wants to be a butterfly.
You need to get her on butterfly hormone therapy. Just teach her to say they key words and the tavistock will hand them over!
You know this stuff is very unbecoming of you. I expected better of both you and @Philip_Thompson.
You should read our debate last night if you want to see what a rational and respectful debate on trans issues looks like.
Trans issues are serious but that's no reason to not have a sense of humour.
There’s no joke here - its just blatant undermining and belittlement. Remember @MaxPB happily describes transwomen as “men in dresses”.
You say someone with a cock and bollocks can be a woman. It's ridiculous.
There’s no need to be rude.
How was that rude in comparison to you saying we were unbecoming, undermining and belittling because of talking about butterflies and young children. You threw the first stone.
I most certainly did not. I’m calling out outright bigotry and abuse and you’re hiding behind “oh it was just a joke”.
Saying that my five year old wanted to be a butterfly is outright bigotry and abuse?
Take a break. You need to get some perspective.
Nope. I’ve said all I have to say on the matter anyway. You knew exactly what you were doing and I expected better. That’s all.
Yes I had a light hearted exchange with another father on this site.
Then you chose to make it ugly.
Nope. You’re the one who hid belittlement behind a “joke”. You can play innocent all you want.
Oh get that stick out of your arse! There's no need to go perpetually angry from 0 to 100 all the time.
My daughter wanting to be a butterfly is the truth. She's also at other times wanted to be a Princess, a Space Ranger, and a Mummy when she grows up. And many other things. It was a cute remark and why can't you just let it be cute instead of making it angry?
I try to stay out of the trans debate as much as possible because there's a lot more heat than light there. But if you want a serious opinion then yes children can want to be all sorts of different things when they grow up. Some want to be doctors, or police, or astronauts. Some even want to become politicians - indeed some teenagers even want to be Liberal republican politicians and end up becoming Conservative Foreign Secretary.
The thing is its not set in stone. As people grow up and go from young children, through puberty and then into adulthood they frequently change their mind.
So I think adults that have been through puberty and into adulthood - if they're trans then we should offer them all the help and support they need and can give so long as it doesn't violate safeguarding for women.
That all seems a reasonable compromise to me. Probably won't satisfy extremists on any side, but to me at least all that seems reasonable. But I'd rather not get into toxic discussions.
”Walk around a supermarket in the U.S. or Europe and you will see some empty shelves once more. This isn’t due to people panic-buying toilet paper, as they did early on in the pandemic; rather it’s because supply chains are clogged at almost every stage between Asian factories and grocery stock rooms.
“But rising prices and patchy availability mean it’s only a matter of time before shoppers start purchasing in bulk again — this time to avoid future sticker shock.
“Supply lines are struggling as producers such as Vietnam, responsible for making everything from sneakers to coffee, are hurt by Covid restrictions. Surging virus cases and consumer demand are leading to congested ports. Shipping containers are in the wrong place. Sea freight costs are up tenfold. If goods do arrive at the destined ports, there are too few truck drivers to transport them to retailers. Shortages of workers to harvest and prepare foods are also adding to the pressures.”
Now, I know I'm in a posh part of LA, but I haven't seen any shortages... yet.
Today I filled up my (@Dura_Ace approved) car with petrol, without problems.
My gut - and it's just a gut - is that there is a post Covid demand boom, that is causing supply crunches everywhere. But it's most acute in the UK, simply because Covid hit almost immediately following Brexit. It meant that those who could drive could earn great money in less stressful food delivery jobs, and the normal steady flow people through training was disrupted.
And you know what, that's OK.
No-one is going to starve. Things will adjust. The cost of trucking stuff around will probably increase. And yes, that will have an impact on the price we pay for things.
That post was fine until you got to the 'it's ok' bit.
No it isn't. If you lived here you'd realise that it really, really, isn't. We have horrendous multiple crises going on in the UK at the moment. You may not be a fan of the NHS, for instance, but the situation is absolutely dire. I know several people who have had cancer diagnoses missed during the past 18 months and are now in real trouble. Try getting a face to face appointment with a GP and it's nigh-impossible.
And there are people who ARE on the bread line, especially with the cut in universal credit.
I could go on but please don't post aloof messages from sunny LA trying to tell us it's all fine. That's as bad as the Metropolitan Elite Remainers who never, ever, got the issue in the ghost towns of the north and east of England.
Great post.
On one of your points, a friend of mine found a lump in her breast. Phoned the GP - I have a lump in my chest. GP - we need an online triage with the doctor. My friend - what the **** will an online triage with the doctor do? Will he say oh well that's fine? GP - them's the rules.
So she had the online meeting and was duly summoned in to see the doctor in person two hours later.
What a monumental waste of resources. Cui Bono?
Hold on, the GPs have made these rules for themselves and have been resisting DoH forcing them to turn back the clock to all in person appointments. GPs are the worst. It's time to get rid of the concept of a GP surgery.
Please don't get me started on GPs or the NHS.
I have previously been in a consultation with a GP where they and I together googled my symptoms* as they had no idea what to make of them.
*nothing crazy - my pupils were different sizes following a fall.
Not sure I like this site becoming one to air one's own medical issues but I'll join in anyway!
Turns out that a CT Scan reveals my stomach bulge on one side/ below belly button isn't, as previously thought, a Spigelian hernia. GP and specialist seem at a loss as to what it is because CT scan shows I'm tickety-boo down there.
I came straight out with it and said "Is it cancer". The specialist looked at me puzzled as to why I though I had cancer. I said, lamely, because it's a bulge. He said "if a cancerous bulge presented like that you'd have been dead weeks ago." I am a medical mystery it seems.
”Walk around a supermarket in the U.S. or Europe and you will see some empty shelves once more. This isn’t due to people panic-buying toilet paper, as they did early on in the pandemic; rather it’s because supply chains are clogged at almost every stage between Asian factories and grocery stock rooms.
“But rising prices and patchy availability mean it’s only a matter of time before shoppers start purchasing in bulk again — this time to avoid future sticker shock.
“Supply lines are struggling as producers such as Vietnam, responsible for making everything from sneakers to coffee, are hurt by Covid restrictions. Surging virus cases and consumer demand are leading to congested ports. Shipping containers are in the wrong place. Sea freight costs are up tenfold. If goods do arrive at the destined ports, there are too few truck drivers to transport them to retailers. Shortages of workers to harvest and prepare foods are also adding to the pressures.”
Now, I know I'm in a posh part of LA, but I haven't seen any shortages... yet.
Today I filled up my (@Dura_Ace approved) car with petrol, without problems.
My gut - and it's just a gut - is that there is a post Covid demand boom, that is causing supply crunches everywhere. But it's most acute in the UK, simply because Covid hit almost immediately following Brexit. It meant that those who could drive could earn great money in less stressful food delivery jobs, and the normal steady flow people through training was disrupted.
And you know what, that's OK.
No-one is going to starve. Things will adjust. The cost of trucking stuff around will probably increase. And yes, that will have an impact on the price we pay for things.
That post was fine until you got to the 'it's ok' bit.
No it isn't. If you lived here you'd realise that it really, really, isn't. We have horrendous multiple crises going on in the UK at the moment. You may not be a fan of the NHS, for instance, but the situation is absolutely dire. I know several people who have had cancer diagnoses missed during the past 18 months and are now in real trouble. Try getting a face to face appointment with a GP and it's nigh-impossible.
And there are people who ARE on the bread line, especially with the cut in universal credit.
I could go on but please don't post aloof messages from sunny LA trying to tell us it's all fine. That's as bad as the Metropolitan Elite Remainers who never, ever, got the issue in the ghost towns of the north and east of England.
Great post.
On one of your points, a friend of mine found a lump in her breast. Phoned the GP - I have a lump in my chest. GP - we need an online triage with the doctor. My friend - what the **** will an online triage with the doctor do? Will he say oh well that's fine? GP - them's the rules.
So she had the online meeting and was duly summoned in to see the doctor in person two hours later.
What a monumental waste of resources. Cui Bono?
tbf I think that online consultations are now widely available is one of the upsides to come out of the pandemic, and have potential to save both patients and the NHS considerable amounts of time. My checkup for a stomach condition usually consists of a trip to Southampton (car, bus, boat, bus, walk, bus, walk) and a scheduled 20-minute appointment that basically consists of "how are things going?", "OK", "let us know if anything changes", ends, with ten more minutes of talking around the houses since a physical appointment where you get shown the door after five minutes is psychologically difficult. Similarly people are getting seen for routine matters quickly online and GPs are able to give out speedy advice without having the sniffling patient sitting in their office.
The problems are elsewhere - the load of covid patients on hospitals, the reduction in capacity due to all the precautions, the huge backlog, the cancellation of many less critical procedures, and, in a few cases, inability to meet serious demands such as the recently reported cancelled chemo treatment sessions.
Depends. A mate who is a GP said that turning off whatever the system was of instant messaging to the surgery at the weekend saved them hours as a non-trivial % of people who did so "got better" before Monday.
But then there is blanket application of the rules. Certain conditions - and finding a lump in your breast is certainly one of them - are wholly inappropriate for online consultations.
Oh and the last person I knew who had breast cancer (which I hope it is not for this friend) was the brother of a friend of mine.
Yes but by your own anecdote the time and money wasted is minimal and the patient got seen quickly anyway.
Indeed as an urgent priority! Which is the purpose of triage.
It was the third appointment she had including the description of her symptoms to the receptionist.
Is that really the most efficient way?
Initial contact, triage by a trained clinician, face to face review within hours?
Yes, sounds pretty efficient to me, particularly for a system under massive strain.
There are examples of bad practice, but this is not one.
But there was only ever going to be one outcome of the online GP session: come in.
Could that not have been identified at the first engagement?
Stephen Pollard @stephenpollard Not sure I've ever heard a more ridiculous government statement than the notion that no minister can speak about the petrol crisis because of the tradition that in party conference weeks they don't take air time. Get a bloody grip
My two-year is very fluid. She identifies as a dinosaur, cat, fox, train and a car - all inside the space of a few minutes.
Can we please stop belittling gender fluidity on this site? The gammon dismissal of a serious issue with complexity and nuance is pretty revolting and off-putting. It demeans this place as a forum of polite and gentle intellectual debate.
If I say it's offensive you'll accuse me of being woke but yes it is offensive.
Trans jokes seem to be about where gay jokes were back in the 1980s. Not the greatest place to be.
I'd turn that around: I'd say that's precisely why people are assuming this issue is exactly the same and not engaging their brains. They know how the gay rights issue turned out, and are desperate not to be on the wrong side of history this time, so conflate the two as identical and paint anyone who has reservations on aspects of it as reactionary hoping that the (relatively short) passage of time will vindicate them.
So, they get to be at the leading edge of progress, whilst condemning others who can't see it at the same time, thereby doubling-up their virtue.
Feels good doesn't it?
Except, it's not that simple. Every issue is different and in this one there are complexities and nuances to be taken into account where rights conflict. There are absurdities to it that some seem feel very uncomfortable in even recognising yet alone challenging (and, yes, that's where the humour comes in) and they prefer this reductionist and judgemental black & white approach instead.
Well, I say no to that. I am all for greater compassion for those with gender dysmorphia and those who struggle with their identity. I am also aware that without any form of nuance and boundary to self-identification this could impinge on the rights and identities of others, and I am also very cognisant of the lunacy of rebadging the fundamental realities of biology, and I won't be bullied, intimidated or shamed into saying anything different.
None of this applied to gay rights, where the debate was focussed on the morality of the act itself, its affect on the institution of marriage and how it might affect children, and I'd think less of anyone who simplistically conflated the two in order to avoid the inconvenient hard work of debating the complexities of this one.
The "temporary" pre-Xmas extra visa programme is going to get extended, probably several times, and possibly expanded, isn't it?
Why would it?
Volumes are much bigger around Christmas season - hence why a lot of firms hire temp staff at Christmas time. Seasonal workers for Christmas is entirely fitting within the concept of seasonal worker programmes, but why would they still be needed in January when volumes moved collapse?
"They demand nationalising energy as Starmer says no, they promote a £10 minimum wage only for Starmer to be photographed at a demonstration demanding £15, Starmer comes down against Rosie Duffield on the trans issue, and amazingly by 70%/30% reject AUKUS"....
AUKUS should be rejected - hatched in secrecy with a fairly hard right Australian government, a deal that is unsupported by Asia's friendly nations, its potentially in breach of the NPT (as is the UK increase in nuclear warheads) and has maanged to sour relations with one of our closest partners in Europe... there's nothing to celebrate about AUKUS unless you own shares in a few defence companies or work in a specific shipyard...
I do not accept that
AUKUS has been welcomed across the Trans-Pacific and is addressing China's threats to those in the region
France lost a contract so what, that happens in defence contracts regularly
There is no reason why France and UK cannot work together on joint security and the defence of Europe
I watched a very interesting US Navy War College lecture on AUKUS which raised some points I hadn't considered.
1. It's all very vague but the only certainty is that the US 100% knows the boats will be built in the US and that Australia 100% knows that they will be built in Australia. 2. The DoD believes that the power asymmetry between the US and Australia is so great that the US will be able to bully (that's the exact word the presenter used) Australian politicians down to a very low level of local content in a way that the French couldn't. 3. The really aggrieved party (apart from the French) is India. They have repeatedly asked for access to US SSN technology for the past 15 years and repeatedly been told to fuck off. The Indians may now approach the French for Barracuda and the French may be inclined to say haan/oui. 4. Virginia isn't a serious option due to cost. Astute isn't a serious option due to lack of British industrial capability and the fact that the PWR2 reactor is now out of production. The fastest an Astute has ever been built is 9 years. GEDB built the much more complex USS New Hampshire in 18 months. 5. It'll probably be a new class of SSN but nobody really knows. The program is being run by the US Navy Office of Naval Reactors with a schedule of starting construction no earlier than 2030 with the first boat commissioned no earlier than 2040.
That's what you missed in this week's submarinebetting.com
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul Could @AndyMcDonaldMP or anyone explain why minimum wage should be £15, higher than current median wage, £13.68?
If it was £15 pretty confident that they would say it is too low and should be £20, with anyone thinking differently right wing scum. They are stuck in the battles of the 1980s.
”Walk around a supermarket in the U.S. or Europe and you will see some empty shelves once more. This isn’t due to people panic-buying toilet paper, as they did early on in the pandemic; rather it’s because supply chains are clogged at almost every stage between Asian factories and grocery stock rooms.
“But rising prices and patchy availability mean it’s only a matter of time before shoppers start purchasing in bulk again — this time to avoid future sticker shock.
“Supply lines are struggling as producers such as Vietnam, responsible for making everything from sneakers to coffee, are hurt by Covid restrictions. Surging virus cases and consumer demand are leading to congested ports. Shipping containers are in the wrong place. Sea freight costs are up tenfold. If goods do arrive at the destined ports, there are too few truck drivers to transport them to retailers. Shortages of workers to harvest and prepare foods are also adding to the pressures.”
Now, I know I'm in a posh part of LA, but I haven't seen any shortages... yet.
Today I filled up my (@Dura_Ace approved) car with petrol, without problems.
My gut - and it's just a gut - is that there is a post Covid demand boom, that is causing supply crunches everywhere. But it's most acute in the UK, simply because Covid hit almost immediately following Brexit. It meant that those who could drive could earn great money in less stressful food delivery jobs, and the normal steady flow people through training was disrupted.
And you know what, that's OK.
No-one is going to starve. Things will adjust. The cost of trucking stuff around will probably increase. And yes, that will have an impact on the price we pay for things.
That post was fine until you got to the 'it's ok' bit.
No it isn't. If you lived here you'd realise that it really, really, isn't. We have horrendous multiple crises going on in the UK at the moment. You may not be a fan of the NHS, for instance, but the situation is absolutely dire. I know several people who have had cancer diagnoses missed during the past 18 months and are now in real trouble. Try getting a face to face appointment with a GP and it's nigh-impossible.
And there are people who ARE on the bread line, especially with the cut in universal credit.
I could go on but please don't post aloof messages from sunny LA trying to tell us it's all fine. That's as bad as the Metropolitan Elite Remainers who never, ever, got the issue in the ghost towns of the north and east of England.
Great post.
On one of your points, a friend of mine found a lump in her breast. Phoned the GP - I have a lump in my chest. GP - we need an online triage with the doctor. My friend - what the **** will an online triage with the doctor do? Will he say oh well that's fine? GP - them's the rules.
So she had the online meeting and was duly summoned in to see the doctor in person two hours later.
What a monumental waste of resources. Cui Bono?
Hold on, the GPs have made these rules for themselves and have been resisting DoH forcing them to turn back the clock to all in person appointments. GPs are the worst. It's time to get rid of the concept of a GP surgery.
Please don't get me started on GPs or the NHS.
I have previously been in a consultation with a GP where they and I together googled my symptoms* as they had no idea what to make of them.
*nothing crazy - my pupils were different sizes following a fall.
Basic neuro-anatomy and cranial nerve examination.
Bur I am not surprised, I have often found medical students at finals incapable of this basic examination and interpretation of findings.
Is it just that there's always some out of the way non-typical condition that GPs might not have come across or is it something more fundamental in the training?
Cranial nerve examination (which includes examination of the pupils) is just about the first thing I was taught as a 3rd year medical student on the wards, based on the neuro-anatomy taught in the pre-clinical years.
There has been a shift in educationalist thinking away from knowing facts to knowing where to find facts, and this is a medical example of that. I would argue differently, that this is a core body of knowledge for a doctor that enables understanding and identification of disease.
Agreed. On the former principle, I would probably be about as much use as a GP at diagnosis. Which is not a reassuring thought for anyone.
The Labour left have been proven right about every major foreign policy issue of the past 30 years so maybe we should listen to them.
I really don't like the left wing of the Labour Party, but this post is right on the money. They've certainly been right more than they've been wrong.
The Labour Left wouldn't have intervened in Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone or Afghanistan to target Al Qaeda, would have pulled us out of NATO and made large cuts in the defence budget. They wouldn't have stopped genocide, Somali pirates, or challenged Russian aggression. It's more likely we'd be living in a more dangerous world, not a safer one. Foreign policy is full of complicated choices that do not present easy answers and not intervening can be as dangerous as intervening.
I suspect this is cited for two reasons - Iraq and Palestine - and whilst the wisdom of Western policy on those two issues can be debated a reflexive antipathy against any form of military intervention and a policy of instinctive pacifism simply gifts the field to the most unpleasant actors with the strongest motivation to do harm.
They've certainly been wrong sometimes. Personally, I don't think that the UK's foreign and defence policy choices have made either us or the world at large safer. The two big British wars of our lifetime, Iraq and Afghanistan, were unmitigated disasters. And what have we gained from cosying up to autocratic regimes in the Gulf? And if you're talking about defence cuts, I think you will find that the Tories have presided over far bigger cuts to military spending than Labour has. Down £10bn since 2010...
Afghanistan 1 (in 2001) was the right choice, but we should have gone in with lots of special forces to route out Al Quaeda of there and everywhere else subsequently - supporting Afghanistan to nation build.
I think most of us regret Iraq now, particularly since it took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan 1 and led to the unsuccessful Afghanistan 2.
However, I think in Kosovo and Sierra Leone we were successful, and Bosnia is now peaceful. Also, NATO has thrown up a shield around the Baltic States which Russia would otherwise have already nibbled off - just as they've done in Ukraine and Georgia - had they not joined NATO and the EU.
And, if you were here that long ago, I cancelled my Tory membership in 2010 over the defence cuts. I only re-joined after the 2015 GE when that started to be reversed, and I'm still not very happy about it.
”Walk around a supermarket in the U.S. or Europe and you will see some empty shelves once more. This isn’t due to people panic-buying toilet paper, as they did early on in the pandemic; rather it’s because supply chains are clogged at almost every stage between Asian factories and grocery stock rooms.
“But rising prices and patchy availability mean it’s only a matter of time before shoppers start purchasing in bulk again — this time to avoid future sticker shock.
“Supply lines are struggling as producers such as Vietnam, responsible for making everything from sneakers to coffee, are hurt by Covid restrictions. Surging virus cases and consumer demand are leading to congested ports. Shipping containers are in the wrong place. Sea freight costs are up tenfold. If goods do arrive at the destined ports, there are too few truck drivers to transport them to retailers. Shortages of workers to harvest and prepare foods are also adding to the pressures.”
Now, I know I'm in a posh part of LA, but I haven't seen any shortages... yet.
Today I filled up my (@Dura_Ace approved) car with petrol, without problems.
My gut - and it's just a gut - is that there is a post Covid demand boom, that is causing supply crunches everywhere. But it's most acute in the UK, simply because Covid hit almost immediately following Brexit. It meant that those who could drive could earn great money in less stressful food delivery jobs, and the normal steady flow people through training was disrupted.
And you know what, that's OK.
No-one is going to starve. Things will adjust. The cost of trucking stuff around will probably increase. And yes, that will have an impact on the price we pay for things.
That post was fine until you got to the 'it's ok' bit.
No it isn't. If you lived here you'd realise that it really, really, isn't. We have horrendous multiple crises going on in the UK at the moment. You may not be a fan of the NHS, for instance, but the situation is absolutely dire. I know several people who have had cancer diagnoses missed during the past 18 months and are now in real trouble. Try getting a face to face appointment with a GP and it's nigh-impossible.
And there are people who ARE on the bread line, especially with the cut in universal credit.
I could go on but please don't post aloof messages from sunny LA trying to tell us it's all fine. That's as bad as the Metropolitan Elite Remainers who never, ever, got the issue in the ghost towns of the north and east of England.
Great post.
On one of your points, a friend of mine found a lump in her breast. Phoned the GP - I have a lump in my chest. GP - we need an online triage with the doctor. My friend - what the **** will an online triage with the doctor do? Will he say oh well that's fine? GP - them's the rules.
So she had the online meeting and was duly summoned in to see the doctor in person two hours later.
What a monumental waste of resources. Cui Bono?
tbf I think that online consultations are now widely available is one of the upsides to come out of the pandemic, and have potential to save both patients and the NHS considerable amounts of time. My checkup for a stomach condition usually consists of a trip to Southampton (car, bus, boat, bus, walk, bus, walk) and a scheduled 20-minute appointment that basically consists of "how are things going?", "OK", "let us know if anything changes", ends, with ten more minutes of talking around the houses since a physical appointment where you get shown the door after five minutes is psychologically difficult. Similarly people are getting seen for routine matters quickly online and GPs are able to give out speedy advice without having the sniffling patient sitting in their office.
The problems are elsewhere - the load of covid patients on hospitals, the reduction in capacity due to all the precautions, the huge backlog, the cancellation of many less critical procedures, and, in a few cases, inability to meet serious demands such as the recently reported cancelled chemo treatment sessions.
Depends. A mate who is a GP said that turning off whatever the system was of instant messaging to the surgery at the weekend saved them hours as a non-trivial % of people who did so "got better" before Monday.
But then there is blanket application of the rules. Certain conditions - and finding a lump in your breast is certainly one of them - are wholly inappropriate for online consultations.
Oh and the last person I knew who had breast cancer (which I hope it is not for this friend) was the brother of a friend of mine.
Yes but by your own anecdote the time and money wasted is minimal and the patient got seen quickly anyway.
Indeed as an urgent priority! Which is the purpose of triage.
It was the third appointment she had including the description of her symptoms to the receptionist.
Is that really the most efficient way?
Initial contact, triage by a trained clinician, face to face review within hours?
Yes, sounds pretty efficient to me, particularly for a system under massive strain.
There are examples of bad practice, but this is not one.
But there was only ever going to be one outcome of the online GP session: come in.
Could that not have been identified at the first engagement?
Perhaps but maybe a lot of people think that the outcome of the session is going to have to be come in, when it turns out a lot of the time it doesn't have to be. If screening like this aids efficiency and allows those who do genuinely need to come in to be seen quicker despite the extra step then that makes the system more efficient for all.
"They demand nationalising energy as Starmer says no, they promote a £10 minimum wage only for Starmer to be photographed at a demonstration demanding £15, Starmer comes down against Rosie Duffield on the trans issue, and amazingly by 70%/30% reject AUKUS"....
AUKUS should be rejected - hatched in secrecy with a fairly hard right Australian government, a deal that is unsupported by Asia's friendly nations, its potentially in breach of the NPT (as is the UK increase in nuclear warheads) and has maanged to sour relations with one of our closest partners in Europe... there's nothing to celebrate about AUKUS unless you own shares in a few defence companies or work in a specific shipyard...
I do not accept that
AUKUS has been welcomed across the Trans-Pacific and is addressing China's threats to those in the region
France lost a contract so what, that happens in defence contracts regularly
There is no reason why France and UK cannot work together on joint security and the defence of Europe
I watched a very interesting US Navy War College lecture on AUKUS which raised some points I hadn't considered.
1. It's all very vague but the only certainty is that the US 100% knows the boats will be built in the US and that Australia 100% knows that they will be built in Australia. 2. The DoD believes that the power asymmetry between the US and Australia is so great that the US will be able to bully (that's the exact word the presenter used) Australian politicians down to a very low level of local content in a way that the French couldn't. 3. The really aggrieved party (apart from the French) is India. They have repeatedly asked for access to US SSN technology for the past 15 years and repeatedly been told to fuck off. The Indians may now approach the French for Barracuda and the French may be inclined to say haan/oui. 4. Virginia isn't a serious option due to cost. Astute isn't a serious option due to lack of British industrial capability and the fact that the PWR2 reactor is now out of production. The fastest an Astute has ever been built is 9 years. GEDB built the much more complex USS New Hampshire in 18 months. 5. It'll probably be a new class of SSN but nobody really knows. The program is being run by the US Navy Office of Naval Reactors with a schedule of starting construction no earlier than 2030 with the first boat commissioned no earlier than 2040.
That's what you missed in this week's submarinebetting.com
”Walk around a supermarket in the U.S. or Europe and you will see some empty shelves once more. This isn’t due to people panic-buying toilet paper, as they did early on in the pandemic; rather it’s because supply chains are clogged at almost every stage between Asian factories and grocery stock rooms.
“But rising prices and patchy availability mean it’s only a matter of time before shoppers start purchasing in bulk again — this time to avoid future sticker shock.
“Supply lines are struggling as producers such as Vietnam, responsible for making everything from sneakers to coffee, are hurt by Covid restrictions. Surging virus cases and consumer demand are leading to congested ports. Shipping containers are in the wrong place. Sea freight costs are up tenfold. If goods do arrive at the destined ports, there are too few truck drivers to transport them to retailers. Shortages of workers to harvest and prepare foods are also adding to the pressures.”
Now, I know I'm in a posh part of LA, but I haven't seen any shortages... yet.
Today I filled up my (@Dura_Ace approved) car with petrol, without problems.
My gut - and it's just a gut - is that there is a post Covid demand boom, that is causing supply crunches everywhere. But it's most acute in the UK, simply because Covid hit almost immediately following Brexit. It meant that those who could drive could earn great money in less stressful food delivery jobs, and the normal steady flow people through training was disrupted.
And you know what, that's OK.
No-one is going to starve. Things will adjust. The cost of trucking stuff around will probably increase. And yes, that will have an impact on the price we pay for things.
That post was fine until you got to the 'it's ok' bit.
No it isn't. If you lived here you'd realise that it really, really, isn't. We have horrendous multiple crises going on in the UK at the moment. You may not be a fan of the NHS, for instance, but the situation is absolutely dire. I know several people who have had cancer diagnoses missed during the past 18 months and are now in real trouble. Try getting a face to face appointment with a GP and it's nigh-impossible.
And there are people who ARE on the bread line, especially with the cut in universal credit.
I could go on but please don't post aloof messages from sunny LA trying to tell us it's all fine. That's as bad as the Metropolitan Elite Remainers who never, ever, got the issue in the ghost towns of the north and east of England.
Great post.
On one of your points, a friend of mine found a lump in her breast. Phoned the GP - I have a lump in my chest. GP - we need an online triage with the doctor. My friend - what the **** will an online triage with the doctor do? Will he say oh well that's fine? GP - them's the rules.
So she had the online meeting and was duly summoned in to see the doctor in person two hours later.
What a monumental waste of resources. Cui Bono?
tbf I think that online consultations are now widely available is one of the upsides to come out of the pandemic, and have potential to save both patients and the NHS considerable amounts of time. My checkup for a stomach condition usually consists of a trip to Southampton (car, bus, boat, bus, walk, bus, walk) and a scheduled 20-minute appointment that basically consists of "how are things going?", "OK", "let us know if anything changes", ends, with ten more minutes of talking around the houses since a physical appointment where you get shown the door after five minutes is psychologically difficult. Similarly people are getting seen for routine matters quickly online and GPs are able to give out speedy advice without having the sniffling patient sitting in their office.
The problems are elsewhere - the load of covid patients on hospitals, the reduction in capacity due to all the precautions, the huge backlog, the cancellation of many less critical procedures, and, in a few cases, inability to meet serious demands such as the recently reported cancelled chemo treatment sessions.
Depends. A mate who is a GP said that turning off whatever the system was of instant messaging to the surgery at the weekend saved them hours as a non-trivial % of people who did so "got better" before Monday.
But then there is blanket application of the rules. Certain conditions - and finding a lump in your breast is certainly one of them - are wholly inappropriate for online consultations.
Oh and the last person I knew who had breast cancer (which I hope it is not for this friend) was the brother of a friend of mine.
Yes but by your own anecdote the time and money wasted is minimal and the patient got seen quickly anyway.
Indeed as an urgent priority! Which is the purpose of triage.
It was the third appointment she had including the description of her symptoms to the receptionist.
Is that really the most efficient way?
Initial contact, triage by a trained clinician, face to face review within hours?
Yes, sounds pretty efficient to me, particularly for a system under massive strain.
There are examples of bad practice, but this is not one.
But there was only ever going to be one outcome of the online GP session: come in.
Could that not have been identified at the first engagement?
A relative has an ongoing medical condition. One of those which is controlled by daily medication, which allows her to lead a normal life. Every so often she needs to see a consultant - to check side effects, dosing etc. The process goes
1) She arranges to have some blood tests with the nurse at the GP's surgery 2) She has to arrange an appointment with the GP - x days in advance, because slots are rare. 3) The GP says hello, and gives her a referral to the consultant, since it is outside her (the GPs) area of expertise 4) The patient arranges the appointment with the consultant. 5) Sees the consultant.
Apparently, the universe would crack if she simply had x monthly appointments with the Consultant booked in.
Her condition is one where there is no "cure" - you are on these medications for life. So, why can't she just have a pre-booked appointment?
But there was only ever going to be one outcome of the online GP session: come in.
Could that not have been identified at the first engagement?
You operate a triage for everyone, and not everyone is going to be triaged straight to GP. Lots of people require a different sort of advice.
Yes, from a process perspective the idea is that the time wasted asking the serious patients the same questions twice is compensated for by the expensive people not having to waste time seeing the less serious cases (so quickly) and the worried well.
But there was only ever going to be one outcome of the online GP session: come in.
Could that not have been identified at the first engagement?
You operate a triage for everyone, and not everyone is going to be triaged straight to GP. Lots of people require a different sort of advice.
+1 - my wife is usually triaged to a nurse, my last two calls have been triaged to a Wednesday appointment when the GP is in who knows about skin complaints is in.
And, if you were here that long ago, I cancelled my Tory membership in 2010 over the defence cuts. I only re-joined after the 2015 GE when that started to be reversed, and I'm still not very happy about it.
You'd get far more actual useful defence capability from a left wing Labour government than the tories even if they did spend less because a) there would be less corporate welfare and b) they wouldn't have a visceral compulsion to spunk money on national vanity projects of spurious real world utility.
The "temporary" pre-Xmas extra visa programme is going to get extended, probably several times, and possibly expanded, isn't it?
Why would it?
Volumes are much bigger around Christmas season - hence why a lot of firms hire temp staff at Christmas time. Seasonal workers for Christmas is entirely fitting within the concept of seasonal worker programmes, but why would they still be needed in January when volumes moved collapse?
Let's wait and see....
Indeed as others have said, it probably won't work, and something more significant will replace it
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul Could @AndyMcDonaldMP or anyone explain why minimum wage should be £15, higher than current median wage, £13.68?
If it was £15 pretty confident that they would say it is too low and should be £20, with anyone thinking differently right wing scum. They are stuck in the battles of the 1980s.
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul Could @AndyMcDonaldMP or anyone explain why minimum wage should be £15, higher than current median wage, £13.68?
If it was £15 pretty confident that they would say it is too low and should be £20, with anyone thinking differently right wing scum. They are stuck in the battles of the 1980s.
What got me was the mention of £15 in the letter. There was a completely valid reason for resigning in the second half the sentence (statutory sick pay) that I probably would have resigned over.
Statutory sick pay is too low and it encourages people to go to work when they really shouldn't...
My two-year is very fluid. She identifies as a dinosaur, cat, fox, train and a car - all inside the space of a few minutes.
Love it!
Until a few months ago my five year old was saying that when she grows up she wants to be a butterfly.
You need to get her on butterfly hormone therapy. Just teach her to say they key words and the tavistock will hand them over!
You know this stuff is very unbecoming of you. I expected better of both you and @Philip_Thompson.
You should read our debate last night if you want to see what a rational and respectful debate on trans issues looks like.
Trans issues are serious but that's no reason to not have a sense of humour.
There’s no joke here - its just blatant undermining and belittlement. Remember @MaxPB happily describes transwomen as “men in dresses”.
You say someone with a cock and bollocks can be a woman. It's ridiculous.
There’s no need to be rude.
How was that rude in comparison to you saying we were unbecoming, undermining and belittling because of talking about butterflies and young children. You threw the first stone.
I most certainly did not. I’m calling out outright bigotry and abuse and you’re hiding behind “oh it was just a joke”.
Saying that my five year old wanted to be a butterfly is outright bigotry and abuse?
Take a break. You need to get some perspective.
Nope. I’ve said all I have to say on the matter anyway. You knew exactly what you were doing and I expected better. That’s all.
Yes I had a light hearted exchange with another father on this site.
Then you chose to make it ugly.
Nope. You’re the one who hid belittlement behind a “joke”. You can play innocent all you want.
Oh get that stick out of your arse! There's no need to go perpetually angry from 0 to 100 all the time.
My daughter wanting to be a butterfly is the truth. She's also at other times wanted to be a Princess, a Space Ranger, and a Mummy when she grows up. And many other things. It was a cute remark and why can't you just let it be cute instead of making it angry?
I try to stay out of the trans debate as much as possible because there's a lot more heat than light there. But if you want a serious opinion then yes children can want to be all sorts of different things when they grow up. Some want to be doctors, or police, or astronauts. Some even want to become politicians - indeed some teenagers even want to be Liberal republican politicians and end up becoming Conservative Foreign Secretary.
The thing is its not set in stone. As people grow up and go from young children, through puberty and then into adulthood they frequently change their mind.
So I think adults that have been through puberty and into adulthood - if they're trans then we should offer them all the help and support they need and can give so long as it doesn't violate safeguarding for women.
That all seems a reasonable compromise to me. Probably won't satisfy extremists on any side, but to me at least all that seems reasonable. But I'd rather not get into toxic discussions.
FWIW, I think it was Max's response, rather than your original post, that set it all off.
"...then we should offer them all the help and support they need and can give.." sounds most reasonable, but is sadly divorced from reality.
”Walk around a supermarket in the U.S. or Europe and you will see some empty shelves once more. This isn’t due to people panic-buying toilet paper, as they did early on in the pandemic; rather it’s because supply chains are clogged at almost every stage between Asian factories and grocery stock rooms.
“But rising prices and patchy availability mean it’s only a matter of time before shoppers start purchasing in bulk again — this time to avoid future sticker shock.
“Supply lines are struggling as producers such as Vietnam, responsible for making everything from sneakers to coffee, are hurt by Covid restrictions. Surging virus cases and consumer demand are leading to congested ports. Shipping containers are in the wrong place. Sea freight costs are up tenfold. If goods do arrive at the destined ports, there are too few truck drivers to transport them to retailers. Shortages of workers to harvest and prepare foods are also adding to the pressures.”
Now, I know I'm in a posh part of LA, but I haven't seen any shortages... yet.
Today I filled up my (@Dura_Ace approved) car with petrol, without problems.
My gut - and it's just a gut - is that there is a post Covid demand boom, that is causing supply crunches everywhere. But it's most acute in the UK, simply because Covid hit almost immediately following Brexit. It meant that those who could drive could earn great money in less stressful food delivery jobs, and the normal steady flow people through training was disrupted.
And you know what, that's OK.
No-one is going to starve. Things will adjust. The cost of trucking stuff around will probably increase. And yes, that will have an impact on the price we pay for things.
That post was fine until you got to the 'it's ok' bit.
No it isn't. If you lived here you'd realise that it really, really, isn't. We have horrendous multiple crises going on in the UK at the moment. You may not be a fan of the NHS, for instance, but the situation is absolutely dire. I know several people who have had cancer diagnoses missed during the past 18 months and are now in real trouble. Try getting a face to face appointment with a GP and it's nigh-impossible.
And there are people who ARE on the bread line, especially with the cut in universal credit.
I could go on but please don't post aloof messages from sunny LA trying to tell us it's all fine. That's as bad as the Metropolitan Elite Remainers who never, ever, got the issue in the ghost towns of the north and east of England.
Great post.
On one of your points, a friend of mine found a lump in her breast. Phoned the GP - I have a lump in my chest. GP - we need an online triage with the doctor. My friend - what the **** will an online triage with the doctor do? Will he say oh well that's fine? GP - them's the rules.
So she had the online meeting and was duly summoned in to see the doctor in person two hours later.
What a monumental waste of resources. Cui Bono?
Hold on, the GPs have made these rules for themselves and have been resisting DoH forcing them to turn back the clock to all in person appointments. GPs are the worst. It's time to get rid of the concept of a GP surgery.
Please don't get me started on GPs or the NHS.
I have previously been in a consultation with a GP where they and I together googled my symptoms* as they had no idea what to make of them.
*nothing crazy - my pupils were different sizes following a fall.
Not sure I like this site becoming one to air one's own medical issues but I'll join in anyway!
Turns out that a CT Scan reveals my stomach bulge on one side/ below belly button isn't, as previously thought, a Spigelian hernia. GP and specialist seem at a loss as to what it is because CT scan shows I'm tickety-boo down there.
I came straight out with it and said "Is it cancer". The specialist looked at me puzzled as to why I though I had cancer. I said, lamely, because it's a bulge. He said "if a cancerous bulge presented like that you'd have been dead weeks ago." I am a medical mystery it seems.
The vague mood music I got from reading about the rail franchise thing that wasn't explicitly stated was that this was possibly systematic by the Franchise group and that all their financial dealings with the government are now suspect and will be re audited.
Any business or organisation should do that, surely? Even if you think it's a genuine mistake, you'd check all dealings to ensure the mistake hadn't been replicated to your detriment?
But in other news, I see Patisserie Valerie's auditor has been fined £2.3 million over that scandal. Reinforcing my (perhaps incorrect) view that the large accountancy firms are fairly cr@p.
As we've seen (and I'm sure we've posted about) in the past, the problem with a finance director paying for the audit is that it results in auditors ignoring things the finance director doesn't want you looking too deeply into.
The Labour left have been proven right about every major foreign policy issue of the past 30 years so maybe we should listen to them.
I really don't like the left wing of the Labour Party, but this post is right on the money. They've certainly been right more than they've been wrong.
The Labour Left wouldn't have intervened in Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone or Afghanistan to target Al Qaeda, would have pulled us out of NATO and made large cuts in the defence budget. They wouldn't have stopped genocide, Somali pirates, or challenged Russian aggression. It's more likely we'd be living in a more dangerous world, not a safer one. Foreign policy is full of complicated choices that do not present easy answers and not intervening can be as dangerous as intervening.
I suspect this is cited for two reasons - Iraq and Palestine - and whilst the wisdom of Western policy on those two issues can be debated a reflexive antipathy against any form of military intervention and a policy of instinctive pacifism simply gifts the field to the most unpleasant actors with the strongest motivation to do harm.
They've certainly been wrong sometimes. Personally, I don't think that the UK's foreign and defence policy choices have made either us or the world at large safer. The two big British wars of our lifetime, Iraq and Afghanistan, were unmitigated disasters. And what have we gained from cosying up to autocratic regimes in the Gulf? And if you're talking about defence cuts, I think you will find that the Tories have presided over far bigger cuts to military spending than Labour has. Down £10bn since 2010...
Afghanistan 1 (in 2001) was the right choice, but we should have gone in with lots of special forces to route out Al Quaeda of there and everywhere else subsequently - supporting Afghanistan to nation build.
I think most of us regret Iraq now, particularly since it took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan 1 and led to the unsuccessful Afghanistan 2.
However, I think in Kosovo and Sierra Leone we were successful, and Bosnia is now peaceful. Also, NATO has thrown up a shield around the Baltic States which Russia would otherwise have already nibbled off - just as they've done in Ukraine and Georgia - had they not joined NATO and the EU.
And, if you were here that long ago, I cancelled my Tory membership in 2010 over the defence cuts. I only re-joined after the 2015 GE when that started to be reversed, and I'm still not very happy about it.
I don't think we're that far apart on this. I don't like the left wing of the Labour Party that much as I indicated above, and I certainly don't think they are right about everything, but I think that some of their instincts are good - eg scepticism about getting entangled in US adventurism, arguing that cosying up to nasty autocratic regimes doesn't work, paying more attention to civilian casualties - and on the big calls, Iraq especially, they were bang on the money. I think there was a theoretical case for intervention in Afghanistan in 2001 but in reality it was never going to work.
My two-year is very fluid. She identifies as a dinosaur, cat, fox, train and a car - all inside the space of a few minutes.
Can we please stop belittling gender fluidity on this site? The gammon dismissal of a serious issue with complexity and nuance is pretty revolting and off-putting. It demeans this place as a forum of polite and gentle intellectual debate.
If I say it's offensive you'll accuse me of being woke but yes it is offensive.
Trans jokes seem to be about where gay jokes were back in the 1980s. Not the greatest place to be.
I'd turn that around: I'd say that's precisely why people are assuming this issue is exactly the same and not engaging their brains. They know how the gay rights issue turned out, and are desperate not to be on the wrong side of history this time, so conflate the two as identical and paint anyone who has reservations on aspects of it as reactionary hoping that the (relatively short) passage of time will vindicate them.
So, they get to be at the leading edge of progress, whilst condemning others who can't see it at the same time, thereby doubling-up their virtue.
Feels good doesn't it?
Except, it's not that simple. Every issue is different and in this one there are complexities and nuances to be taken into account where rights conflict. There are absurdities to it that some seem feel very uncomfortable in even recognising yet alone challenging (and, yes, that's where the humour comes in) and they prefer this reductionist and judgemental black & white approach instead.
Well, I say no to that. I am all for greater compassion for those with gender dysmorphia and those who struggle with their identity. I am also aware that without any form of nuance and boundary to self-identification this could impinge on the rights and identities of others, and I am also very cognisant of the lunacy of rebadging the fundamental realities of biology, and I won't be bullied, intimidated or shamed into saying anything different.
None of this applied to gay rights, where the debate was focussed on the morality of the act itself, its affect on the institution of marriage and how it might affect children, and I'd think less of anyone who simplistically conflated the two in order to avoid the inconvenient hard work of debating the complexities of this one.
Which is a slightly odd response to my point, which was about dismissive jokes. "I am all for greater compassion", particularly.
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul Could @AndyMcDonaldMP or anyone explain why minimum wage should be £15, higher than current median wage, £13.68?
If it was £15 pretty confident that they would say it is too low and should be £20, with anyone thinking differently right wing scum. They are stuck in the battles of the 1980s.
What got me was the mention of £15 in the letter. There was a completely valid reason for resigning in the second half the sentence (statutory sick pay) that I probably would have resigned over.
Statutory sick pay is too low and it encourages people to go to work when they really shouldn't...
I have sympathy with that view, but if statutory sick pay was higher then how would you ensure many more people didn't feign being sick in order to get a good income without having to go into work?
Even as it stands its far too easy to end up signed off for 'depression', 'stress'* etc for months on end if people wish to do so.
* Not belittling those who do have depression etc whatsoever. But there's no blood test etc for it so its an incredibly easy condition to fake for those who wish to do so, which casts unjustified aspersions on those who legitimately have it.
Children 12-15 are only getting one dose of Pfiser. I've just discovered that 16- 17 3/4 year olds are also only getting one dose (previously it was assumed two).
Does this mean that children will not get a vaccine certificate? If so they will therefore be classed as unvaccinated by other nations for purposes of international travel. The French rules, which are typical, are below:
"The French Government recognises the following vaccines: Pfizer, Moderna, Oxford/AstraZeneca, and Johnson & Johnson (the vaccines recognised by the European Medical Agency). “Fully vaccinated” is defined by the completion of a vaccination schedule, specifically:
1 week after the second dose of Pfizer, Moderna, Oxford/AstraZeneca"
Is anyone in the know about this? I've not seen this issue reported anywhere. If the government has overlooked this (surely not) then it is going to cause issues and will dissuade some children from getting vaccinated in the first place because it takes away the big plus of being classed as vaccinated for international travel.
One dose is probably enough for most under 18s immunologically, but it is a deviation from the manufacturer's recommendations which unlike the 12 week gap definitely won't improve efficacy this time. Other nations can mandate as they like tbh.
related/unrelate - My colleague reports the covid/mask rules in Turkey were very strict.
Funky fact -
Children being vaccinated because they live with someone who is clinically vulnerable are being offered 2 shots.
I can easily imagine some clipboardista saying "Well, if you come from a country where children are vaccinated, they need 2 shots. So if they have 1, they are not fully vaccinated".
And, if you were here that long ago, I cancelled my Tory membership in 2010 over the defence cuts. I only re-joined after the 2015 GE when that started to be reversed, and I'm still not very happy about it.
You'd get far more actual useful defence capability from a left wing Labour government than the tories even if they did spend less because a) there would be less corporate welfare and b) they wouldn't have a visceral compulsion to spunk money on national vanity projects of spurious real world utility.
I don't see the evidence for that. It would be more likely that our defence forces evolved into some sort of national militia, which would end up acting like just another branch of the public sector.
In so far as armed forces under very left-wing regimes do anything - and I'm talking worldwide here, and not the UK - they are insular and used to manage internal dissent and shore up and defend the regime.
The Labour left have been proven right about every major foreign policy issue of the past 30 years so maybe we should listen to them.
I really don't like the left wing of the Labour Party, but this post is right on the money. They've certainly been right more than they've been wrong.
The Labour Left wouldn't have intervened in Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone or Afghanistan to target Al Qaeda, would have pulled us out of NATO and made large cuts in the defence budget. They wouldn't have stopped genocide, Somali pirates, or challenged Russian aggression. It's more likely we'd be living in a more dangerous world, not a safer one. Foreign policy is full of complicated choices that do not present easy answers and not intervening can be as dangerous as intervening.
I suspect this is cited for two reasons - Iraq and Palestine - and whilst the wisdom of Western policy on those two issues can be debated a reflexive antipathy against any form of military intervention and a policy of instinctive pacifism simply gifts the field to the most unpleasant actors with the strongest motivation to do harm.
They've certainly been wrong sometimes. Personally, I don't think that the UK's foreign and defence policy choices have made either us or the world at large safer. The two big British wars of our lifetime, Iraq and Afghanistan, were unmitigated disasters. And what have we gained from cosying up to autocratic regimes in the Gulf? And if you're talking about defence cuts, I think you will find that the Tories have presided over far bigger cuts to military spending than Labour has. Down £10bn since 2010...
Afghanistan 1 (in 2001) was the right choice, but we should have gone in with lots of special forces to route out Al Quaeda of there and everywhere else subsequently - supporting Afghanistan to nation build.
I think most of us regret Iraq now, particularly since it took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan 1 and led to the unsuccessful Afghanistan 2.
However, I think in Kosovo and Sierra Leone we were successful, and Bosnia is now peaceful. Also, NATO has thrown up a shield around the Baltic States which Russia would otherwise have already nibbled off - just as they've done in Ukraine and Georgia - had they not joined NATO and the EU.
And, if you were here that long ago, I cancelled my Tory membership in 2010 over the defence cuts. I only re-joined after the 2015 GE when that started to be reversed, and I'm still not very happy about it.
I don't think we're that far apart on this. I don't like the left wing of the Labour Party that much as I indicated above, and I certainly don't think they are right about everything, but I think that some of their instincts are good - eg scepticism about getting entangled in US adventurism, arguing that cosying up to nasty autocratic regimes doesn't work, paying more attention to civilian casualties - and on the big calls, Iraq especially, they were bang on the money. I think there was a theoretical case for intervention in Afghanistan in 2001 but in reality it was never going to work.
The LibDems' track record is better still, since they were sceptical or opposed most of those big mistakes without the kneejerk opposition to any sort of overseas military deployment just because, like the left.
”Walk around a supermarket in the U.S. or Europe and you will see some empty shelves once more. This isn’t due to people panic-buying toilet paper, as they did early on in the pandemic; rather it’s because supply chains are clogged at almost every stage between Asian factories and grocery stock rooms.
“But rising prices and patchy availability mean it’s only a matter of time before shoppers start purchasing in bulk again — this time to avoid future sticker shock.
“Supply lines are struggling as producers such as Vietnam, responsible for making everything from sneakers to coffee, are hurt by Covid restrictions. Surging virus cases and consumer demand are leading to congested ports. Shipping containers are in the wrong place. Sea freight costs are up tenfold. If goods do arrive at the destined ports, there are too few truck drivers to transport them to retailers. Shortages of workers to harvest and prepare foods are also adding to the pressures.”
Now, I know I'm in a posh part of LA, but I haven't seen any shortages... yet.
Today I filled up my (@Dura_Ace approved) car with petrol, without problems.
My gut - and it's just a gut - is that there is a post Covid demand boom, that is causing supply crunches everywhere. But it's most acute in the UK, simply because Covid hit almost immediately following Brexit. It meant that those who could drive could earn great money in less stressful food delivery jobs, and the normal steady flow people through training was disrupted.
And you know what, that's OK.
No-one is going to starve. Things will adjust. The cost of trucking stuff around will probably increase. And yes, that will have an impact on the price we pay for things.
That post was fine until you got to the 'it's ok' bit.
No it isn't. If you lived here you'd realise that it really, really, isn't. We have horrendous multiple crises going on in the UK at the moment. You may not be a fan of the NHS, for instance, but the situation is absolutely dire. I know several people who have had cancer diagnoses missed during the past 18 months and are now in real trouble. Try getting a face to face appointment with a GP and it's nigh-impossible.
And there are people who ARE on the bread line, especially with the cut in universal credit.
I could go on but please don't post aloof messages from sunny LA trying to tell us it's all fine. That's as bad as the Metropolitan Elite Remainers who never, ever, got the issue in the ghost towns of the north and east of England.
Great post.
On one of your points, a friend of mine found a lump in her breast. Phoned the GP - I have a lump in my chest. GP - we need an online triage with the doctor. My friend - what the **** will an online triage with the doctor do? Will he say oh well that's fine? GP - them's the rules.
So she had the online meeting and was duly summoned in to see the doctor in person two hours later.
What a monumental waste of resources. Cui Bono?
tbf I think that online consultations are now widely available is one of the upsides to come out of the pandemic, and have potential to save both patients and the NHS considerable amounts of time. My checkup for a stomach condition usually consists of a trip to Southampton (car, bus, boat, bus, walk, bus, walk) and a scheduled 20-minute appointment that basically consists of "how are things going?", "OK", "let us know if anything changes", ends, with ten more minutes of talking around the houses since a physical appointment where you get shown the door after five minutes is psychologically difficult. Similarly people are getting seen for routine matters quickly online and GPs are able to give out speedy advice without having the sniffling patient sitting in their office.
The problems are elsewhere - the load of covid patients on hospitals, the reduction in capacity due to all the precautions, the huge backlog, the cancellation of many less critical procedures, and, in a few cases, inability to meet serious demands such as the recently reported cancelled chemo treatment sessions.
Depends. A mate who is a GP said that turning off whatever the system was of instant messaging to the surgery at the weekend saved them hours as a non-trivial % of people who did so "got better" before Monday.
But then there is blanket application of the rules. Certain conditions - and finding a lump in your breast is certainly one of them - are wholly inappropriate for online consultations.
Oh and the last person I knew who had breast cancer (which I hope it is not for this friend) was the brother of a friend of mine.
Yes but by your own anecdote the time and money wasted is minimal and the patient got seen quickly anyway.
Indeed as an urgent priority! Which is the purpose of triage.
It was the third appointment she had including the description of her symptoms to the receptionist.
Is that really the most efficient way?
Initial contact, triage by a trained clinician, face to face review within hours?
Yes, sounds pretty efficient to me, particularly for a system under massive strain.
There are examples of bad practice, but this is not one.
But there was only ever going to be one outcome of the online GP session: come in.
Could that not have been identified at the first engagement?
My recent experiance has been very good.
I had a lump appear on my tongue. After 3 weeks I decided to contact my GP's surgery. I used their online consultation form & sent some photos. A triage nurse phoned me back within hours and referred me under the 14 day potential cancer process to an oral consultant. I was seen at the hosptial 10 days later. The lump was thankfully benign and removed a few weeks ago.
I never saw or spoke to my GP. Nor did I need to. All seemed very efficient to me.
My two-year is very fluid. She identifies as a dinosaur, cat, fox, train and a car - all inside the space of a few minutes.
Can we please stop belittling gender fluidity on this site? The gammon dismissal of a serious issue with complexity and nuance is pretty revolting and off-putting. It demeans this place as a forum of polite and gentle intellectual debate.
If I say it's offensive you'll accuse me of being woke but yes it is offensive.
Trans jokes seem to be about where gay jokes were back in the 1980s. Not the greatest place to be.
I'd turn that around: I'd say that's precisely why people are assuming this issue is exactly the same and not engaging their brains. They know how the gay rights issue turned out, and are desperate not to be on the wrong side of history this time, so conflate the two as identical and paint anyone who has reservations on aspects of it as reactionary hoping that the (relatively short) passage of time will vindicate them.
So, they get to be at the leading edge of progress, whilst condemning others who can't see it at the same time, thereby doubling-up their virtue.
Feels good doesn't it?
Except, it's not that simple. Every issue is different and in this one there are complexities and nuances to be taken into account where rights conflict. There are absurdities to it that some seem feel very uncomfortable in even recognising yet alone challenging (and, yes, that's where the humour comes in) and they prefer this reductionist and judgemental black & white approach instead.
Well, I say no to that. I am all for greater compassion for those with gender dysmorphia and those who struggle with their identity. I am also aware that without any form of nuance and boundary to self-identification this could impinge on the rights and identities of others, and I am also very cognisant of the lunacy of rebadging the fundamental realities of biology, and I won't be bullied, intimidated or shamed into saying anything different.
None of this applied to gay rights, where the debate was focussed on the morality of the act itself, its affect on the institution of marriage and how it might affect children, and I'd think less of anyone who simplistically conflated the two in order to avoid the inconvenient hard work of debating the complexities of this one.
"I am all for greater compassion for those with gender dysmorphia and those who struggle with their identity. I am also aware that without any form of nuance and boundary to self-identification this could impinge on the rights and identities of others, and I am also very cognisant of the lunacy of rebadging the fundamental realities of biology, and I won't be bullied, intimidated or shamed into saying anything different."
Children 12-15 are only getting one dose of Pfiser. I've just discovered that 16- 17 3/4 year olds are also only getting one dose (previously it was assumed two).
Does this mean that children will not get a vaccine certificate? If so they will therefore be classed as unvaccinated by other nations for purposes of international travel. The French rules, which are typical, are below:
"The French Government recognises the following vaccines: Pfizer, Moderna, Oxford/AstraZeneca, and Johnson & Johnson (the vaccines recognised by the European Medical Agency). “Fully vaccinated” is defined by the completion of a vaccination schedule, specifically:
1 week after the second dose of Pfizer, Moderna, Oxford/AstraZeneca"
Is anyone in the know about this? I've not seen this issue reported anywhere. If the government has overlooked this (surely not) then it is going to cause issues and will dissuade some children from getting vaccinated in the first place because it takes away the big plus of being classed as vaccinated for international travel.
One dose is probably enough for most under 18s immunologically, but it is a deviation from the manufacturer's recommendations which unlike the 12 week gap definitely won't improve efficacy this time. Other nations can mandate as they like tbh.
related/unrelate - My colleague reports the covid/mask rules in Turkey were very strict.
Funky fact -
Children being vaccinated because they live with someone who is clinically vulnerable are being offered 2 shots.
I can easily imagine some clipboardista saying "Well, if you come from a country where children are vaccinated, they need 2 shots. So if they have 1, they are not fully vaccinated".
The issue is attempting to define what being fully vaccinated means.
If the NHS or whoever say someone has completed their vaccination course then that should mean they're fully vaccinated. Whether that be one dose, two or three.
My two-year is very fluid. She identifies as a dinosaur, cat, fox, train and a car - all inside the space of a few minutes.
Can we please stop belittling gender fluidity on this site? The gammon dismissal of a serious issue with complexity and nuance is pretty revolting and off-putting. It demeans this place as a forum of polite and gentle intellectual debate.
If I say it's offensive you'll accuse me of being woke but yes it is offensive.
Trans jokes seem to be about where gay jokes were back in the 1980s. Not the greatest place to be.
I'd turn that around: I'd say that's precisely why people are assuming this issue is exactly the same and not engaging their brains. They know how the gay rights issue turned out, and are desperate not to be on the wrong side of history this time, so conflate the two as identical and paint anyone who has reservations on aspects of it as reactionary hoping that the (relatively short) passage of time will vindicate them.
So, they get to be at the leading edge of progress, whilst condemning others who can't see it at the same time, thereby doubling-up their virtue.
Feels good doesn't it?
Except, it's not that simple. Every issue is different and in this one there are complexities and nuances to be taken into account where rights conflict. There are absurdities to it that some seem feel very uncomfortable in even recognising yet alone challenging (and, yes, that's where the humour comes in) and they prefer this reductionist and judgemental black & white approach instead.
Well, I say no to that. I am all for greater compassion for those with gender dysmorphia and those who struggle with their identity. I am also aware that without any form of nuance and boundary to self-identification this could impinge on the rights and identities of others, and I am also very cognisant of the lunacy of rebadging the fundamental realities of biology, and I won't be bullied, intimidated or shamed into saying anything different.
None of this applied to gay rights, where the debate was focussed on the morality of the act itself, its affect on the institution of marriage and how it might affect children, and I'd think less of anyone who simplistically conflated the two in order to avoid the inconvenient hard work of debating the complexities of this one.
Which is a slightly odd response to my point, which was about dismissive jokes. "I am all for greater compassion", particularly.
You responded to a response to a very light-hearted joke I made about my own daughter insinuating it was like gay jokes in the 1980s.
So not a odd response at all unless you'd care to clarify your comment?
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul Could @AndyMcDonaldMP or anyone explain why minimum wage should be £15, higher than current median wage, £13.68?
If it was £15 pretty confident that they would say it is too low and should be £20, with anyone thinking differently right wing scum. They are stuck in the battles of the 1980s.
What got me was the mention of £15 in the letter. There was a completely valid reason for resigning in the second half the sentence (statutory sick pay) that I probably would have resigned over.
Statutory sick pay is too low and it encourages people to go to work when they really shouldn't...
The minimum standard should be companies pay normal pay when sick for up to three or four weeks per year, but in exchange, after that the burden is then passed on to the taxpayer at somewhere around UC levels.
"They demand nationalising energy as Starmer says no, they promote a £10 minimum wage only for Starmer to be photographed at a demonstration demanding £15, Starmer comes down against Rosie Duffield on the trans issue, and amazingly by 70%/30% reject AUKUS"....
AUKUS should be rejected - hatched in secrecy with a fairly hard right Australian government, a deal that is unsupported by Asia's friendly nations, its potentially in breach of the NPT (as is the UK increase in nuclear warheads) and has maanged to sour relations with one of our closest partners in Europe... there's nothing to celebrate about AUKUS unless you own shares in a few defence companies or work in a specific shipyard...
I do not accept that
AUKUS has been welcomed across the Trans-Pacific and is addressing China's threats to those in the region
France lost a contract so what, that happens in defence contracts regularly
There is no reason why France and UK cannot work together on joint security and the defence of Europe
I watched a very interesting US Navy War College lecture on AUKUS which raised some points I hadn't considered.
1. It's all very vague but the only certainty is that the US 100% knows the boats will be built in the US and that Australia 100% knows that they will be built in Australia. 2. The DoD believes that the power asymmetry between the US and Australia is so great that the US will be able to bully (that's the exact word the presenter used) Australian politicians down to a very low level of local content in a way that the French couldn't. 3. The really aggrieved party (apart from the French) is India. They have repeatedly asked for access to US SSN technology for the past 15 years and repeatedly been told to fuck off. The Indians may now approach the French for Barracuda and the French may be inclined to say haan/oui. 4. Virginia isn't a serious option due to cost. Astute isn't a serious option due to lack of British industrial capability and the fact that the PWR2 reactor is now out of production. The fastest an Astute has ever been built is 9 years. GEDB built the much more complex USS New Hampshire in 18 months. 5. It'll probably be a new class of SSN but nobody really knows. The program is being run by the US Navy Office of Naval Reactors with a schedule of starting construction no earlier than 2030 with the first boat commissioned no earlier than 2040.
That's what you missed in this week's submarinebetting.com
Do you have a link to this lecture please?
On 3) The Indians have spent quite a number of years absorbing nuclear submarine tech from the Russians (including operating some Russian subs) and started building their own. I would be astonished if the US Navy wanted to get involved with that - surely the safety culture issue would be monumental?
The Labour left have been proven right about every major foreign policy issue of the past 30 years so maybe we should listen to them.
I really don't like the left wing of the Labour Party, but this post is right on the money. They've certainly been right more than they've been wrong.
The Labour Left wouldn't have intervened in Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone or Afghanistan to target Al Qaeda, would have pulled us out of NATO and made large cuts in the defence budget. They wouldn't have stopped genocide, Somali pirates, or challenged Russian aggression. It's more likely we'd be living in a more dangerous world, not a safer one. Foreign policy is full of complicated choices that do not present easy answers and not intervening can be as dangerous as intervening.
I suspect this is cited for two reasons - Iraq and Palestine - and whilst the wisdom of Western policy on those two issues can be debated a reflexive antipathy against any form of military intervention and a policy of instinctive pacifism simply gifts the field to the most unpleasant actors with the strongest motivation to do harm.
They've certainly been wrong sometimes. Personally, I don't think that the UK's foreign and defence policy choices have made either us or the world at large safer. The two big British wars of our lifetime, Iraq and Afghanistan, were unmitigated disasters. And what have we gained from cosying up to autocratic regimes in the Gulf? And if you're talking about defence cuts, I think you will find that the Tories have presided over far bigger cuts to military spending than Labour has. Down £10bn since 2010...
Afghanistan 1 (in 2001) was the right choice, but we should have gone in with lots of special forces to route out Al Quaeda of there and everywhere else subsequently - supporting Afghanistan to nation build.
I think most of us regret Iraq now, particularly since it took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan 1 and led to the unsuccessful Afghanistan 2.
However, I think in Kosovo and Sierra Leone we were successful, and Bosnia is now peaceful. Also, NATO has thrown up a shield around the Baltic States which Russia would otherwise have already nibbled off - just as they've done in Ukraine and Georgia - had they not joined NATO and the EU.
And, if you were here that long ago, I cancelled my Tory membership in 2010 over the defence cuts. I only re-joined after the 2015 GE when that started to be reversed, and I'm still not very happy about it.
I don't think we're that far apart on this. I don't like the left wing of the Labour Party that much as I indicated above, and I certainly don't think they are right about everything, but I think that some of their instincts are good - eg scepticism about getting entangled in US adventurism, arguing that cosying up to nasty autocratic regimes doesn't work, paying more attention to civilian casualties - and on the big calls, Iraq especially, they were bang on the money. I think there was a theoretical case for intervention in Afghanistan in 2001 but in reality it was never going to work.
Bin Laden was forced into Pakistan where he was killed which was the main aim of the operation post 9/11, nation building and removing the Taliban was merely secondary to getting Bin Laden and removing Al Qaeda
Children 12-15 are only getting one dose of Pfiser. I've just discovered that 16- 17 3/4 year olds are also only getting one dose (previously it was assumed two).
Does this mean that children will not get a vaccine certificate? If so they will therefore be classed as unvaccinated by other nations for purposes of international travel. The French rules, which are typical, are below:
"The French Government recognises the following vaccines: Pfizer, Moderna, Oxford/AstraZeneca, and Johnson & Johnson (the vaccines recognised by the European Medical Agency). “Fully vaccinated” is defined by the completion of a vaccination schedule, specifically:
1 week after the second dose of Pfizer, Moderna, Oxford/AstraZeneca"
Is anyone in the know about this? I've not seen this issue reported anywhere. If the government has overlooked this (surely not) then it is going to cause issues and will dissuade some children from getting vaccinated in the first place because it takes away the big plus of being classed as vaccinated for international travel.
One dose is probably enough for most under 18s immunologically, but it is a deviation from the manufacturer's recommendations which unlike the 12 week gap definitely won't improve efficacy this time. Other nations can mandate as they like tbh.
related/unrelate - My colleague reports the covid/mask rules in Turkey were very strict.
Funky fact -
Children being vaccinated because they live with someone who is clinically vulnerable are being offered 2 shots.
I can easily imagine some clipboardista saying "Well, if you come from a country where children are vaccinated, they need 2 shots. So if they have 1, they are not fully vaccinated".
The issue is attempting to define what being fully vaccinated means.
If the NHS or whoever say someone has completed their vaccination course then that should mean they're fully vaccinated. Whether that be one dose, two or three.
Other countries may see it differently. See accepting AZN, the issues around one of the Chinese vaccines etc etc
"They demand nationalising energy as Starmer says no, they promote a £10 minimum wage only for Starmer to be photographed at a demonstration demanding £15, Starmer comes down against Rosie Duffield on the trans issue, and amazingly by 70%/30% reject AUKUS"....
AUKUS should be rejected - hatched in secrecy with a fairly hard right Australian government, a deal that is unsupported by Asia's friendly nations, its potentially in breach of the NPT (as is the UK increase in nuclear warheads) and has maanged to sour relations with one of our closest partners in Europe... there's nothing to celebrate about AUKUS unless you own shares in a few defence companies or work in a specific shipyard...
I do not accept that
AUKUS has been welcomed across the Trans-Pacific and is addressing China's threats to those in the region
France lost a contract so what, that happens in defence contracts regularly
There is no reason why France and UK cannot work together on joint security and the defence of Europe
I watched a very interesting US Navy War College lecture on AUKUS which raised some points I hadn't considered.
1. It's all very vague but the only certainty is that the US 100% knows the boats will be built in the US and that Australia 100% knows that they will be built in Australia. 2. The DoD believes that the power asymmetry between the US and Australia is so great that the US will be able to bully (that's the exact word the presenter used) Australian politicians down to a very low level of local content in a way that the French couldn't. 3. The really aggrieved party (apart from the French) is India. They have repeatedly asked for access to US SSN technology for the past 15 years and repeatedly been told to fuck off. The Indians may now approach the French for Barracuda and the French may be inclined to say haan/oui. 4. Virginia isn't a serious option due to cost. Astute isn't a serious option due to lack of British industrial capability and the fact that the PWR2 reactor is now out of production. The fastest an Astute has ever been built is 9 years. GEDB built the much more complex USS New Hampshire in 18 months. 5. It'll probably be a new class of SSN but nobody really knows. The program is being run by the US Navy Office of Naval Reactors with a schedule of starting construction no earlier than 2030 with the first boat commissioned no earlier than 2040.
That's what you missed in this week's submarinebetting.com
On 3., I'm not sure why the Indians should be so aggrieved as they are always telling everyone how non-aligned they are, and during the Cold War were often closer to Russia than the US, whereas Australia has always been a staunch American ally.
The Labour left have been proven right about every major foreign policy issue of the past 30 years so maybe we should listen to them.
I really don't like the left wing of the Labour Party, but this post is right on the money. They've certainly been right more than they've been wrong.
The Labour Left wouldn't have intervened in Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone or Afghanistan to target Al Qaeda, would have pulled us out of NATO and made large cuts in the defence budget. They wouldn't have stopped genocide, Somali pirates, or challenged Russian aggression. It's more likely we'd be living in a more dangerous world, not a safer one. Foreign policy is full of complicated choices that do not present easy answers and not intervening can be as dangerous as intervening.
I suspect this is cited for two reasons - Iraq and Palestine - and whilst the wisdom of Western policy on those two issues can be debated a reflexive antipathy against any form of military intervention and a policy of instinctive pacifism simply gifts the field to the most unpleasant actors with the strongest motivation to do harm.
They've certainly been wrong sometimes. Personally, I don't think that the UK's foreign and defence policy choices have made either us or the world at large safer. The two big British wars of our lifetime, Iraq and Afghanistan, were unmitigated disasters. And what have we gained from cosying up to autocratic regimes in the Gulf? And if you're talking about defence cuts, I think you will find that the Tories have presided over far bigger cuts to military spending than Labour has. Down £10bn since 2010...
Afghanistan 1 (in 2001) was the right choice, but we should have gone in with lots of special forces to route out Al Quaeda of there and everywhere else subsequently - supporting Afghanistan to nation build.
I think most of us regret Iraq now, particularly since it took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan 1 and led to the unsuccessful Afghanistan 2.
However, I think in Kosovo and Sierra Leone we were successful, and Bosnia is now peaceful. Also, NATO has thrown up a shield around the Baltic States which Russia would otherwise have already nibbled off - just as they've done in Ukraine and Georgia - had they not joined NATO and the EU.
And, if you were here that long ago, I cancelled my Tory membership in 2010 over the defence cuts. I only re-joined after the 2015 GE when that started to be reversed, and I'm still not very happy about it.
I don't think we're that far apart on this. I don't like the left wing of the Labour Party that much as I indicated above, and I certainly don't think they are right about everything, but I think that some of their instincts are good - eg scepticism about getting entangled in US adventurism, arguing that cosying up to nasty autocratic regimes doesn't work, paying more attention to civilian casualties - and on the big calls, Iraq especially, they were bang on the money. I think there was a theoretical case for intervention in Afghanistan in 2001 but in reality it was never going to work.
I have sympathy with some of that and it's a reasonable post - I think foreign policy is very difficult and not intervening is sometimes as big a decision as intervening.
I think it was a big mistake not to hold Asad accountable for his use of chemical weapons in 2013, for example.
The thing I don't understand and can't wrap my head around is what people who say someone with a penis is a woman mean by the term "woman"? If you abolish all definitions of what a woman is, then how can other people say they are a woman, what are they saying they are in the first place?
People who are male who wish to become female and so transition - then that I understand. In which case they want to lose the penis and gain a cervix surely - so yes still someone with a penis is not a woman, which is why they're transitioning.
But if someone doesn't wish to transition, then what does it even mean to be a woman?
I just don't understand that, no matter how hard I try, so if someone could explain that, I'd appreciate it.
”Walk around a supermarket in the U.S. or Europe and you will see some empty shelves once more. This isn’t due to people panic-buying toilet paper, as they did early on in the pandemic; rather it’s because supply chains are clogged at almost every stage between Asian factories and grocery stock rooms.
“But rising prices and patchy availability mean it’s only a matter of time before shoppers start purchasing in bulk again — this time to avoid future sticker shock.
“Supply lines are struggling as producers such as Vietnam, responsible for making everything from sneakers to coffee, are hurt by Covid restrictions. Surging virus cases and consumer demand are leading to congested ports. Shipping containers are in the wrong place. Sea freight costs are up tenfold. If goods do arrive at the destined ports, there are too few truck drivers to transport them to retailers. Shortages of workers to harvest and prepare foods are also adding to the pressures.”
Now, I know I'm in a posh part of LA, but I haven't seen any shortages... yet.
Today I filled up my (@Dura_Ace approved) car with petrol, without problems.
My gut - and it's just a gut - is that there is a post Covid demand boom, that is causing supply crunches everywhere. But it's most acute in the UK, simply because Covid hit almost immediately following Brexit. It meant that those who could drive could earn great money in less stressful food delivery jobs, and the normal steady flow people through training was disrupted.
And you know what, that's OK.
No-one is going to starve. Things will adjust. The cost of trucking stuff around will probably increase. And yes, that will have an impact on the price we pay for things.
That post was fine until you got to the 'it's ok' bit.
No it isn't. If you lived here you'd realise that it really, really, isn't. We have horrendous multiple crises going on in the UK at the moment. You may not be a fan of the NHS, for instance, but the situation is absolutely dire. I know several people who have had cancer diagnoses missed during the past 18 months and are now in real trouble. Try getting a face to face appointment with a GP and it's nigh-impossible.
And there are people who ARE on the bread line, especially with the cut in universal credit.
I could go on but please don't post aloof messages from sunny LA trying to tell us it's all fine. That's as bad as the Metropolitan Elite Remainers who never, ever, got the issue in the ghost towns of the north and east of England.
Great post.
On one of your points, a friend of mine found a lump in her breast. Phoned the GP - I have a lump in my chest. GP - we need an online triage with the doctor. My friend - what the **** will an online triage with the doctor do? Will he say oh well that's fine? GP - them's the rules.
So she had the online meeting and was duly summoned in to see the doctor in person two hours later.
What a monumental waste of resources. Cui Bono?
Be a lawyer. Once you get over the @Gallowgate hump.
£585 an hour is probably nearly the rate for the Suburban Samurai.
My two-year is very fluid. She identifies as a dinosaur, cat, fox, train and a car - all inside the space of a few minutes.
Can we please stop belittling gender fluidity on this site? The gammon dismissal of a serious issue with complexity and nuance is pretty revolting and off-putting. It demeans this place as a forum of polite and gentle intellectual debate.
If I say it's offensive you'll accuse me of being woke but yes it is offensive.
I've been keeping out of this recently, as it's so toxic and views will sadly not be changed.
I will jut say this:
I have known a fair few trans people. Two in particular were friends: one pre-transition, one post-transition. I see comments made about trans people on here, especially about how they're somehow a 'danger', and then think of those friends, and the bullying and sh*t they suffered just because they were, in some way, different.
I don't know about others, but I have certainly changed my views over recent years on this as an issue. As indeed I did over gay marriage, and clearly a lot of other people did too.
I am not sure where it all ends up, but some critical appraisal of gender norms, and how society polices those norms is not unwelcome.
Marriage is an entirely human construct. Gender isn't.
What is interesting about the debate is the focus on when a woman is a woman. The much more important question is when is a man a man?
My view is that as long as a person has the male sex organs, they are a man. If they don't have them, then they can identify as they like.
"My view is that as long as a person has the male sex organs, they are a man. "
I find that view quite bizarre, unscientific and illogical.
The male reproductive system goes deeper than a cock and balls and vice versa. And of course there is the difference in chromosomes. Telling someone who has changed gender that it doesn't count unless that which is visible is re-fashioned surgically may well encourage that gruesome operation on healthy tissue which they may otherwise have chose not to undergo.
The vague mood music I got from reading about the rail franchise thing that wasn't explicitly stated was that this was possibly systematic by the Franchise group and that all their financial dealings with the government are now suspect and will be re audited.
Any business or organisation should do that, surely? Even if you think it's a genuine mistake, you'd check all dealings to ensure the mistake hadn't been replicated to your detriment?
But in other news, I see Patisserie Valerie's auditor has been fined £2.3 million over that scandal. Reinforcing my (perhaps incorrect) view that the large accountancy firms are fairly cr@p.
As we've seen (and I'm sure we've posted about) in the past, the problem with a finance director paying for the audit is that it results in auditors ignoring things the finance director doesn't want you looking too deeply into.
Further, the problem is that an audit that comes out less than "141% perfect, the bestest audit result ever!" would be very very bad for the company being audited.
Grade inflation, in a way.
So even raising questions in the audit is seen as bad.
My two-year is very fluid. She identifies as a dinosaur, cat, fox, train and a car - all inside the space of a few minutes.
Can we please stop belittling gender fluidity on this site? The gammon dismissal of a serious issue with complexity and nuance is pretty revolting and off-putting. It demeans this place as a forum of polite and gentle intellectual debate.
If I say it's offensive you'll accuse me of being woke but yes it is offensive.
I've been keeping out of this recently, as it's so toxic and views will sadly not be changed.
I will jut say this:
I have known a fair few trans people. Two in particular were friends: one pre-transition, one post-transition. I see comments made about trans people on here, especially about how they're somehow a 'danger', and then think of those friends, and the bullying and sh*t they suffered just because they were, in some way, different.
I don't know about others, but I have certainly changed my views over recent years on this as an issue. As indeed I did over gay marriage, and clearly a lot of other people did too.
I am not sure where it all ends up, but some critical appraisal of gender norms, and how society polices those norms is not unwelcome.
Marriage is an entirely human construct. Gender isn't.
What is interesting about the debate is the focus on when a woman is a woman. The much more important question is when is a man a man?
My view is that as long as a person has the male sex organs, they are a man. If they don't have them, then they can identify as they like.
I find that view quite bizarre, unscientific and illogical.
The male reproductive system goes deeper than a cock and balls and vice versa. And of course there is the difference in chromosomes. Telling someone who has changed gender that it doesn't count unless that which is visible is re-fashioned surgically may well encourage that gruesome operation on healthy tissue which they may otherwise have chose not to undergo.
But if they're not having that operation then how have they changed gender? What have they actually changed?
I see that SKS is being unexcoriated by his far left for not keeping a promise on a "£15 per hour" minimum wage.
Where was this promise?
And does setting a minimum wage at about 40% (rough number) of Median Wage work?
You know, if it is ever going to work it would be now when the labour market is incredibly tight and the supply of labour is more restricted than it was. Employers would need to focus on getting more out of their more expensive staff, even if it involved training them.
I think that you need to be very careful with policies such as the NMW so as not to overdo it and cause unnecessary unemployment but you should also take advantage of situations such as we have right now. Doing so will transfer more of the burden of financing the low paid from in work benefits to where it belongs, on those that employ them. It is an opportunity to reduce inequality and reduce government spending. I am not sure about £15 but an increase substantially beyond inflation and well over £10 makes sense.
Thankfully the market is doing a good job at the moment, of lifting many people above the minimum wage without needing any government intervention.
True, But I read on here that labour shortages are a bad thing. Or something.
They are a bad thing. Do you think the current pay rises to cover labour shortages will last once the labour pool rebalances?
If you want a sustained rise in pay and conditions you need a balanced labour market. Otherwise it is far too easy to reverse once alternate labour is available.
Of course prices change based on supply and demand. On a long term basis, ending effectively unlimited supply will tend to lift prices (wages). That’s a good thing.
In the near term workers may also benefit from premium rates due to excess demand - it’s the equivalent to paying someone overtime
”Walk around a supermarket in the U.S. or Europe and you will see some empty shelves once more. This isn’t due to people panic-buying toilet paper, as they did early on in the pandemic; rather it’s because supply chains are clogged at almost every stage between Asian factories and grocery stock rooms.
“But rising prices and patchy availability mean it’s only a matter of time before shoppers start purchasing in bulk again — this time to avoid future sticker shock.
“Supply lines are struggling as producers such as Vietnam, responsible for making everything from sneakers to coffee, are hurt by Covid restrictions. Surging virus cases and consumer demand are leading to congested ports. Shipping containers are in the wrong place. Sea freight costs are up tenfold. If goods do arrive at the destined ports, there are too few truck drivers to transport them to retailers. Shortages of workers to harvest and prepare foods are also adding to the pressures.”
Now, I know I'm in a posh part of LA, but I haven't seen any shortages... yet.
Today I filled up my (@Dura_Ace approved) car with petrol, without problems.
My gut - and it's just a gut - is that there is a post Covid demand boom, that is causing supply crunches everywhere. But it's most acute in the UK, simply because Covid hit almost immediately following Brexit. It meant that those who could drive could earn great money in less stressful food delivery jobs, and the normal steady flow people through training was disrupted.
And you know what, that's OK.
No-one is going to starve. Things will adjust. The cost of trucking stuff around will probably increase. And yes, that will have an impact on the price we pay for things.
That post was fine until you got to the 'it's ok' bit.
No it isn't. If you lived here you'd realise that it really, really, isn't. We have horrendous multiple crises going on in the UK at the moment. You may not be a fan of the NHS, for instance, but the situation is absolutely dire. I know several people who have had cancer diagnoses missed during the past 18 months and are now in real trouble. Try getting a face to face appointment with a GP and it's nigh-impossible.
And there are people who ARE on the bread line, especially with the cut in universal credit.
I could go on but please don't post aloof messages from sunny LA trying to tell us it's all fine. That's as bad as the Metropolitan Elite Remainers who never, ever, got the issue in the ghost towns of the north and east of England.
Great post.
On one of your points, a friend of mine found a lump in her breast. Phoned the GP - I have a lump in my chest. GP - we need an online triage with the doctor. My friend - what the **** will an online triage with the doctor do? Will he say oh well that's fine? GP - them's the rules.
So she had the online meeting and was duly summoned in to see the doctor in person two hours later.
What a monumental waste of resources. Cui Bono?
tbf I think that online consultations are now widely available is one of the upsides to come out of the pandemic, and have potential to save both patients and the NHS considerable amounts of time. My checkup for a stomach condition usually consists of a trip to Southampton (car, bus, boat, bus, walk, bus, walk) and a scheduled 20-minute appointment that basically consists of "how are things going?", "OK", "let us know if anything changes", ends, with ten more minutes of talking around the houses since a physical appointment where you get shown the door after five minutes is psychologically difficult. Similarly people are getting seen for routine matters quickly online and GPs are able to give out speedy advice without having the sniffling patient sitting in their office.
The problems are elsewhere - the load of covid patients on hospitals, the reduction in capacity due to all the precautions, the huge backlog, the cancellation of many less critical procedures, and, in a few cases, inability to meet serious demands such as the recently reported cancelled chemo treatment sessions.
Depends. A mate who is a GP said that turning off whatever the system was of instant messaging to the surgery at the weekend saved them hours as a non-trivial % of people who did so "got better" before Monday.
But then there is blanket application of the rules. Certain conditions - and finding a lump in your breast is certainly one of them - are wholly inappropriate for online consultations.
Oh and the last person I knew who had breast cancer (which I hope it is not for this friend) was the brother of a friend of mine.
Yes but by your own anecdote the time and money wasted is minimal and the patient got seen quickly anyway.
Indeed as an urgent priority! Which is the purpose of triage.
It was the third appointment she had including the description of her symptoms to the receptionist.
Is that really the most efficient way?
Initial contact, triage by a trained clinician, face to face review within hours?
Yes, sounds pretty efficient to me, particularly for a system under massive strain.
There are examples of bad practice, but this is not one.
But there was only ever going to be one outcome of the online GP session: come in.
Could that not have been identified at the first engagement?
A relative has an ongoing medical condition. One of those which is controlled by daily medication, which allows her to lead a normal life. Every so often she needs to see a consultant - to check side effects, dosing etc. The process goes
1) She arranges to have some blood tests with the nurse at the GP's surgery 2) She has to arrange an appointment with the GP - x days in advance, because slots are rare. 3) The GP says hello, and gives her a referral to the consultant, since it is outside her (the GPs) area of expertise 4) The patient arranges the appointment with the consultant. 5) Sees the consultant.
Apparently, the universe would crack if she simply had x monthly appointments with the Consultant booked in.
Her condition is one where there is no "cure" - you are on these medications for life. So, why can't she just have a pre-booked appointment?
Some GPS have the expertise to manage complex long term conditions, but others don't.
A lot is about gaming the figures to meet government targets.
Hospital clinicians like myself get scrutiny of how many follow up appointments we see*, as this reduces the number of new patients appointments available, and consequentially the waiting time for a new appointment.
So we get the revolving door of discharge and re-referral that you describe. The problem is the way the government looks at spreadsheets of targets and how they distort practice.
*an old medical joke: Dermatology is the perfect speciality for private practice as patients rarely either die of it, or get better.
”Walk around a supermarket in the U.S. or Europe and you will see some empty shelves once more. This isn’t due to people panic-buying toilet paper, as they did early on in the pandemic; rather it’s because supply chains are clogged at almost every stage between Asian factories and grocery stock rooms.
“But rising prices and patchy availability mean it’s only a matter of time before shoppers start purchasing in bulk again — this time to avoid future sticker shock.
“Supply lines are struggling as producers such as Vietnam, responsible for making everything from sneakers to coffee, are hurt by Covid restrictions. Surging virus cases and consumer demand are leading to congested ports. Shipping containers are in the wrong place. Sea freight costs are up tenfold. If goods do arrive at the destined ports, there are too few truck drivers to transport them to retailers. Shortages of workers to harvest and prepare foods are also adding to the pressures.”
Now, I know I'm in a posh part of LA, but I haven't seen any shortages... yet.
Today I filled up my (@Dura_Ace approved) car with petrol, without problems.
My gut - and it's just a gut - is that there is a post Covid demand boom, that is causing supply crunches everywhere. But it's most acute in the UK, simply because Covid hit almost immediately following Brexit. It meant that those who could drive could earn great money in less stressful food delivery jobs, and the normal steady flow people through training was disrupted.
And you know what, that's OK.
No-one is going to starve. Things will adjust. The cost of trucking stuff around will probably increase. And yes, that will have an impact on the price we pay for things.
That post was fine until you got to the 'it's ok' bit.
No it isn't. If you lived here you'd realise that it really, really, isn't. We have horrendous multiple crises going on in the UK at the moment. You may not be a fan of the NHS, for instance, but the situation is absolutely dire. I know several people who have had cancer diagnoses missed during the past 18 months and are now in real trouble. Try getting a face to face appointment with a GP and it's nigh-impossible.
And there are people who ARE on the bread line, especially with the cut in universal credit.
I could go on but please don't post aloof messages from sunny LA trying to tell us it's all fine. That's as bad as the Metropolitan Elite Remainers who never, ever, got the issue in the ghost towns of the north and east of England.
Great post.
On one of your points, a friend of mine found a lump in her breast. Phoned the GP - I have a lump in my chest. GP - we need an online triage with the doctor. My friend - what the **** will an online triage with the doctor do? Will he say oh well that's fine? GP - them's the rules.
So she had the online meeting and was duly summoned in to see the doctor in person two hours later.
What a monumental waste of resources. Cui Bono?
Be a lawyer. Once you get over the @Gallowgate hump.
£585 an hour is probably nearly the rate for the Suburban Samurai.
Now I have an image of the Deliverator delivering writs, instead of pizza for the Mafia.
Talking about the Labour Party, I'm confused. In the resplendently perfect 2019 manifesto, it was His will that the minimum wage be £10 an hour. So how come a few years later Andy McWazzock quits in protest that its not £15 an hour and gets a cheering ovation from the Trotbune fringe meeting?
Its almost as if the purpose in his flounce was only to try and damage the Labour Party.
Remember the whole Boris nicked Labour's platform thing? Well, Corbyn's £10 an hour became inadequate when Boris also pledged £10 an hour.
According to court documents, the Bay Area woman accused of starting the Fawn Fire in Shasta County last week was boiling bear urine so she could drink it when she allegedly set off the destructive blaze. https://twitter.com/KPIXtv/status/1442684030097444864
I remember a classic when a woman in San Diego was caught by the police for driving along a "two person minimum" bridge alone. She appealed against the fine because she was pregnant. She won that, but lost when the police came after her for "more than one person in the drivers seat"....
My two-year is very fluid. She identifies as a dinosaur, cat, fox, train and a car - all inside the space of a few minutes.
Can we please stop belittling gender fluidity on this site? The gammon dismissal of a serious issue with complexity and nuance is pretty revolting and off-putting. It demeans this place as a forum of polite and gentle intellectual debate.
If I say it's offensive you'll accuse me of being woke but yes it is offensive.
I've been keeping out of this recently, as it's so toxic and views will sadly not be changed.
I will jut say this:
I have known a fair few trans people. Two in particular were friends: one pre-transition, one post-transition. I see comments made about trans people on here, especially about how they're somehow a 'danger', and then think of those friends, and the bullying and sh*t they suffered just because they were, in some way, different.
I don't know about others, but I have certainly changed my views over recent years on this as an issue. As indeed I did over gay marriage, and clearly a lot of other people did too.
I am not sure where it all ends up, but some critical appraisal of gender norms, and how society polices those norms is not unwelcome.
Marriage is an entirely human construct. Gender isn't.
What is interesting about the debate is the focus on when a woman is a woman. The much more important question is when is a man a man?
My view is that as long as a person has the male sex organs, they are a man. If they don't have them, then they can identify as they like.
I find that view quite bizarre, unscientific and illogical.
The male reproductive system goes deeper than a cock and balls and vice versa. And of course there is the difference in chromosomes. Telling someone who has changed gender that it doesn't count unless that which is visible is re-fashioned surgically may well encourage that gruesome operation on healthy tissue which they may otherwise have chose not to undergo.
But if they're not having that operation then how have they changed gender? What have they actually changed?
They identify as the other gender and have chosen to have this recognised more broadly. Good for them. We have accepted gender as being different from sex long ago.
My two-year is very fluid. She identifies as a dinosaur, cat, fox, train and a car - all inside the space of a few minutes.
Can we please stop belittling gender fluidity on this site? The gammon dismissal of a serious issue with complexity and nuance is pretty revolting and off-putting. It demeans this place as a forum of polite and gentle intellectual debate.
If I say it's offensive you'll accuse me of being woke but yes it is offensive.
I've been keeping out of this recently, as it's so toxic and views will sadly not be changed.
I will jut say this:
I have known a fair few trans people. Two in particular were friends: one pre-transition, one post-transition. I see comments made about trans people on here, especially about how they're somehow a 'danger', and then think of those friends, and the bullying and sh*t they suffered just because they were, in some way, different.
I don't know about others, but I have certainly changed my views over recent years on this as an issue. As indeed I did over gay marriage, and clearly a lot of other people did too.
I am not sure where it all ends up, but some critical appraisal of gender norms, and how society polices those norms is not unwelcome.
Marriage is an entirely human construct. Gender isn't.
What is interesting about the debate is the focus on when a woman is a woman. The much more important question is when is a man a man?
My view is that as long as a person has the male sex organs, they are a man. If they don't have them, then they can identify as they like.
"My view is that as long as a person has the male sex organs, they are a man. "
I find that view quite bizarre, unscientific and illogical.
The male reproductive system goes deeper than a cock and balls and vice versa. And of course there is the difference in chromosomes. Telling someone who has changed gender that it doesn't count unless that which is visible is re-fashioned surgically may well encourage that gruesome operation on healthy tissue which they may otherwise have chose not to undergo.
My boring viewpoint is simply that this is a niche and complex issue very difficult for most of us to understand. I'd rather leave it to the medical, legal experts and those involved to sort it out rather than attempt to fully understand all the issues around it or develop a strong opinion based on ignorance. With respect to posters on both sides from reading the posts I am not convinced that the strength of opinion is backed up by the understanding necessary to be so confident.
My two-year is very fluid. She identifies as a dinosaur, cat, fox, train and a car - all inside the space of a few minutes.
Love it!
Until a few months ago my five year old was saying that when she grows up she wants to be a butterfly.
You need to get her on butterfly hormone therapy. Just teach her to say they key words and the tavistock will hand them over!
You know this stuff is very unbecoming of you. I expected better of both you and @Philip_Thompson.
You should read our debate last night if you want to see what a rational and respectful debate on trans issues looks like.
Trans issues are serious but that's no reason to not have a sense of humour.
There’s no joke here - its just blatant undermining and belittlement. Remember @MaxPB happily describes transwomen as “men in dresses”.
You say someone with a cock and bollocks can be a woman. It's ridiculous.
There’s no need to be rude.
How was that rude in comparison to you saying we were unbecoming, undermining and belittling because of talking about butterflies and young children. You threw the first stone.
I most certainly did not. I’m calling out outright bigotry and abuse and you’re hiding behind “oh it was just a joke”.
Saying that my five year old wanted to be a butterfly is outright bigotry and abuse?
Take a break. You need to get some perspective.
Nope. I’ve said all I have to say on the matter anyway. You knew exactly what you were doing and I expected better. That’s all.
Yes I had a light hearted exchange with another father on this site.
Then you chose to make it ugly.
Nope. You’re the one who hid belittlement behind a “joke”. You can play innocent all you want.
Oh get that stick out of your arse! There's no need to go perpetually angry from 0 to 100 all the time.
My daughter wanting to be a butterfly is the truth. She's also at other times wanted to be a Princess, a Space Ranger, and a Mummy when she grows up. And many other things. It was a cute remark and why can't you just let it be cute instead of making it angry?
I try to stay out of the trans debate as much as possible because there's a lot more heat than light there. But if you want a serious opinion then yes children can want to be all sorts of different things when they grow up. Some want to be doctors, or police, or astronauts. Some even want to become politicians - indeed some teenagers even want to be Liberal republican politicians and end up becoming Conservative Foreign Secretary.
The thing is its not set in stone. As people grow up and go from young children, through puberty and then into adulthood they frequently change their mind.
So I think adults that have been through puberty and into adulthood - if they're trans then we should offer them all the help and support they need and can give so long as it doesn't violate safeguarding for women.
That all seems a reasonable compromise to me. Probably won't satisfy extremists on any side, but to me at least all that seems reasonable. But I'd rather not get into toxic discussions.
FWIW, I think it was Max's response, rather than your original post, that set it all off.
"...then we should offer them all the help and support they need and can give.." sounds most reasonable, but is sadly divorced from reality.
Well that's just sad. Why is it divorced from reality to give the help and support they need and we can give?
If there's practical issues where we could give people more support, but its not being given, then why not discuss those and put pressure on that? To actually help people?
”Walk around a supermarket in the U.S. or Europe and you will see some empty shelves once more. This isn’t due to people panic-buying toilet paper, as they did early on in the pandemic; rather it’s because supply chains are clogged at almost every stage between Asian factories and grocery stock rooms.
“But rising prices and patchy availability mean it’s only a matter of time before shoppers start purchasing in bulk again — this time to avoid future sticker shock.
“Supply lines are struggling as producers such as Vietnam, responsible for making everything from sneakers to coffee, are hurt by Covid restrictions. Surging virus cases and consumer demand are leading to congested ports. Shipping containers are in the wrong place. Sea freight costs are up tenfold. If goods do arrive at the destined ports, there are too few truck drivers to transport them to retailers. Shortages of workers to harvest and prepare foods are also adding to the pressures.”
Now, I know I'm in a posh part of LA, but I haven't seen any shortages... yet.
Today I filled up my (@Dura_Ace approved) car with petrol, without problems.
My gut - and it's just a gut - is that there is a post Covid demand boom, that is causing supply crunches everywhere. But it's most acute in the UK, simply because Covid hit almost immediately following Brexit. It meant that those who could drive could earn great money in less stressful food delivery jobs, and the normal steady flow people through training was disrupted.
And you know what, that's OK.
No-one is going to starve. Things will adjust. The cost of trucking stuff around will probably increase. And yes, that will have an impact on the price we pay for things.
That post was fine until you got to the 'it's ok' bit.
No it isn't. If you lived here you'd realise that it really, really, isn't. We have horrendous multiple crises going on in the UK at the moment. You may not be a fan of the NHS, for instance, but the situation is absolutely dire. I know several people who have had cancer diagnoses missed during the past 18 months and are now in real trouble. Try getting a face to face appointment with a GP and it's nigh-impossible.
And there are people who ARE on the bread line, especially with the cut in universal credit.
I could go on but please don't post aloof messages from sunny LA trying to tell us it's all fine. That's as bad as the Metropolitan Elite Remainers who never, ever, got the issue in the ghost towns of the north and east of England.
Great post.
On one of your points, a friend of mine found a lump in her breast. Phoned the GP - I have a lump in my chest. GP - we need an online triage with the doctor. My friend - what the **** will an online triage with the doctor do? Will he say oh well that's fine? GP - them's the rules.
So she had the online meeting and was duly summoned in to see the doctor in person two hours later.
What a monumental waste of resources. Cui Bono?
tbf I think that online consultations are now widely available is one of the upsides to come out of the pandemic, and have potential to save both patients and the NHS considerable amounts of time. My checkup for a stomach condition usually consists of a trip to Southampton (car, bus, boat, bus, walk, bus, walk) and a scheduled 20-minute appointment that basically consists of "how are things going?", "OK", "let us know if anything changes", ends, with ten more minutes of talking around the houses since a physical appointment where you get shown the door after five minutes is psychologically difficult. Similarly people are getting seen for routine matters quickly online and GPs are able to give out speedy advice without having the sniffling patient sitting in their office.
The problems are elsewhere - the load of covid patients on hospitals, the reduction in capacity due to all the precautions, the huge backlog, the cancellation of many less critical procedures, and, in a few cases, inability to meet serious demands such as the recently reported cancelled chemo treatment sessions.
Depends. A mate who is a GP said that turning off whatever the system was of instant messaging to the surgery at the weekend saved them hours as a non-trivial % of people who did so "got better" before Monday.
But then there is blanket application of the rules. Certain conditions - and finding a lump in your breast is certainly one of them - are wholly inappropriate for online consultations.
Oh and the last person I knew who had breast cancer (which I hope it is not for this friend) was the brother of a friend of mine.
Yes but by your own anecdote the time and money wasted is minimal and the patient got seen quickly anyway.
Indeed as an urgent priority! Which is the purpose of triage.
It was the third appointment she had including the description of her symptoms to the receptionist.
Is that really the most efficient way?
Initial contact, triage by a trained clinician, face to face review within hours?
Yes, sounds pretty efficient to me, particularly for a system under massive strain.
There are examples of bad practice, but this is not one.
But there was only ever going to be one outcome of the online GP session: come in.
Could that not have been identified at the first engagement?
A relative has an ongoing medical condition. One of those which is controlled by daily medication, which allows her to lead a normal life. Every so often she needs to see a consultant - to check side effects, dosing etc. The process goes
1) She arranges to have some blood tests with the nurse at the GP's surgery 2) She has to arrange an appointment with the GP - x days in advance, because slots are rare. 3) The GP says hello, and gives her a referral to the consultant, since it is outside her (the GPs) area of expertise 4) The patient arranges the appointment with the consultant. 5) Sees the consultant.
Apparently, the universe would crack if she simply had x monthly appointments with the Consultant booked in.
Her condition is one where there is no "cure" - you are on these medications for life. So, why can't she just have a pre-booked appointment?
Some GPS have the expertise to manage complex long term conditions, but others don't.
A lot is about gaming the figures to meet government targets.
Hospital clinicians like myself get scrutiny of how many follow up appointments we see*, as this reduces the number of new patients appointments available, and consequentially the waiting time for a new appointment.
So we get the revolving door of discharge and re-referral that you describe. The problem is the way the government looks at spreadsheets of targets and how they distort practice.
*an old medical joke: Dermatology is the perfect speciality for private practice as patients rarely either die of it, or get better.
Yeah - was taking to a an A&E doctor the other week. They have a couple of people paid to TimeAndMotion them, in the style of the 1950s.
What the NHS needs is some hard core Operations Research - cut out useless intermediate steps.
Always remembering the chow line story, of course.
My two-year is very fluid. She identifies as a dinosaur, cat, fox, train and a car - all inside the space of a few minutes.
Can we please stop belittling gender fluidity on this site? The gammon dismissal of a serious issue with complexity and nuance is pretty revolting and off-putting. It demeans this place as a forum of polite and gentle intellectual debate.
If I say it's offensive you'll accuse me of being woke but yes it is offensive.
I've been keeping out of this recently, as it's so toxic and views will sadly not be changed.
I will jut say this:
I have known a fair few trans people. Two in particular were friends: one pre-transition, one post-transition. I see comments made about trans people on here, especially about how they're somehow a 'danger', and then think of those friends, and the bullying and sh*t they suffered just because they were, in some way, different.
I don't know about others, but I have certainly changed my views over recent years on this as an issue. As indeed I did over gay marriage, and clearly a lot of other people did too.
I am not sure where it all ends up, but some critical appraisal of gender norms, and how society polices those norms is not unwelcome.
Marriage is an entirely human construct. Gender isn't.
What is interesting about the debate is the focus on when a woman is a woman. The much more important question is when is a man a man?
My view is that as long as a person has the male sex organs, they are a man. If they don't have them, then they can identify as they like.
I find that view quite bizarre, unscientific and illogical.
The male reproductive system goes deeper than a cock and balls and vice versa. And of course there is the difference in chromosomes. Telling someone who has changed gender that it doesn't count unless that which is visible is re-fashioned surgically may well encourage that gruesome operation on healthy tissue which they may otherwise have chose not to undergo.
But if they're not having that operation then how have they changed gender? What have they actually changed?
They identify as the other gender and have chosen to have this recognised more broadly. Good for them. We have accepted gender as being different from sex long ago.
Some have accepted that, others haven't. Self-identification is not scientific and universally accepted and it is not recognised more broadly or even legally. That's kind of the very heart of the issue being debated.
But if someone "identifies as a woman" then what does it mean to be a woman? What are they actually identifying as?
How can you identify as a woman without knowing what a woman even is in the first place?
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul Could @AndyMcDonaldMP or anyone explain why minimum wage should be £15, higher than current median wage, £13.68?
If it was £15 pretty confident that they would say it is too low and should be £20, with anyone thinking differently right wing scum. They are stuck in the battles of the 1980s.
IDK, I think what's happening is that British political people have a load of American politics in their twitter feed, and Biden who is considered centrist is saying you should get 15 currency units, so Britain also needs to have 15 currency units.
”Walk around a supermarket in the U.S. or Europe and you will see some empty shelves once more. This isn’t due to people panic-buying toilet paper, as they did early on in the pandemic; rather it’s because supply chains are clogged at almost every stage between Asian factories and grocery stock rooms.
“But rising prices and patchy availability mean it’s only a matter of time before shoppers start purchasing in bulk again — this time to avoid future sticker shock.
“Supply lines are struggling as producers such as Vietnam, responsible for making everything from sneakers to coffee, are hurt by Covid restrictions. Surging virus cases and consumer demand are leading to congested ports. Shipping containers are in the wrong place. Sea freight costs are up tenfold. If goods do arrive at the destined ports, there are too few truck drivers to transport them to retailers. Shortages of workers to harvest and prepare foods are also adding to the pressures.”
Now, I know I'm in a posh part of LA, but I haven't seen any shortages... yet.
Today I filled up my (@Dura_Ace approved) car with petrol, without problems.
My gut - and it's just a gut - is that there is a post Covid demand boom, that is causing supply crunches everywhere. But it's most acute in the UK, simply because Covid hit almost immediately following Brexit. It meant that those who could drive could earn great money in less stressful food delivery jobs, and the normal steady flow people through training was disrupted.
And you know what, that's OK.
No-one is going to starve. Things will adjust. The cost of trucking stuff around will probably increase. And yes, that will have an impact on the price we pay for things.
That post was fine until you got to the 'it's ok' bit.
No it isn't. If you lived here you'd realise that it really, really, isn't. We have horrendous multiple crises going on in the UK at the moment. You may not be a fan of the NHS, for instance, but the situation is absolutely dire. I know several people who have had cancer diagnoses missed during the past 18 months and are now in real trouble. Try getting a face to face appointment with a GP and it's nigh-impossible.
And there are people who ARE on the bread line, especially with the cut in universal credit.
I could go on but please don't post aloof messages from sunny LA trying to tell us it's all fine. That's as bad as the Metropolitan Elite Remainers who never, ever, got the issue in the ghost towns of the north and east of England.
I think you go a bit far - we have some enormous challenges ahead, but we always do. The NHS has had winter crisis for as long as I can remember. There will never be enough money, time, medics to do all that could be done. I'd suggest you look elsewhere. We are not uniquely struggling. Things will improve. My guess is the fuel 'crisis' will be over by the weekend.
They don't seem to be struggling quite as much as we are. In terms of loss of life expectancy, Covid has hit the UK harder than many countries, and nowhere else has has people queuing for petrol. European supermarket shelves aren't as empty as ours, either. Pasta, chopped tomatoes and kidney beans almost all gone on my last shoping trip.
BREXIT has really put us in a bad place.
Brexit is an unserious project lead by unserious people, which is the big issue we have right now. They start out by claiming shortages are a feature, not a bug, of Brexit, because they drive up wages. Then they deny that shortages actually exist, because no-one wants to do without important stuff. Or, if they can't deny it, they claim everyone else also had shortages. Finally they blame everyone else for the consequences of their own decisions; companies, the media, Remainers, the EU.
As I have said before time for the lib dems to come out publicly and say they will join the single market and a accept freedom of movement
That would be honest rather than continually bemoaning abour Brexit
You do not like it, so say what you do want openly and honestly to the public
We have done that already:
"The basic thrust of the party’s position is therefore clear: to demonstrate how the version of Brexit that the government has chosen is disastrous for the UK in every respect, and to call for a different relationship in the immediate term – for example, membership of the Single Market"
Which is quite transparent in that it is seen as a way to convince the UK to Rejoin in the longer term. It was decided at conference that Rejoin would not be in the LD manifesto in the next GE, but rather small steps.
I think that rather open and honest, don't you?
I have not heard of it (I doubt only a few diehards have read that) and even then it is rather vague
Lib dems need to spell it out and define how they want to address their perceived issues with Brexir
The thing I don't understand and can't wrap my head around is what people who say someone with a penis is a woman mean by the term "woman"? If you abolish all definitions of what a woman is, then how can other people say they are a woman, what are they saying they are in the first place?
People who are male who wish to become female and so transition - then that I understand. In which case they want to lose the penis and gain a cervix surely - so yes still someone with a penis is not a woman, which is why they're transitioning.
But if someone doesn't wish to transition, then what does it even mean to be a woman?
I just don't understand that, no matter how hard I try, so if someone could explain that, I'd appreciate it.
Gender reassignment surgery is a very long wait, even after a long wait for psychological assessment. Indeed people cannot usually go on the waiting list until they have taken hormones and lived as the new gender for a couple of years. There is the practical issue of how to live as the new gender while having the old genitalia in the meantime. Are people not supposed to go to public places during those years?
If gender surgery was to be a pre-condition of acceptance as the new gender (which I think is the majority opinion in the UK), then access to both gender dysphoria clinics and gender surgery needs to be greatly increased. Given scarce resources in terms of expertise, operating time, and finance, I cannot see that happening.
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul Could @AndyMcDonaldMP or anyone explain why minimum wage should be £15, higher than current median wage, £13.68?
If it was £15 pretty confident that they would say it is too low and should be £20, with anyone thinking differently right wing scum. They are stuck in the battles of the 1980s.
IDK, I think what's happening is that British political people have a load of American politics in their twitter feed, and Biden who is considered centrist is saying you should get 15 currency units, so Britain also needs to have 15 currency units.
Probably - my youngest daughter absorbs the Twitter etc. Often results in somewhat entertaining conversations - winding her back to the UK takes a little while....
Talking about the Labour Party, I'm confused. In the resplendently perfect 2019 manifesto, it was His will that the minimum wage be £10 an hour. So how come a few years later Andy McWazzock quits in protest that its not £15 an hour and gets a cheering ovation from the Trotbune fringe meeting?
Its almost as if the purpose in his flounce was only to try and damage the Labour Party.
Remember the whole Boris nicked Labour's platform thing? Well, Corbyn's £10 an hour became inadequate when Boris also pledged £10 an hour.
£10 an hour is ToryMinimumWage. So it doesn't count.
Bit like the councillor, a chap I knew encountered, who was deeply suspicious of "Tory jobs" coming to the area.
How about we don't go round the same trans "debate" again.
Perhaps esteemed posters shouldn't bait with the likes of “my daughter wants to transition to a butterfly hurr durr durr”
I've always been very clear with all my children that whatever identity they choose for themselves, I will love them unconditionally and support their choice in whatever way I can. Unless they become Tories. Then they're dead to me.
What if they transition to Tories or self-identify as such? Will you still regard them are “really” being Labour?
”Walk around a supermarket in the U.S. or Europe and you will see some empty shelves once more. This isn’t due to people panic-buying toilet paper, as they did early on in the pandemic; rather it’s because supply chains are clogged at almost every stage between Asian factories and grocery stock rooms.
“But rising prices and patchy availability mean it’s only a matter of time before shoppers start purchasing in bulk again — this time to avoid future sticker shock.
“Supply lines are struggling as producers such as Vietnam, responsible for making everything from sneakers to coffee, are hurt by Covid restrictions. Surging virus cases and consumer demand are leading to congested ports. Shipping containers are in the wrong place. Sea freight costs are up tenfold. If goods do arrive at the destined ports, there are too few truck drivers to transport them to retailers. Shortages of workers to harvest and prepare foods are also adding to the pressures.”
Now, I know I'm in a posh part of LA, but I haven't seen any shortages... yet.
Today I filled up my (@Dura_Ace approved) car with petrol, without problems.
My gut - and it's just a gut - is that there is a post Covid demand boom, that is causing supply crunches everywhere. But it's most acute in the UK, simply because Covid hit almost immediately following Brexit. It meant that those who could drive could earn great money in less stressful food delivery jobs, and the normal steady flow people through training was disrupted.
And you know what, that's OK.
No-one is going to starve. Things will adjust. The cost of trucking stuff around will probably increase. And yes, that will have an impact on the price we pay for things.
That post was fine until you got to the 'it's ok' bit.
No it isn't. If you lived here you'd realise that it really, really, isn't. We have horrendous multiple crises going on in the UK at the moment. You may not be a fan of the NHS, for instance, but the situation is absolutely dire. I know several people who have had cancer diagnoses missed during the past 18 months and are now in real trouble. Try getting a face to face appointment with a GP and it's nigh-impossible.
And there are people who ARE on the bread line, especially with the cut in universal credit.
I could go on but please don't post aloof messages from sunny LA trying to tell us it's all fine. That's as bad as the Metropolitan Elite Remainers who never, ever, got the issue in the ghost towns of the north and east of England.
I think you go a bit far - we have some enormous challenges ahead, but we always do. The NHS has had winter crisis for as long as I can remember. There will never be enough money, time, medics to do all that could be done. I'd suggest you look elsewhere. We are not uniquely struggling. Things will improve. My guess is the fuel 'crisis' will be over by the weekend.
They don't seem to be struggling quite as much as we are. In terms of loss of life expectancy, Covid has hit the UK harder than many countries, and nowhere else has has people queuing for petrol. European supermarket shelves aren't as empty as ours, either. Pasta, chopped tomatoes and kidney beans almost all gone on my last shoping trip.
BREXIT has really put us in a bad place.
Brexit is an unserious project lead by unserious people, which is the big issue we have right now. They start out by claiming shortages are a feature, not a bug, of Brexit, because they drive up wages. Then they deny that shortages actually exist, because no-one wants to do without important stuff. Or, if they can't deny it, they claim everyone else also had shortages. Finally they blame everyone else for the consequences of their own decisions; companies, the media, Remainers, the EU.
As I have said before time for the lib dems to come out publicly and say they will join the single market and a accept freedom of movement
That would be honest rather than continually bemoaning abour Brexit
You do not like it, so say what you do want openly and honestly to the public
Hang on, what is wrong with "continually bemoaning about Brexit" if the delivery of Brexit is as shit as it is? Do supporters of Brexit want it to work or not?
We passed motions at conference calling for the restoration of FOM, renewed cultural ties, trade deals that work. You can't "join the single market" as that means EEA membership either via the EU or EFTA. We can do a bilateral deal like Switzerland giving us access.
I very much doubt the Lib dem policy is known by those outside the party
I am suggesting they have a golden opportunity to nail their colours to the mast and say it openly in the media
It does seem like the lib dems and labour are frightened to declare their support for FOM publicly
The thing I don't understand and can't wrap my head around is what people who say someone with a penis is a woman mean by the term "woman"? If you abolish all definitions of what a woman is, then how can other people say they are a woman, what are they saying they are in the first place?
People who are male who wish to become female and so transition - then that I understand. In which case they want to lose the penis and gain a cervix surely - so yes still someone with a penis is not a woman, which is why they're transitioning.
But if someone doesn't wish to transition, then what does it even mean to be a woman?
I just don't understand that, no matter how hard I try, so if someone could explain that, I'd appreciate it.
Gender reassignment surgery is a very long wait, even after a long wait for psychological assessment. Indeed people cannot usually go on the waiting list until they have taken hormones and lived as the new gender for a couple of years. There is the practical issue of how to live as the new gender while having the old genitalia in the meantime. Are people not supposed to go to public places during those years?
If gender surgery was to be a pre-condition of acceptance as the new gender (which I think is the majority opinion in the UK), then access to both gender dysphoria clinics and gender surgery needs to be greatly increased. Given scarce resources in terms of expertise, operating time, and finance, I cannot see that happening.
I'm glad that it is not happening. I'm appalled that NHS funds is being used for this purpose - counselling and psychiatry yes but that is all. I think the public places (e.g. loos) issue is a tad exaggerated to be honest. I man who now identifies and looks like a woman using a female loo - who would know or care whether or not she had dangly bits? Does anyone look at others in the public loos anyway - I don't! Do people who think that such a person will pounce on women in a public loo?
”Walk around a supermarket in the U.S. or Europe and you will see some empty shelves once more. This isn’t due to people panic-buying toilet paper, as they did early on in the pandemic; rather it’s because supply chains are clogged at almost every stage between Asian factories and grocery stock rooms.
“But rising prices and patchy availability mean it’s only a matter of time before shoppers start purchasing in bulk again — this time to avoid future sticker shock.
“Supply lines are struggling as producers such as Vietnam, responsible for making everything from sneakers to coffee, are hurt by Covid restrictions. Surging virus cases and consumer demand are leading to congested ports. Shipping containers are in the wrong place. Sea freight costs are up tenfold. If goods do arrive at the destined ports, there are too few truck drivers to transport them to retailers. Shortages of workers to harvest and prepare foods are also adding to the pressures.”
Now, I know I'm in a posh part of LA, but I haven't seen any shortages... yet.
Today I filled up my (@Dura_Ace approved) car with petrol, without problems.
My gut - and it's just a gut - is that there is a post Covid demand boom, that is causing supply crunches everywhere. But it's most acute in the UK, simply because Covid hit almost immediately following Brexit. It meant that those who could drive could earn great money in less stressful food delivery jobs, and the normal steady flow people through training was disrupted.
And you know what, that's OK.
No-one is going to starve. Things will adjust. The cost of trucking stuff around will probably increase. And yes, that will have an impact on the price we pay for things.
That post was fine until you got to the 'it's ok' bit.
No it isn't. If you lived here you'd realise that it really, really, isn't. We have horrendous multiple crises going on in the UK at the moment. You may not be a fan of the NHS, for instance, but the situation is absolutely dire. I know several people who have had cancer diagnoses missed during the past 18 months and are now in real trouble. Try getting a face to face appointment with a GP and it's nigh-impossible.
And there are people who ARE on the bread line, especially with the cut in universal credit.
I could go on but please don't post aloof messages from sunny LA trying to tell us it's all fine. That's as bad as the Metropolitan Elite Remainers who never, ever, got the issue in the ghost towns of the north and east of England.
Great post.
On one of your points, a friend of mine found a lump in her breast. Phoned the GP - I have a lump in my chest. GP - we need an online triage with the doctor. My friend - what the **** will an online triage with the doctor do? Will he say oh well that's fine? GP - them's the rules.
So she had the online meeting and was duly summoned in to see the doctor in person two hours later.
What a monumental waste of resources. Cui Bono?
Teleconsultations are comparatively cheap. Although it seems silly for known serious cases like your friend, from a workflow perspective it makes sense to have a single funnel
How about we don't go round the same trans "debate" again.
Perhaps esteemed posters shouldn't bait with the likes of “my daughter wants to transition to a butterfly hurr durr durr”
I've always been very clear with all my children that whatever identity they choose for themselves, I will love them unconditionally and support their choice in whatever way I can. Unless they become Tories. Then they're dead to me.
What if they transition to Tories or self-identify as such? Will you still regard them are “really” being Labour?
What if they vote Tory, but chose to self identify as LibDems?
Just because of some physical thing, like a mark on a ballot paper, will you take away their right to self identify? etc etc
Pollyfillia at the Grauniad once wanted to "take over" the Libertarian brand. On the basis that it was a cool name and she thought that it should belong to proper people - who believed in things such as mandatory ID cards.
Shapps says £25m of payments weren't DECLARED. Sounds a bit harsh to send in the OLR just for not posting or emailling a remittance advice ?
Hold on it's the other way round. How do the government not know who they have sent £25 million to ?
Way I read it was the government had sent it in the past but that Southeastern were supposed to pay it back at some point
Southeastern screwed up by not returning the money (and presumably put in an incorrect declaration in the process). The government caught it in an audit process.
It seems a little harsh to terminate the franchise if it was an administrative oversight (I’d be surprised if Govia would try to steal a comparatively small amount) but I can absolutely see why the politics would mean the government would want to do that.
Southeastern's franchise should have been terminated years ago on the basis of their shitty service, especially in London. The best thing about my new cycling commute is not giving those fuckers a fucking penny.
The thing I don't understand and can't wrap my head around is what people who say someone with a penis is a woman mean by the term "woman"? If you abolish all definitions of what a woman is, then how can other people say they are a woman, what are they saying they are in the first place?
People who are male who wish to become female and so transition - then that I understand. In which case they want to lose the penis and gain a cervix surely - so yes still someone with a penis is not a woman, which is why they're transitioning.
But if someone doesn't wish to transition, then what does it even mean to be a woman?
I just don't understand that, no matter how hard I try, so if someone could explain that, I'd appreciate it.
Gender reassignment surgery is a very long wait, even after a long wait for psychological assessment. Indeed people cannot usually go on the waiting list until they have taken hormones and lived as the new gender for a couple of years. There is the practical issue of how to live as the new gender while having the old genitalia in the meantime. Are people not supposed to go to public places during those years?
If gender surgery was to be a pre-condition of acceptance as the new gender (which I think is the majority opinion in the UK), then access to both gender dysphoria clinics and gender surgery needs to be greatly increased. Given scarce resources in terms of expertise, operating time, and finance, I cannot see that happening.
Yes if great access is needed then greater access should be given.
If someone is transitioning, then they're transitioning and if that is what they want then good for them. I have no qualms with that. But they're still transitioning to something and what they're transition to and will eventually be is what a woman (or man) is. A man transitioning to become a woman is not a woman yet, but will be eventually.
But if someone with a penis is not transitioning, then what do they even mean by saying they're a woman?
"They demand nationalising energy as Starmer says no, they promote a £10 minimum wage only for Starmer to be photographed at a demonstration demanding £15, Starmer comes down against Rosie Duffield on the trans issue, and amazingly by 70%/30% reject AUKUS"....
AUKUS should be rejected - hatched in secrecy with a fairly hard right Australian government, a deal that is unsupported by Asia's friendly nations, its potentially in breach of the NPT (as is the UK increase in nuclear warheads) and has maanged to sour relations with one of our closest partners in Europe... there's nothing to celebrate about AUKUS unless you own shares in a few defence companies or work in a specific shipyard...
Taiwan, India and Japan have all backed AUKUS and South Korea is neutral.
Perhaps by "Asia's friendly nations" you meant North Korea, which is indeed opposed?
Singapore, Brunei, Malaysia - there's three friendly commonwealth nations that dont want it for a start....... not to mention the rest of ASEAN and NZ
Where have NZ declared they are not in favour of AUKUS
They do not allow nuclear submarines in their waters but please provide evidence that they do not support AUKUS
I see that SKS is being unexcoriated by his far left for not keeping a promise on a "£15 per hour" minimum wage.
Where was this promise?
And does setting a minimum wage at about 40% (rough number) of Median Wage work?
You know, if it is ever going to work it would be now when the labour market is incredibly tight and the supply of labour is more restricted than it was. Employers would need to focus on getting more out of their more expensive staff, even if it involved training them.
I think that you need to be very careful with policies such as the NMW so as not to overdo it and cause unnecessary unemployment but you should also take advantage of situations such as we have right now. Doing so will transfer more of the burden of financing the low paid from in work benefits to where it belongs, on those that employ them. It is an opportunity to reduce inequality and reduce government spending. I am not sure about £15 but an increase substantially beyond inflation and well over £10 makes sense.
Thankfully the market is doing a good job at the moment, of lifting many people above the minimum wage without needing any government intervention.
True, But I read on here that labour shortages are a bad thing. Or something.
Labour shortages are very obviously a bad thing. If they can be resolved through raising salaries then all well and good. If they can't, then we are in a whole heap of trouble.
The whole retake control thing with brexit should see targeted migration based on need. So if it is not resolved by raising salaries we have the means to allow people access to our labour markets.
Or that is what we are told.
It was what we were told. And yet where we have not just need but a full-blown crisis the government refuses to allow targeted migration. Or even work visas (5k is a drop in the ocean).
Why is that? Surely a "points-based migration scheme" wasn't code for "stop migrants"?
I didn’t think it was but it beggars belief when we have skills gaps or shortages little is being done to fill them gaps.
The view is that this is a temporary blip not a long term structural issue
”Walk around a supermarket in the U.S. or Europe and you will see some empty shelves once more. This isn’t due to people panic-buying toilet paper, as they did early on in the pandemic; rather it’s because supply chains are clogged at almost every stage between Asian factories and grocery stock rooms.
“But rising prices and patchy availability mean it’s only a matter of time before shoppers start purchasing in bulk again — this time to avoid future sticker shock.
“Supply lines are struggling as producers such as Vietnam, responsible for making everything from sneakers to coffee, are hurt by Covid restrictions. Surging virus cases and consumer demand are leading to congested ports. Shipping containers are in the wrong place. Sea freight costs are up tenfold. If goods do arrive at the destined ports, there are too few truck drivers to transport them to retailers. Shortages of workers to harvest and prepare foods are also adding to the pressures.”
Now, I know I'm in a posh part of LA, but I haven't seen any shortages... yet.
Today I filled up my (@Dura_Ace approved) car with petrol, without problems.
My gut - and it's just a gut - is that there is a post Covid demand boom, that is causing supply crunches everywhere. But it's most acute in the UK, simply because Covid hit almost immediately following Brexit. It meant that those who could drive could earn great money in less stressful food delivery jobs, and the normal steady flow people through training was disrupted.
And you know what, that's OK.
No-one is going to starve. Things will adjust. The cost of trucking stuff around will probably increase. And yes, that will have an impact on the price we pay for things.
That post was fine until you got to the 'it's ok' bit.
No it isn't. If you lived here you'd realise that it really, really, isn't. We have horrendous multiple crises going on in the UK at the moment. You may not be a fan of the NHS, for instance, but the situation is absolutely dire. I know several people who have had cancer diagnoses missed during the past 18 months and are now in real trouble. Try getting a face to face appointment with a GP and it's nigh-impossible.
And there are people who ARE on the bread line, especially with the cut in universal credit.
I could go on but please don't post aloof messages from sunny LA trying to tell us it's all fine. That's as bad as the Metropolitan Elite Remainers who never, ever, got the issue in the ghost towns of the north and east of England.
Great post.
On one of your points, a friend of mine found a lump in her breast. Phoned the GP - I have a lump in my chest. GP - we need an online triage with the doctor. My friend - what the **** will an online triage with the doctor do? Will he say oh well that's fine? GP - them's the rules.
So she had the online meeting and was duly summoned in to see the doctor in person two hours later.
What a monumental waste of resources. Cui Bono?
Teleconsultations are comparatively cheap. Although it seems silly for known serious cases like your friend, from a workflow perspective it makes sense to have a single funnel
One problem is that people try and game the system - once the word gets around that saying "symptom X" gets you straight to the consultant......
Talking about the Labour Party, I'm confused. In the resplendently perfect 2019 manifesto, it was His will that the minimum wage be £10 an hour. So how come a few years later Andy McWazzock quits in protest that its not £15 an hour and gets a cheering ovation from the Trotbune fringe meeting?
Its almost as if the purpose in his flounce was only to try and damage the Labour Party.
Remember the whole Boris nicked Labour's platform thing? Well, Corbyn's £10 an hour became inadequate when Boris also pledged £10 an hour.
£10 an hour is ToryMinimumWage. So it doesn't count.
Bit like the councillor, a chap I knew encountered, who was deeply suspicious of "Tory jobs" coming to the area.
It cuts both ways.
A bit like a Councillor, a chap I know online, was is deeply suspicious of "Tory votes" coming from anyone who ever voted for Blair.
not surprising when you look at the profile of who is getting more COVID and who less -
On the hospital stats - apologies, I know I should know this - do the figures reflect just those who are being treated for Covid or do the figures include those who are being treated for other things but have a positive test for Covid?
How about we don't go round the same trans "debate" again.
Perhaps esteemed posters shouldn't bait with the likes of “my daughter wants to transition to a butterfly hurr durr durr”
I've always been very clear with all my children that whatever identity they choose for themselves, I will love them unconditionally and support their choice in whatever way I can. Unless they become Tories. Then they're dead to me.
What if they transition to Tories or self-identify as such? Will you still regard them are “really” being Labour?
What if they vote Tory, but chose to self identify as LibDems?
Just because of some physical thing, like a mark on a ballot paper, will you take away their right to self identify? etc etc
Pollyfillia at the Grauniad once wanted to "take over" the Libertarian brand. On the basis that it was a cool name and she thought that it should belong to proper people - who believed in things such as mandatory ID cards.
My two-year is very fluid. She identifies as a dinosaur, cat, fox, train and a car - all inside the space of a few minutes.
Can we please stop belittling gender fluidity on this site? The gammon dismissal of a serious issue with complexity and nuance is pretty revolting and off-putting. It demeans this place as a forum of polite and gentle intellectual debate.
If I say it's offensive you'll accuse me of being woke but yes it is offensive.
I've been keeping out of this recently, as it's so toxic and views will sadly not be changed.
I will jut say this:
I have known a fair few trans people. Two in particular were friends: one pre-transition, one post-transition. I see comments made about trans people on here, especially about how they're somehow a 'danger', and then think of those friends, and the bullying and sh*t they suffered just because they were, in some way, different.
I don't know about others, but I have certainly changed my views over recent years on this as an issue. As indeed I did over gay marriage, and clearly a lot of other people did too.
I am not sure where it all ends up, but some critical appraisal of gender norms, and how society polices those norms is not unwelcome.
Marriage is an entirely human construct. Gender isn't.
What is interesting about the debate is the focus on when a woman is a woman. The much more important question is when is a man a man?
My view is that as long as a person has the male sex organs, they are a man. If they don't have them, then they can identify as they like.
"My view is that as long as a person has the male sex organs, they are a man. "
I find that view quite bizarre, unscientific and illogical.
The male reproductive system goes deeper than a cock and balls and vice versa. And of course there is the difference in chromosomes. Telling someone who has changed gender that it doesn't count unless that which is visible is re-fashioned surgically may well encourage that gruesome operation on healthy tissue which they may otherwise have chose not to undergo.
Yes, it's true that no matter how much surgery a man has, they will always have some male characteristics. But I reckon if someone gets rid of those bits, that shows they are serious. Ultimately, it means they cannot commit rape.
”Walk around a supermarket in the U.S. or Europe and you will see some empty shelves once more. This isn’t due to people panic-buying toilet paper, as they did early on in the pandemic; rather it’s because supply chains are clogged at almost every stage between Asian factories and grocery stock rooms.
“But rising prices and patchy availability mean it’s only a matter of time before shoppers start purchasing in bulk again — this time to avoid future sticker shock.
“Supply lines are struggling as producers such as Vietnam, responsible for making everything from sneakers to coffee, are hurt by Covid restrictions. Surging virus cases and consumer demand are leading to congested ports. Shipping containers are in the wrong place. Sea freight costs are up tenfold. If goods do arrive at the destined ports, there are too few truck drivers to transport them to retailers. Shortages of workers to harvest and prepare foods are also adding to the pressures.”
Now, I know I'm in a posh part of LA, but I haven't seen any shortages... yet.
Today I filled up my (@Dura_Ace approved) car with petrol, without problems.
My gut - and it's just a gut - is that there is a post Covid demand boom, that is causing supply crunches everywhere. But it's most acute in the UK, simply because Covid hit almost immediately following Brexit. It meant that those who could drive could earn great money in less stressful food delivery jobs, and the normal steady flow people through training was disrupted.
And you know what, that's OK.
No-one is going to starve. Things will adjust. The cost of trucking stuff around will probably increase. And yes, that will have an impact on the price we pay for things.
That post was fine until you got to the 'it's ok' bit.
No it isn't. If you lived here you'd realise that it really, really, isn't. We have horrendous multiple crises going on in the UK at the moment. You may not be a fan of the NHS, for instance, but the situation is absolutely dire. I know several people who have had cancer diagnoses missed during the past 18 months and are now in real trouble. Try getting a face to face appointment with a GP and it's nigh-impossible.
And there are people who ARE on the bread line, especially with the cut in universal credit.
I could go on but please don't post aloof messages from sunny LA trying to tell us it's all fine. That's as bad as the Metropolitan Elite Remainers who never, ever, got the issue in the ghost towns of the north and east of England.
I think you go a bit far - we have some enormous challenges ahead, but we always do. The NHS has had winter crisis for as long as I can remember. There will never be enough money, time, medics to do all that could be done. I'd suggest you look elsewhere. We are not uniquely struggling. Things will improve. My guess is the fuel 'crisis' will be over by the weekend.
They don't seem to be struggling quite as much as we are. In terms of loss of life expectancy, Covid has hit the UK harder than many countries, and nowhere else has has people queuing for petrol. European supermarket shelves aren't as empty as ours, either. Pasta, chopped tomatoes and kidney beans almost all gone on my last shoping trip.
BREXIT has really put us in a bad place.
Brexit is an unserious project lead by unserious people, which is the big issue we have right now. They start out by claiming shortages are a feature, not a bug, of Brexit, because they drive up wages. Then they deny that shortages actually exist, because no-one wants to do without important stuff. Or, if they can't deny it, they claim everyone else also had shortages. Finally they blame everyone else for the consequences of their own decisions; companies, the media, Remainers, the EU.
As I have said before time for the lib dems to come out publicly and say they will join the single market and a accept freedom of movement
That would be honest rather than continually bemoaning abour Brexit
You do not like it, so say what you do want openly and honestly to the public
We have done that already:
"The basic thrust of the party’s position is therefore clear: to demonstrate how the version of Brexit that the government has chosen is disastrous for the UK in every respect, and to call for a different relationship in the immediate term – for example, membership of the Single Market"
Which is quite transparent in that it is seen as a way to convince the UK to Rejoin in the longer term. It was decided at conference that Rejoin would not be in the LD manifesto in the next GE, but rather small steps.
I think that rather open and honest, don't you?
I have not heard of it (I doubt only a few diehards have read that) and even then it is rather vague
Lib dems need to spell it out and define how they want to address their perceived issues with Brexir
If you are arguing that the LDs should get more media time to promote our policies, then I agree.
There is no vagueness in the policy. It is to move closer to the EU, in small steps including joining the Single Market, with the long term objective of convincing the UK public to Rejoin the EU, but the steps depend on what is politically acceptable to both EU and UK publics at any time.
I note that Barnier said on Newsnight last night that the door was open to Rejoin the EU.
Comments
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2021/09/21/australias-nuclear-submarines-and-aukus-the-view-from-jakarta/
Would you prefer a world which bans all jocular, colourful terms such as this or one which allows all?
Yes, sounds pretty efficient to me, particularly for a system under massive strain.
There are examples of bad practice, but this is not one.
According to court documents, the Bay Area woman accused of starting the Fawn Fire in Shasta County last week was boiling bear urine so she could drink it when she allegedly set off the destructive blaze.
https://twitter.com/KPIXtv/status/1442684030097444864
There has been a shift in educationalist thinking away from knowing facts to knowing where to find facts, and this is a medical example of that. I would argue differently, that this is a core body of knowledge for a doctor that enables understanding and identification of disease.
Other nations can mandate as they like tbh.
related/unrelate - My colleague reports the covid/mask rules in Turkey were very strict.
John Rentoul
@JohnRentoul
Could
@AndyMcDonaldMP
or anyone explain why minimum wage should be £15, higher than current median wage, £13.68?
"The Labour Party-Greens coalition government in New Zealand has cautiously welcomed the AUKUS military pact announced on September 16 by US President Joe Biden and the prime ministers of Australia and the UK."
But this is all beside the point. Smaller nations depend on China (and feel no need to act as the world's policeman) are never going to be the flagbearers for an anti-China coalition.
But in other news, I see Patisserie Valerie's auditor has been fined £2.3 million over that scandal. Reinforcing my (perhaps incorrect) view that the large accountancy firms are fairly cr@p.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58671915
My daughter wanting to be a butterfly is the truth. She's also at other times wanted to be a Princess, a Space Ranger, and a Mummy when she grows up. And many other things. It was a cute remark and why can't you just let it be cute instead of making it angry?
I try to stay out of the trans debate as much as possible because there's a lot more heat than light there. But if you want a serious opinion then yes children can want to be all sorts of different things when they grow up. Some want to be doctors, or police, or astronauts. Some even want to become politicians - indeed some teenagers even want to be Liberal republican politicians and end up becoming Conservative Foreign Secretary.
The thing is its not set in stone. As people grow up and go from young children, through puberty and then into adulthood they frequently change their mind.
So I think adults that have been through puberty and into adulthood - if they're trans then we should offer them all the help and support they need and can give so long as it doesn't violate safeguarding for women.
That all seems a reasonable compromise to me. Probably won't satisfy extremists on any side, but to me at least all that seems reasonable. But I'd rather not get into toxic discussions.
Turns out that a CT Scan reveals my stomach bulge on one side/ below belly button isn't, as previously thought, a Spigelian hernia. GP and specialist seem at a loss as to what it is because CT scan shows I'm tickety-boo down there.
I came straight out with it and said "Is it cancer". The specialist looked at me puzzled as to why I though I had cancer. I said, lamely, because it's a bulge. He said "if a cancerous bulge presented like that you'd have been dead weeks ago." I am a medical mystery it seems.
Could that not have been identified at the first engagement?
The problem with the scheme is that it doesn't exactly encourage people to come here as by the time they arrive they need to be heading back home.
Stephen Pollard
@stephenpollard
Not sure I've ever heard a more ridiculous government statement than the notion that no minister can speak about the petrol crisis because of the tradition that in party conference weeks they don't take air time.
Get a bloody grip
So, they get to be at the leading edge of progress, whilst condemning others who can't see it at the same time, thereby doubling-up their virtue.
Feels good doesn't it?
Except, it's not that simple. Every issue is different and in this one there are complexities and nuances to be taken into account where rights conflict. There are absurdities to it that some seem feel very uncomfortable in even recognising yet alone challenging (and, yes, that's where the humour comes in) and they prefer this reductionist and judgemental black & white approach instead.
Well, I say no to that. I am all for greater compassion for those with gender dysmorphia and those who struggle with their identity. I am also aware that without any form of nuance and boundary to self-identification this could impinge on the rights and identities of others, and I am also very cognisant of the lunacy of rebadging the fundamental realities of biology, and I won't be bullied, intimidated or shamed into saying anything different.
None of this applied to gay rights, where the debate was focussed on the morality of the act itself, its affect on the institution of marriage and how it might affect children, and I'd think less of anyone who simplistically conflated the two in order to avoid the inconvenient hard work of debating the complexities of this one.
Volumes are much bigger around Christmas season - hence why a lot of firms hire temp staff at Christmas time. Seasonal workers for Christmas is entirely fitting within the concept of seasonal worker programmes, but why would they still be needed in January when volumes moved collapse?
1. It's all very vague but the only certainty is that the US 100% knows the boats will be built in the US and that Australia 100% knows that they will be built in Australia.
2. The DoD believes that the power asymmetry between the US and Australia is so great that the US will be able to bully (that's the exact word the presenter used) Australian politicians down to a very low level of local content in a way that the French couldn't.
3. The really aggrieved party (apart from the French) is India. They have repeatedly asked for access to US SSN technology for the past 15 years and repeatedly been told to fuck off. The Indians may now approach the French for Barracuda and the French may be inclined to say haan/oui.
4. Virginia isn't a serious option due to cost. Astute isn't a serious option due to lack of British industrial capability and the fact that the PWR2 reactor is now out of production. The fastest an Astute has ever been built is 9 years. GEDB built the much more complex USS New Hampshire in 18 months.
5. It'll probably be a new class of SSN but nobody really knows. The program is being run by the US Navy Office of Naval Reactors with a schedule of starting construction no earlier than 2030 with the first boat commissioned no earlier than 2040.
That's what you missed in this week's submarinebetting.com
On the former principle, I would probably be about as much use as a GP at diagnosis. Which is not a reassuring thought for anyone.
I think most of us regret Iraq now, particularly since it took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan 1 and led to the unsuccessful Afghanistan 2.
However, I think in Kosovo and Sierra Leone we were successful, and Bosnia is now peaceful. Also, NATO has thrown up a shield around the Baltic States which Russia would otherwise have already nibbled off - just as they've done in Ukraine and Georgia - had they not joined NATO and the EU.
And, if you were here that long ago, I cancelled my Tory membership in 2010 over the defence cuts. I only re-joined after the 2015 GE when that started to be reversed, and I'm still not very happy about it.
1) She arranges to have some blood tests with the nurse at the GP's surgery
2) She has to arrange an appointment with the GP - x days in advance, because slots are rare.
3) The GP says hello, and gives her a referral to the consultant, since it is outside her (the GPs) area of expertise
4) The patient arranges the appointment with the consultant.
5) Sees the consultant.
Apparently, the universe would crack if she simply had x monthly appointments with the Consultant booked in.
Her condition is one where there is no "cure" - you are on these medications for life. So, why can't she just have a pre-booked appointment?
Indeed as others have said, it probably won't work, and something more significant will replace it
There will never be a point where people say "this is enough"
Also, you're questioning the pure and wonderful NHS and must, therefore, be immediately slain by rabid hippopotamus.
Statutory sick pay is too low and it encourages people to go to work when they really shouldn't...
"...then we should offer them all the help and support they need and can give.." sounds most reasonable, but is sadly divorced from reality.
A permanent scheme would allow businesses to plan and individuals to make sensible decisions about their working life.
But it would also mean the government admitting that there's a systemic problem, and they simply can't do that.
More likely, it will be like NI or import controls- a continual pushing back of the target day, a few months at a time. Worst of both worlds.
"I am all for greater compassion", particularly.
Even as it stands its far too easy to end up signed off for 'depression', 'stress'* etc for months on end if people wish to do so.
* Not belittling those who do have depression etc whatsoever. But there's no blood test etc for it so its an incredibly easy condition to fake for those who wish to do so, which casts unjustified aspersions on those who legitimately have it.
Children being vaccinated because they live with someone who is clinically vulnerable are being offered 2 shots.
I can easily imagine some clipboardista saying "Well, if you come from a country where children are vaccinated, they need 2 shots. So if they have 1, they are not fully vaccinated".
In so far as armed forces under very left-wing regimes do anything - and I'm talking worldwide here, and not the UK - they are insular and used to manage internal dissent and shore up and defend the regime.
I had a lump appear on my tongue. After 3 weeks I decided to contact my GP's surgery. I used their online consultation form & sent some photos. A triage nurse phoned me back within hours and referred me under the 14 day potential cancer process to an oral consultant. I was seen at the hosptial 10 days later. The lump was thankfully benign and removed a few weeks ago.
I never saw or spoke to my GP. Nor did I need to. All seemed very efficient to me.
Well said.
If the NHS or whoever say someone has completed their vaccination course then that should mean they're fully vaccinated. Whether that be one dose, two or three.
So not a odd response at all unless you'd care to clarify your comment?
I think it was a big mistake not to hold Asad accountable for his use of chemical weapons in 2013, for example.
However both also backed a second EU referendum so she would have no more appeal to the Red Wall than he does either
People who are male who wish to become female and so transition - then that I understand. In which case they want to lose the penis and gain a cervix surely - so yes still someone with a penis is not a woman, which is why they're transitioning.
But if someone doesn't wish to transition, then what does it even mean to be a woman?
I just don't understand that, no matter how hard I try, so if someone could explain that, I'd appreciate it.
£585 an hour is probably nearly the rate for the Suburban Samurai.
"My view is that as long as a person has the male sex organs, they are a man. "
I find that view quite bizarre, unscientific and illogical.
The male reproductive system goes deeper than a cock and balls and vice versa. And of course there is the difference in chromosomes. Telling someone who has changed gender that it doesn't count unless that which is visible is re-fashioned surgically may well encourage that gruesome operation on healthy tissue which they may otherwise have chose not to undergo.
Grade inflation, in a way.
So even raising questions in the audit is seen as bad.
In the near term workers may also benefit from premium rates due to excess demand - it’s the equivalent to paying someone overtime
A lot is about gaming the figures to meet government targets.
Hospital clinicians like myself get scrutiny of how many follow up appointments we see*, as this reduces the number of new patients appointments available, and consequentially the waiting time for a new appointment.
So we get the revolving door of discharge and re-referral that you describe. The problem is the way the government looks at spreadsheets of targets and how they distort practice.
*an old medical joke: Dermatology is the perfect speciality for private practice as patients rarely either die of it, or get better.
If there's practical issues where we could give people more support, but its not being given, then why not discuss those and put pressure on that? To actually help people?
What the NHS needs is some hard core Operations Research - cut out useless intermediate steps.
Always remembering the chow line story, of course.
But if someone "identifies as a woman" then what does it mean to be a woman? What are they actually identifying as?
How can you identify as a woman without knowing what a woman even is in the first place?
Lib dems need to spell it out and define how they want to address their perceived issues with Brexir
If gender surgery was to be a pre-condition of acceptance as the new gender (which I think is the majority opinion in the UK), then access to both gender dysphoria clinics and gender surgery needs to be greatly increased. Given scarce resources in terms of expertise, operating time, and finance, I cannot see that happening.
Bit like the councillor, a chap I knew encountered, who was deeply suspicious of "Tory jobs" coming to the area.
Admissions have been decelerating for 6 weeks now, and falling in real terms for the last 2 weeks.
Occupancy, similarly, now also falling by 10-20% per week (I'll spare you that graph).
https://twitter.com/nicfreeman1209/status/1442568693255479298?s=20
I am suggesting they have a golden opportunity to nail their colours to the mast and say it openly in the media
It does seem like the lib dems and labour are frightened to declare their support for FOM publicly
Just because of some physical thing, like a mark on a ballot paper, will you take away their right to self identify? etc etc
Pollyfillia at the Grauniad once wanted to "take over" the Libertarian brand. On the basis that it was a cool name and she thought that it should belong to proper people - who believed in things such as mandatory ID cards.
If someone is transitioning, then they're transitioning and if that is what they want then good for them. I have no qualms with that. But they're still transitioning to something and what they're transition to and will eventually be is what a woman (or man) is. A man transitioning to become a woman is not a woman yet, but will be eventually.
But if someone with a penis is not transitioning, then what do they even mean by saying they're a woman?
They do not allow nuclear submarines in their waters but please provide evidence that they do not support AUKUS
They are part of five eyes
Yup
not surprising when you look at the profile of who is getting more COVID and who less -
Unlikely Govt will ensure key workers priority right now because of practical challenges.
Will it be enough? PRA says this morning that panic buying continuing.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58713770
https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/1442779957051248641
A bit like a Councillor, a chap I know online, was is deeply suspicious of "Tory votes" coming from anyone who ever voted for Blair.
There is no vagueness in the policy. It is to move closer to the EU, in small steps including joining the Single Market, with the long term objective of convincing the UK public to Rejoin the EU, but the steps depend on what is politically acceptable to both EU and UK publics at any time.
I note that Barnier said on Newsnight last night that the door was open to Rejoin the EU.