In rural areas there will always be long travel times to get to hospitals. The answer isn't to build more as the catchment area would still be large and the population served not high enough to justify.
Would it be possible to have more fully equipped ambulances that could perform the majority of A&E functions on site? I understand the challenges of the availability of medically trained staff etc but paramedics could perform first aid plus and with communication with the nearest A&E, be talked through primary treatment options.
I'm sure that would save lives but not sure of the practicality of it.
I'd have thought in rural areas you'd want to keep small hospitals that comprise of
1) A & E 2) Maternity.
Those are the services people really can't wait for.
Dialysis, planned surgery, MRI, opthalmology, colo-rectal, heart, brain etc etc can all be put into the larger regional hospital in Barrow or wherever.
An issue is specialisms. If it's an 'ordinary' A&E trip; say a broken arm; a small unit can be fine. If it's a normal pregnancy then a small unit should be able to cope as well as a larger one.
However if complications arise, as they can do during childbirth or A&E, then the patient may need to be moved to where work can be done. This is less likely to happen if the specialisms are available on site.
Worse, if someone does a task rarely, they may not do it as competently as if they do it regularly, as will happen in a larger unit. I *think* this was an issue in the Bristol and Furness scandals.
I'm unsure there's a simple solution.
Smart staff rotation to ensure the ability to handle a tricky case is present in the smaller unit at all times. I understand the point but timeliness matters and has a material affect.
In rural areas there will always be long travel times to get to hospitals. The answer isn't to build more as the catchment area would still be large and the population served not high enough to justify.
Would it be possible to have more fully equipped ambulances that could perform the majority of A&E functions on site? I understand the challenges of the availability of medically trained staff etc but paramedics could perform first aid plus and with communication with the nearest A&E, be talked through primary treatment options.
I'm sure that would save lives but not sure of the practicality of it.
I'd have thought in rural areas you'd want to keep small hospitals that comprise of
1) A & E 2) Maternity.
Those are the services people really can't wait for.
AIUI one of the issues with sparsely populated areas is that medical services can't develop the critical mass so they have the expertise/experience of dealing with difficult cases - so counter intuitively, the argument can be made that 'babies will die' if local services are kept open......
"Until it was eradicated in 1891, infant tetanus would also claim the majority of live births. This was referred to as the "eight day sickness", killing eight out of every ten babies born, but considered to be God's will. Improving medical knowledge identified the source of the disease, which was being spread by one of the island's oldest customs, a tradition whereby the midwife would anoint the umbilicus with a mixture of fulmar oil and dung. "
(It's on wikipedia, but I'm not sure if the thing about the oil/dung being the source of the infection has been proved)
You mean there was a time when you weren't whining impotently about the EssEnPee or hyping up whoever lead the Tory party? Perhaps you could give details of your 'journey' as some supporting evidence.
In rural areas there will always be long travel times to get to hospitals. The answer isn't to build more as the catchment area would still be large and the population served not high enough to justify.
Would it be possible to have more fully equipped ambulances that could perform the majority of A&E functions on site? I understand the challenges of the availability of medically trained staff etc but paramedics could perform first aid plus and with communication with the nearest A&E, be talked through primary treatment options.
I'm sure that would save lives but not sure of the practicality of it.
I'd have thought in rural areas you'd want to keep small hospitals that comprise of
1) A & E 2) Maternity.
Those are the services people really can't wait for.
AIUI one of the issues with sparsely populated areas is that medical services can't develop the critical mass so they have the expertise/experience of dealing with difficult cases - so counter intuitively, the argument can be made that 'babies will die' if local services are kept open......
I wonder what the public view would be if it were known, for example (*) that they could have a local maternity centre but if there was a complication in their pregnancy there was a 10% chance of the baby dying and a 3% chance of the mother dying, whereas if they sat in an ambulance for 40 minutes to the regional centre there was a 3% and 1% chance respectively. Owing to the more experienced and practised staff and superior equipment at the regional centre.
(*) Numbers pulled out of my a*se for illustrative purposes only.
From the BBC News online headlines, it seems the BBC is becoming the NBC: The NHS Broadcasting Corporation.
There has been headline after headline about the suspected and projected woes of the NHS. Today's is the result of a BBC 'analysis'.
I like the BBC. I get value from the licence fee. But this is getting faintly ridiculous. Is there really no other news going on in the country?
If it is any comfort, Sky News has a Brexit warning over HSBC's profits slump, HMG ballsing up business rates and "worsening teacher shortages, particularly in key subjects including physics and maths". Of course, it is always possible Rupert Murdoch is a closet Corbynite.
It sounds as though Sky are doing their job well then, or at least better than the BBC.
I've no problem with stories about the NHS appearing on the BBC. It's just the deluge of them seems rather out of proportion.
I disagree. There is a major re-organisation of the NHS underway, and while the local implementations have had a great deal of coverage (arguably excessive, even), the systemic change has not been as well debated. There are good arguments for centres of excellence, efficiencies etc, but the point about overall reduction in bed numbers, and resultant increase of treatment in the community without a concomitant increase in funding for that deserves an airing - and at least goes beyond the emotional save our local A&E/maternity ward etc stuff.
Sky had a week long NHS news focus last week, I believe. Ran big NHS stories every day.
Funny they don't run a week of stories holding the last Labour Govt. to account for massively increasing the population whilst making no acknowledgment that we would require equivalent massive provision in health, in education, in housing, in road and rail infrastructure. That is the hospital pass subsequent Govternments are having to deal with.
For that alone, Labour should be debarred from power for ever.
Still GPs got a whopping pay rise; and Sodexho, Laing, Capita, G4S & Serco are doing well out of our hospitals and prisons.
There are always competing elements for charity. Of course you can give your money and or your time to whom you want. I feel the priorities are askew sometimes. Bob Geldorf, for all his faults, had his right in the 1980s.
I've no intentions pf saying what I do for charity - it's little enough. But this is one area I think deserves greater prominence. Others may prefer to send money to an animal charity. I don't criticise their judgement. But I stand by mine.
Where public figures are getting involved in good works, I tend towards scepticism. Clearly there are those - Angela Jolie on war rape, for example - who work hard in a non-glamorous cause. There are others - and I suspect that many in Calais fall into this category - are more interested in the resultant publicity than in actually making a real difference
The key question is usually would they do the same as they are doing anonymously and out of the public gaze with no cameras around. Same applies to lots of corporate charitable giving, its about managing their image as much as anything else, no way it would happen in most cases if they were not able to publicise it.
Celebrities backing a cause, whatever it is, delivers publicity. That's the nature of the beast. The better test, surely, is whether public word is backed up by private deed. George Michael was not afraid to speak out and was often lambasted for it, but it turns out that in private he gave away huge amounts of his money.
There are always competing elements for charity. Of course you can give your money and or your time to whom you want. I feel the priorities are askew sometimes. Bob Geldorf, for all his faults, had his right in the 1980s.
I've no intentions pf saying what I do for charity - it's little enough. But this is one area I think deserves greater prominence. Others may prefer to send money to an animal charity. I don't criticise their judgement. But I stand by mine.
Where public figures are getting involved in good works, I tend towards scepticism. Clearly there are those - Angela Jolie on war rape, for example - who work hard in a non-glamorous cause. There are others - and I suspect that many in Calais fall into this category - are more interested in the resultant publicity than in actually making a real difference
The Ice Bucket Challenge was superb PR for ALS. It sucked up a lot of money and other charities complained about it. Well, that's just competition. Before he was POTUS.
In rural areas there will always be long travel times to get to hospitals. The answer isn't to build more as the catchment area would still be large and the population served not high enough to justify.
Would it be possible to have more fully equipped ambulances that could perform the majority of A&E functions on site? I understand the challenges of the availability of medically trained staff etc but paramedics could perform first aid plus and with communication with the nearest A&E, be talked through primary treatment options.
I'm sure that would save lives but not sure of the practicality of it.
I'd have thought in rural areas you'd want to keep small hospitals that comprise of
1) A & E 2) Maternity.
Those are the services people really can't wait for.
Dialysis, planned surgery, MRI, opthalmology, colo-rectal, heart, brain etc etc can all be put into the larger regional hospital in Barrow or wherever.
An issue is specialisms. If it's an 'ordinary' A&E trip; say a broken arm; a small unit can be fine. If it's a normal pregnancy then a small unit should be able to cope as well as a larger one.
However if complications arise, as they can do during childbirth or A&E, then the patient may need to be moved to where work can be done. This is less likely to happen if the specialisms are available on site.
Worse, if someone does a task rarely, they may not do it as competently as if they do it regularly, as will happen in a larger unit. I *think* this was an issue in the Bristol and Furness scandals.
I'm unsure there's a simple solution.
Smart staff rotation to ensure the ability to handle a tricky case is present in the smaller unit at all times. I understand the point but timeliness matters and has a material affect.
You might well be right. However ensuring there are specialists (and kit) for most sorts of tricky cases are available might be difficult.
This is the point in the discussion where I will have to bow out, as the details of what currently and might work are unknown to me. I can hypothesise, but anything I propose might be unworkable due to the annoying presence of reality.
Of course, what the Left misunderstand is that the right wing diatribes are not about directly bringing in a uber nationalist world, but just about getting focus in the areas that matter. By turning attention to the right, they get the message out that ISIS must be dealt with and the Church is full of buggers and the Left are an undemocratic, self serving elite. I'm loving Trump, not because of his policies, but he shines a light on the all the wrongs in this world. Certain elites, certain religions, certain nations and colours have protection and can do what they want. Equality needs to be applied. Women must be freed from domination in some religion. Gays must have equal rights in others. Democracy must be restored from teh EU and Blair/Clegg etc. The alt-right are doing this. Long live Le Pen, Trump, Wildeers etc.
I find the scoffing at Scott Adams most amusing - he doesn't vote. He lives in California and lost all his speaking engagements for simply saying he thought Trump would win the persuasion game.
The Swamp and Dems are publicly crucifying Milo despite being the actual victim of abuse. It's very unattractive behaviour. And it's all so predictable in terms of character attacks. You're Stupid>Bigot>Anti-Semite>Crazy>White Supremacist>Nazi>Paedo
Adams said he thought Trump was going to lose the persuasion game. And that he'd win the persuasion game.
He thing about predicting both outcomes of a coin flip is you can claim to be right no matter what.
I see South Sudan is now officially having a famine. Children are starving to death daily in a war-zone. The UN is appealing for funds but is getting not a lot.
It's unfortunate, but it's not fashionable. If only the kids with their protruding stomach and sores had the energy to travel the few thousand miles to Calais and demonstrate.
You can't expect the luvvies to go all the way to Africa to virtue-signal, surely? Not when the cameras are just across the Channel. Don't these dead and dying children know anything?
What a revolting thing to say. You should ashamed of yourself.
Yes a revolting thing to say but an uncharateristic remark from CD13. I suspect it wasn't meant as it was written.
The luvvie brigade going to Calais hides the truth - and the Dubs amendment, short sighted from the start as it focuses on those already in Europe, probably gave the regulars at the usual Covent Garden haunts a warm glow of pride. Surprise surprise, they are good at emoting. They are not good at policy.
Just because you cannot handle the truth does not make it revolting.
Yaaawwwwnnnn - more virtue signalling.
No - calling out hypocrisy.
I'm not signalling a single virtue in that.
FAKE NEWS FROM EeyoreObserver.
Yes, you are. You are signalling to us that you see yourself as a hard-headed, no-nonsense kind of guy who is not afraid to call a spade a spade; as opposed to appalling liberal left metropolitan hypocrites who are all mouth. You like the virtues you associate yourself with and you like people to know it.
It must be very handy, in an Eeyoreish way, that your very personal definition of virtue signalling prevents observers from calling out virtue signalling.
If you can do it, why can't I? Don't be such a snowflake.
No snowflake here chum. I see you've failed to answer my point.
But then if you're happy to see the left flail about with limp wristed approaches and failed signalling policies I'm not going to get in your way,
From the BBC News online headlines, it seems the BBC is becoming the NBC: The NHS Broadcasting Corporation.
There has been headline after headline about the suspected and projected woes of the NHS. Today's is the result of a BBC 'analysis'.
I like the BBC. I get value from the licence fee. But this is getting faintly ridiculous. Is there really no other news going on in the country?
If it is any comfort, Sky News has a Brexit warning over HSBC's profits slump, HMG ballsing up business rates and "worsening teacher shortages, particularly in key subjects including physics and maths". Of course, it is always possible Rupert Murdoch is a closet Corbynite.
It sounds as though Sky are doing their job well then, or at least better than the BBC.
I've no problem with stories about the NHS appearing on the BBC. It's just the deluge of them seems rather out of proportion.
I disagree. There is a major re-organisation of the NHS underway, and while the local implementations have had a great deal of coverage (arguably excessive, even), the systemic change has not been as well debated. There are good arguments for centres of excellence, efficiencies etc, but the point about overall reduction in bed numbers, and resultant increase of treatment in the community without a concomitant increase in funding for that deserves an airing - and at least goes beyond the emotional save our local A&E/maternity ward etc stuff.
Sky had a week long NHS news focus last week, I believe. Ran big NHS stories every day.
Funny they don't run a week of stories holding the last Labour Govt. to account for massively increasing the population whilst making no acknowledgment that we would require equivalent massive provision in health, in education, in housing, in road and rail infrastructure. That is the hospital pass subsequent Govternments are having to deal with.
For that alone, Labour should be debarred from power for ever.
I agree that it is outrageous the news is not reported in the way that you would like.
There are always competing elements for charity. Of course you can give your money and or your time to whom you want. I feel the priorities are askew sometimes. Bob Geldorf, for all his faults, had his right in the 1980s.
I've no intentions pf saying what I do for charity - it's little enough. But this is one area I think deserves greater prominence. Others may prefer to send money to an animal charity. I don't criticise their judgement. But I stand by mine.
Where public figures are getting involved in good works, I tend towards scepticism. Clearly there are those - Angela Jolie on war rape, for example - who work hard in a non-glamorous cause. There are others - and I suspect that many in Calais fall into this category - are more interested in the resultant publicity than in actually making a real difference
The key question is usually would they do the same as they are doing anonymously and out of the public gaze with no cameras around. Same applies to lots of corporate charitable giving, its about managing their image as much as anything else, no way it would happen in most cases if they were not able to publicise it.
Celebrities backing a cause, whatever it is, delivers publicity. That's the nature of the beast. The better test, surely, is whether public word is backed up by private deed. George Michael was not afraid to speak out and was often lambasted for it, but it turns out that in private he gave away huge amounts of his money.
For sure. I think we mean the same thing. Ms Jolie spending days in nasty parts of Africa and in tedious by important conferences, with no cameras coming along for the ride, using their influence in low key but critical ways is one thing. Turning up with some cameras making a lot of noise, slagging off some politicians, getting your photo taken with some babies/refugees/sick people, and then buggering off and doing nothing else to contribute is another.
I find the scoffing at Scott Adams most amusing - he doesn't vote. He lives in California and lost all his speaking engagements for simply saying he thought Trump would win the persuasion game.
he made lots of contradictory predictions, in fact. But now using his persuasion skills to pretend that he didn't.
On a completely different subject are Southern going to get some driverless trains in ? I think the RMT needs to be taken on properly in this one, the top of ASLEF appears to be able to talk and compromise - now the shadow of Crow is gone, time to stop taking the easy route out and always giving in to the RMT.
(Published today), the no of reported deaths in England/Wales is 10% higher in the first 6 weeks of the year than the 5 year average. Might explain the particular struggles of the NHS this winter....
(Published today), the no of reported deaths in England/Wales is 10% higher in the first 6 weeks of the year than the 5 year average. Might explain the particular struggles of the NHS this winter....
You mean there was a time when you weren't whining impotently about the EssEnPee or hyping up whoever lead the Tory party? Perhaps you could give details of your 'journey' as some supporting evidence.
At least the Tories don't put up IRA supporters as candidates:
I see South Sudan is now officially having a famine. Children are starving to death daily in a war-zone. The UN is appealing for funds but is getting not a lot.
It's unfortunate, but it's not fashionable. If only the kids with their protruding stomach and sores had the energy to travel the few thousand miles to Calais and demonstrate.
You can't expect the luvvies to go all the way to Africa to virtue-signal, surely? Not when the cameras are just across the Channel. Don't these dead and dying children know anything?
What a revolting thing to say. You should ashamed of yourself.
Yes a revolting thing to say but an uncharateristic remark from CD13. I suspect it wasn't meant as it was written.
The luvvie brigade going to Calais hides the truth - and the Dubs amendment, short sighted from the start as it focuses on those already in Europe, probably gave the regulars at the usual Covent Garden haunts a warm glow of pride. Surprise surprise, they are good at emoting. They are not good at policy.
Just because you cannot handle the truth does not make it revolting.
Yaaawwwwnnnn - more virtue signalling.
No - calling out hypocrisy.
I'm not signalling a single virtue in that.
FAKE NEWS FROM EeyoreObserver.
Yes, you are. You are signalling to us that you see yourself as a hard-headed, no-nonsense kind of guy who is not afraid to call a spade a spade; as opposed to appalling liberal left metropolitan hypocrites who are all mouth. You like the virtues you associate yourself with and you like people to know it.
It must be very handy, in an Eeyoreish way, that your very personal definition of virtue signalling prevents observers from calling out virtue signalling.
If you can do it, why can't I? Don't be such a snowflake.
No snowflake here chum. I see you've failed to answer my point.
But then if you're happy to see the left flail about with limp wristed approaches and failed signalling policies I'm not going to get in your way,
Labour should be very worried by the reported absence of window posters.
On its own, not so much - outside the cities window posters are much less part of the culture: even I felt silly putting up a indow sticker when I once lived in a cottage off the main road. But motivation to vote is certainly the key in both by-elections.
That's insane, it had thousands of pre-orders. He'll just find another publisher (or do it himself) and milk yet more publicity for his 'banned' book.
If everyone ignored Milo he'd go away, he's only successful because he makes a certain group of liberals go completely nuts every time he opens his mouth!
I don't have an opinion of Jake Tapper CNN anchor - but he was straight out of the blocks when this supposedly broke on Sunday evening. He's never bothered to report on paedos before and is now clutching his pearls on Twitter all day about Milo - when he knows he can't respond as he's banned.
What a coward. From what I've read - all the MSM have decided not to give Milo a right to respond, so he's going to hold his own press conf later today. Frankly, I think the whole hit job is revolting.
It was apparently opposition research that cost $250k - and guess who's linked to this? Evan McMullin and #NeverTrumpers. It's so obvious as a strategy. Get Milo > Get Brietbart > Get Bannon > Get Trump.
From I don't have an opinion to a coward in a paragraph.... It sounds like you do have an opinion...
It's cowardly to condemn someone you know can't respond - isn't it?
rkrkrk's point was simple you said you didn't have opinion when you clearly did have a very strong opinion. Your response (no matter whether correct or not) simply confirmed your post was not rational.
On a completely different subject are Southern going to get some driverless trains in ? I think the RMT needs to be taken on properly in this one, the top of ASLEF appears to be able to talk and compromise - now the shadow of Crow is gone, time to stop taking the easy route out and always giving in to the RMT.
years away. Tubes from 2020 and they have lines that generally don't have junctions and will have modern signalling. Network rail is Victorian
(Published today), the no of reported deaths in England/Wales is 10% higher in the first 6 weeks of the year than the 5 year average. Might explain the particular struggles of the NHS this winter....
Deaths in general, or deaths in a hospital ? I wasnt there are the beginning of the year are the any likely contributory factors like a cold snap or large motorway pileup ?
ALEX Salmond has been accused of acting like Donald Trump, after accusing the “yoon media” of presenting an “alternative reality” to Scots.
In an echo of President Trump’s attacks on the US media over "fake news", the former First Minister said people should not trust Unionist papers that always criticised the SNP.
You mean there was a time when you weren't whining impotently about the EssEnPee or hyping up whoever lead the Tory party? Perhaps you could give details of your 'journey' as some supporting evidence.
At least the Tories don't put up IRA supporters as candidates:
You mean there was a time when you weren't whining impotently about the EssEnPee or hyping up whoever lead the Tory party? Perhaps you could give details of your 'journey' as some supporting evidence.
At least the Tories don't put up IRA supporters as candidates:
Of course, what the Left misunderstand is that the right wing diatribes are not about directly bringing in a uber nationalist world, but just about getting focus in the areas that matter. By turning attention to the right, they get the message out that ISIS must be dealt with and the Church is full of buggers and the Left are an undemocratic, self serving elite. I'm loving Trump, not because of his policies, but he shines a light on the all the wrongs in this world. Certain elites, certain religions, certain nations and colours have protection and can do what they want. Equality needs to be applied. Women must be freed from domination in some religion. Gays must have equal rights in others. Democracy must be restored from teh EU and Blair/Clegg etc. The alt-right are doing this. Long live Le Pen, Trump, Wildeers etc.
I find the scoffing at Scott Adams most amusing - he doesn't vote. He lives in California and lost all his speaking engagements for simply saying he thought Trump would win the persuasion game.
The Swamp and Dems are publicly crucifying Milo despite being the actual victim of abuse. It's very unattractive behaviour. And it's all so predictable in terms of character attacks. You're Stupid>Bigot>Anti-Semite>Crazy>White Supremacist>Nazi>Paedo
Indeed. And that's why opinion polls are wrong as we decent people have to keep quiet about voting for decent poltiicans. It's a cruel world, run by the Left
On a completely different subject are Southern going to get some driverless trains in ? I think the RMT needs to be taken on properly in this one, the top of ASLEF appears to be able to talk and compromise - now the shadow of Crow is gone, time to stop taking the easy route out and always giving in to the RMT.
Tory HQ saying...Copeland, we might win if we get all our troops on the ground. Labour...we've won Stoke. Copeland, we're favourites, but it's marginal.
You mean there was a time when you weren't whining impotently about the EssEnPee or hyping up whoever lead the Tory party? Perhaps you could give details of your 'journey' as some supporting evidence.
At least the Tories don't put up IRA supporters as candidates:
David: I suppose you could say "if the Conservatives get their vote out they will win"
Not exactly. Getting out the Con vote is a necessary but not sufficient criterion for the Conservatives. For Labour, getting out their vote should be sufficient.
In other words, in this election, my reading is that the maximum realistic Labour vote is greater than the maximum realistic Con vote.
That's insane, it had thousands of pre-orders. He'll just find another publisher (or do it himself) and milk yet more publicity for his 'banned' book.
If everyone ignored Milo he'd go away, he's only successful because he makes a certain group of liberals go completely nuts every time he opens his mouth!
Simon & Schuster is not a one book business.
There's a niche for a Russell Brand for spotty virgin white supremacists, it seems. That doesn't surprise me much, though it is a little sad.
From the BBC News online headlines, it seems the BBC is becoming the NBC: The NHS Broadcasting Corporation.
There has been headline after headline about the suspected and projected woes of the NHS. Today's is the result of a BBC 'analysis'.
I like the BBC. I get value from the licence fee. But this is getting faintly ridiculous. Is there really no other news going on in the country?
If it is any comfort, Sky News has a Brexit warning over HSBC's profits slump, HMG ballsing up business rates and "worsening teacher shortages, particularly in key subjects including physics and maths". Of course, it is always possible Rupert Murdoch is a closet Corbynite.
It sounds as though Sky are doing their job well then, or at least better than the BBC.
I've no problem with stories about the NHS appearing on the BBC. It's just the deluge of them seems rather out of proportion.
I disagree. There is a major re-organisation of the NHS underway, and while the local implementations have had a great deal of coverage (arguably excessive, even), the systemic change has not been as well debated. There are good arguments for centres of excellence, efficiencies etc, but the point about overall reduction in bed numbers, and resultant increase of treatment in the community without a concomitant increase in funding for that deserves an airing - and at least goes beyond the emotional save our local A&E/maternity ward etc stuff.
Sky had a week long NHS news focus last week, I believe. Ran big NHS stories every day.
Funny they don't run a week of stories holding the last Labour Govt. to account for massively increasing the population whilst making no acknowledgment that we would require equivalent massive provision in health, in education, in housing, in road and rail infrastructure. That is the hospital pass subsequent Govternments are having to deal with.
For that alone, Labour should be debarred from power for ever.
I agree that it is outrageous the news is not reported in the way that you would like.
There was never any intention by Brown, Darling or Osborne to acknowledge "that we would require equivalent massive provision in health, in education, in housing, in road and rail infrastructure." The intention was to grow the economy faster than the infrastructure, sweating the assets and eventually reducing the public debt. Cramming more cars onto roads or kids into classrooms, or making people wait longer in A&E, is just a roundabout way of getting them to pay their share of the national debt (that they repeatedly voted for).
From the BBC News online headlines, it seems the BBC is becoming the NBC: The NHS Broadcasting Corporation.
There has been headline after headline about the suspected and projected woes of the NHS. Today's is the result of a BBC 'analysis'.
I like the BBC. I get value from the licence fee. But this is getting faintly ridiculous. Is there really no other news going on in the country?
If it is any comfort, Sky News has a Brexit warning over HSBC's profits slump, HMG ballsing up business rates and "worsening teacher shortages, particularly in key subjects including physics and maths". Of course, it is always possible Rupert Murdoch is a closet Corbynite.
It sounds as though Sky are doing their job well then, or at least better than the BBC.
I've no problem with stories about the NHS appearing on the BBC. It's just the deluge of them seems rather out of proportion.
I disagree. There is a major re-organisation of the NHS underway, and while the local implementations have had a great deal of coverage (arguably excessive, even), the systemic change has not been as well debated. There are good arguments for centres of excellence, efficiencies etc, but the point about overall reduction in bed numbers, and resultant increase of treatment in the community without a concomitant increase in funding for that deserves an airing - and at least goes beyond the emotional save our local A&E/maternity ward etc stuff.
Sky had a week long NHS news focus last week, I believe. Ran big NHS stories every day.
Funny they don't run a week of stories holding the last Labour Govt. to account for massively increasing the population whilst making no acknowledgment that we would require equivalent massive provision in health, in education, in housing, in road and rail infrastructure. That is the hospital pass subsequent Govternments are having to deal with.
For that alone, Labour should be debarred from power for ever.
I agree that it is outrageous the news is not reported in the way that you would like.
You mean there was a time when you weren't whining impotently about the EssEnPee or hyping up whoever lead the Tory party? Perhaps you could give details of your 'journey' as some supporting evidence.
At least the Tories don't put up IRA supporters as candidates:
You mean there was a time when you weren't whining impotently about the EssEnPee or hyping up whoever lead the Tory party? Perhaps you could give details of your 'journey' as some supporting evidence.
At least the Tories don't put up IRA supporters as candidates:
That's insane, it had thousands of pre-orders. He'll just find another publisher (or do it himself) and milk yet more publicity for his 'banned' book.
If everyone ignored Milo he'd go away, he's only successful because he makes a certain group of liberals go completely nuts every time he opens his mouth!
I don't have an opinion of Jake Tapper CNN anchor - but he was straight out of the blocks when this supposedly broke on Sunday evening. He's never bothered to report on paedos before and is now clutching his pearls on Twitter all day about Milo - when he knows he can't respond as he's banned.
What a coward. From what I've read - all the MSM have decided not to give Milo a right to respond, so he's going to hold his own press conf later today. Frankly, I think the whole hit job is revolting.
It was apparently opposition research that cost $250k - and guess who's linked to this? Evan McMullin and #NeverTrumpers. It's so obvious as a strategy. Get Milo > Get Brietbart > Get Bannon > Get Trump.
From I don't have an opinion to a coward in a paragraph.... It sounds like you do have an opinion...
It's cowardly to condemn someone you know can't respond - isn't it?
rkrkrk's point was simple you said you didn't have opinion when you clearly did have a very strong opinion. Your response (no matter whether correct or not) simply confirmed your post was not rational.
No - I'd no previous bias about him and judged him for his actions here. I've seen him do good and bad reporting - they've balanced each other out IMO, this was noticeably OTT and unfair.
From the BBC News online headlines, it seems the BBC is becoming the NBC: The NHS Broadcasting Corporation.
There has been headline after headline about the suspected and projected woes of the NHS. Today's is the result of a BBC 'analysis'.
I like the BBC. I get value from the licence fee. But this is getting faintly ridiculous. Is there really no other news going on in the country?
If it is any comfort, Sky News has a Brexit warning over HSBC's profits slump, HMG ballsing up business rates and "worsening teacher shortages, particularly in key subjects including physics and maths". Of course, it is always possible Rupert Murdoch is a closet Corbynite.
It sounds as though Sky are doing their job well then, or at least better than the BBC.
I've no problem with stories about the NHS appearing on the BBC. It's just the deluge of them seems rather out of proportion.
I disagree. There is a major re-organisation of the NHS underway, and while the local implementations have had a great deal of coverage (arguably excessive, even), the systemic change has not been as well debated. There are good arguments for centres of excellence, efficiencies etc, but the point about overall reduction in bed numbers, and resultant increase of treatment in the community without a concomitant increase in funding for that deserves an airing - and at least goes beyond the emotional save our local A&E/maternity ward etc stuff.
Sky had a week long NHS news focus last week, I believe. Ran big NHS stories every day.
Funny they don't run a week of stories holding the last Labour Govt. to account for massively increasing the population whilst making no acknowledgment that we would require equivalent massive provision in health, in education, in housing, in road and rail infrastructure. That is the hospital pass subsequent Govternments are having to deal with.
For that alone, Labour should be debarred from power for ever.
Not to mentioned the disastrous financial legacy of their botched PPP deals. I don't take a partisan view on this - I welcome efforts by news organisations, however imperfect, to be a bit more analytical. A proper reckoning of that legacy would be well worth the license fee.
(Published today), the no of reported deaths in England/Wales is 10% higher in the first 6 weeks of the year than the 5 year average. Might explain the particular struggles of the NHS this winter....
Deaths in general, or deaths in a hospital ? I wasnt there are the beginning of the year are the any likely contributory factors like a cold snap or large motorway pileup ?
Deaths in general, and yes, there is usually a rise in deaths over the winter months, so this is a 10% increase ABOVE the usual average higher number for this time of year. To me, a higher no of deaths implies a higher no of very sick people, and so an increase in A&E hospital admissions.
You mean there was a time when you weren't whining impotently about the EssEnPee or hyping up whoever lead the Tory party? Perhaps you could give details of your 'journey' as some supporting evidence.
At least the Tories don't put up IRA supporters as candidates:
You mean there was a time when you weren't whining impotently about the EssEnPee or hyping up whoever lead the Tory party? Perhaps you could give details of your 'journey' as some supporting evidence.
At least the Tories don't put up IRA supporters as candidates:
Not surprised to see those who wouldn't stop talking about Harriet Harman and the PIE in the 70s aren't going after Milo in the 2010s. Never was about principles was it?
Are you aware that Milo agrees with the current age of consent in the US and that bit wasn't included in the smear video?
Or that one of the paedos he outed is in court next month for rape? and two others were arrested?
DO you have a reputable link to the details of this 'outing'? You keep on mentioning it.
Would it really make you reconsider your opinion of him if it was true?
It's like watching a teenager besotted with a boy band.
Of course, what the Left misunderstand is that the right wing diatribes are not about directly bringing in a uber nationalist world, but just about getting focus in the areas that matter. By turning attention to the right, they get the message out that ISIS must be dealt with and the Church is full of buggers and the Left are an undemocratic, self serving elite. I'm loving Trump, not because of his policies, but he shines a light on the all the wrongs in this world. Certain elites, certain religions, certain nations and colours have protection and can do what they want. Equality needs to be applied. Women must be freed from domination in some religion. Gays must have equal rights in others. Democracy must be restored from teh EU and Blair/Clegg etc. The alt-right are doing this. Long live Le Pen, Trump, Wildeers etc.
I find the scoffing at Scott Adams most amusing - he doesn't vote. He lives in California and lost all his speaking engagements for simply saying he thought Trump would win the persuasion game.
The Swamp and Dems are publicly crucifying Milo despite being the actual victim of abuse. It's very unattractive behaviour. And it's all so predictable in terms of character attacks. You're Stupid>Bigot>Anti-Semite>Crazy>White Supremacist>Nazi>Paedo
Indeed. And that's why opinion polls are wrong as we decent people have to keep quiet about voting for decent poltiicans. It's a cruel world, run by the Left
I've seen several prominent Trump supporters in citizen journalist land say that they're never alone just in case..., never alone with a woman, get approached by women who are out of their league da de da.
It's really ugly stuff - Roger Stone [who I think is cooky] has just had his YouTube channel deleted. There's dozens of examples of conservative views being squished/advertisers intimidated et al.
The attacks on PewDiePie were absurd - and hurt him massively in the pocket. This isn't a conspiracy theory - it's blinking obvious.
I find the scoffing at Scott Adams most amusing - he doesn't vote. He lives in California and lost all his speaking engagements for simply saying he thought Trump would win the persuasion game.
he made lots of contradictory predictions, in fact. But now using his persuasion skills to pretend that he didn't.
(Published today), the no of reported deaths in England/Wales is 10% higher in the first 6 weeks of the year than the 5 year average. Might explain the particular struggles of the NHS this winter....
Deaths in general, or deaths in a hospital ? I wasnt there are the beginning of the year are the any likely contributory factors like a cold snap or large motorway pileup ?
Deaths in general, and yes, there is usually a rise in deaths over the winter months, so this is a 10% increase ABOVE the usual average higher number for this time of year. To me, a higher no of deaths implies a higher no of very sick people, and so an increase in A&E hospital admissions.
The early baby boomers are starting to hit 70, I would be surprised if there wasn't a rise, though 10% sounds does sound like quite a big increase.
Of course, what the Left misunderstand is that the right wing diatribes are not about directly bringing in a uber nationalist world, but just about getting focus in the areas that matter. By turning attention to the right, they get the message out that ISIS must be dealt with and the Church is full of buggers and the Left are an undemocratic, self serving elite. I'm loving Trump, not because of his policies, but he shines a light on the all the wrongs in this world. Certain elites, certain religions, certain nations and colours have protection and can do what they want. Equality needs to be applied. Women must be freed from domination in some religion. Gays must have equal rights in others. Democracy must be restored from teh EU and Blair/Clegg etc. The alt-right are doing this. Long live Le Pen, Trump, Wildeers etc.
I find the scoffing at Scott Adams most amusing - he doesn't vote. He lives in California and lost all his speaking engagements for simply saying he thought Trump would win the persuasion game.
The Swamp and Dems are publicly crucifying Milo despite being the actual victim of abuse. It's very unattractive behaviour. And it's all so predictable in terms of character attacks. You're Stupid>Bigot>Anti-Semite>Crazy>White Supremacist>Nazi>Paedo
Indeed. And that's why opinion polls are wrong as we decent people have to keep quiet about voting for decent poltiicans. It's a cruel world, run by the Left
I've seen several prominent Trump supporters in citizen journalist land say that they're never alone just in case..., never alone with a woman, get approached by women who are out of their league da de da.
It's really ugly stuff - Roger Stone [who I think is cooky] has just had his YouTube channel deleted. There's dozens of examples of conservative views being squished/advertisers intimidated et al.
The attacks on PewDiePie were absurd - and hurt him massively in the pocket. This isn't a conspiracy theory - it's blinking obvious.
Well, I have been given training (after much pain) to say nothing at all or be vague when an unknown person or a known leftie asks you a leading questions. Sadly, some record me, edit it to change the emphasis and publish it. Bastards. Now, I say nothing.
Tory HQ saying...Copeland, we might win if we get all our troops on the ground. Labour...we've won Stoke. Copeland, we're favourites, but it's marginal.
I heard someone on radio 4 or 5 say he'd seen the Tories look 'confident' followed by the stats on when Labour last lost a by election when in opposition ....followed by the observation that "it should be remembered that 1982 (?) there was also an unpopular hard left Labour leader..."
It's unlike the BBC to stick their neck out unless it's all over.
Of course, what the Left misunderstand is that the right wing diatribes are not about directly bringing in a uber nationalist world, but just about getting focus in the areas that matter. By turning attention to the right, they get the message out that ISIS must be dealt with and the Church is full of buggers and the Left are an undemocratic, self serving elite. I'm loving Trump, not because of his policies, but he shines a light on the all the wrongs in this world. Certain elites, certain religions, certain nations and colours have protection and can do what they want. Equality needs to be applied. Women must be freed from domination in some religion. Gays must have equal rights in others. Democracy must be restored from teh EU and Blair/Clegg etc. The alt-right are doing this. Long live Le Pen, Trump, Wildeers etc.
I find the scoffing at Scott Adams most amusing - he doesn't vote. He lives in California and lost all his speaking engagements for simply saying he thought Trump would win the persuasion game.
The Swamp and Dems are publicly crucifying Milo despite being the actual victim of abuse. It's very unattractive behaviour. And it's all so predictable in terms of character attacks. You're Stupid>Bigot>Anti-Semite>Crazy>White Supremacist>Nazi>Paedo
Indeed. And that's why opinion polls are wrong as we decent people have to keep quiet about voting for decent poltiicans. It's a cruel world, run by the Left
I've seen several prominent Trump supporters in citizen journalist land say that they're never alone just in case..., never alone with a woman, get approached by women who are out of their league da de da.
It's really ugly stuff - Roger Stone [who I think is cooky] has just had his YouTube channel deleted. There's dozens of examples of conservative views being squished/advertisers intimidated et al.
The attacks on PewDiePie were absurd - and hurt him massively in the pocket. This isn't a conspiracy theory - it's blinking obvious.
Well, I have been given training (after much pain) to say nothing at all or be vague when an unknown person or a known leftie asks you a leading questions. Sadly, some record me, edit it to change the emphasis and publish it. Bastards. Now, I say nothing.
I don't think anything was edited in your repetitive and constant astroturfing for Zac's mayoral campaign, was it?
Projected to the end of March, that's likely to mean a year-on-year deficit reduction of about £15bn. At that rate, government books will be just about back in balance by 2020 and the debt:GDP ratio will be falling at a reasonable pace. (Obviously, whether that rate can be maintained is a wholly different question).
Just when you though things couldn't get much worse for Scottish Labour.....
Police are being called in to investigate allegations of corruption and cronyism at Scotland’s largest local authority. The Times has learnt that the executive director of land and environmental services at Glasgow city council has resigned from his £120,000-a-year position.....
.....Claims that a Labour administration had given favourable treatment to Mears Scotland triggered a police investigation in neighbouring North Lanarkshire council which led to the council leader being deposed last year. A Glasgow council insider claimed there were parallels between the two authorities, stating: “Internal audit are currently looking into a number of the same people and contractors who were involved in the corruption scandal in North Lanarkshire.
Copeland byelection: Corbyn proving 'barrier' in Sellafield seat
Labour pins its hopes on antipathy to Tory-backed plans to downgrade maternity unit to retain seat it has held for 80 years
Even the most committed Labour campaigners in the once safe seat of Copeland admit there is one topic of conversation that comes up more often than most: the leader.
“Corbyn is a real barrier. Comes up every fifth or sixth contact I’ve made,” said one downcast Labour canvasser after rapping on doors in west Cumbria ahead of next Thursday’s byelection. “Those who voted Labour in the general election in 2015 who mention Corbyn in the main aren’t voting at all.”
(Published today), the no of reported deaths in England/Wales is 10% higher in the first 6 weeks of the year than the 5 year average. Might explain the particular struggles of the NHS this winter....
Deaths in general, or deaths in a hospital ? I wasnt there are the beginning of the year are the any likely contributory factors like a cold snap or large motorway pileup ?
Deaths in general, and yes, there is usually a rise in deaths over the winter months, so this is a 10% increase ABOVE the usual average higher number for this time of year. To me, a higher no of deaths implies a higher no of very sick people, and so an increase in A&E hospital admissions.
The early baby boomers are starting to hit 70, I would be surprised if there wasn't a rise, though 10% sounds does sound like quite a big increase.
Maybe it's just Remoaners giving up the will to live?
Tory HQ saying...Copeland, we might win if we get all our troops on the ground. Labour...we've won Stoke. Copeland, we're favourites, but it's marginal.
I heard someone on radio 4 or 5 say he'd seen the Tories look 'confident' followed by the stats on when Labour last lost a by election when in opposition ....followed by the observation that "it should be remembered that 1982 (?) there was also an unpopular hard left Labour leader..."
It's unlike the BBC to stick their neck out unless it's all over.
Either a) the Tories are confident or b) they're managing expectations so a Labour hold can be painted as a triumph for Corbyn....which I don't think would unduly upset them....
Copeland byelection: Corbyn proving 'barrier' in Sellafield seat
Labour pins its hopes on antipathy to Tory-backed plans to downgrade maternity unit to retain seat it has held for 80 years
Even the most committed Labour campaigners in the once safe seat of Copeland admit there is one topic of conversation that comes up more often than most: the leader.
“Corbyn is a real barrier. Comes up every fifth or sixth contact I’ve made,” said one downcast Labour canvasser after rapping on doors in west Cumbria ahead of next Thursday’s byelection. “Those who voted Labour in the general election in 2015 who mention Corbyn in the main aren’t voting at all.”
"YouGov’s polling data set includes 2015 general election vote, current general election voting intention, and current EU voting intention. That means we can look at the ebb and flow of each individuals’ support for each party since May 2015, and how that relates to their EU voting intention.
For Labour, this evidence should ring alarm bells. Those who voted Labour in 2015 split about 2:1 in favour of Remain over Leave. By early May 2016 that had risen to almost 3:1 for current Labour voters, thanks almost entirely to the desertion of former Labour voters backing Leave. In the sample, 42% of the 137 Leave supporters who voted Labour in 2015 would not back the party today and overall the number of current Labour voters backing Leave is 29% down on 2015"
(Published today), the no of reported deaths in England/Wales is 10% higher in the first 6 weeks of the year than the 5 year average. Might explain the particular struggles of the NHS this winter....
Deaths in general, or deaths in a hospital ? I wasnt there are the beginning of the year are the any likely contributory factors like a cold snap or large motorway pileup ?
Deaths in general, and yes, there is usually a rise in deaths over the winter months, so this is a 10% increase ABOVE the usual average higher number for this time of year. To me, a higher no of deaths implies a higher no of very sick people, and so an increase in A&E hospital admissions.
A green Christmas makes a full churchyard. Old country saying.
Also, of course, a green Christmas = a white Easter.
Copeland byelection: Corbyn proving 'barrier' in Sellafield seat
Vox pop from Stoke:
Alan: “We definitely vote UKIP. I voted Labour all my life. Never again. Corbyn’s the main reason. I think Theresa May’s doing a good job. She’s certainly the best leader in the Commons at the moment. I’ve never voted Tory.”
Ann: “I would. I believe she’ll do what she said.”
Alan: “I’d find it very difficult to vote for the Tories.”
Ann: “Labour isn’t the party it was. And Tony Blair, how he dares to show his face, I don’t know. This city has always been Labour, but I don’t think we are now.”
Of course, what the Left misunderstand is that the right wing diatribes are not about directly bringing in a uber nationalist world, but just about getting focus in the areas that matter. By turning attention to the right, they get the message out that ISIS must be dealt with and the Church is full of buggers and the Left are an undemocratic, self serving elite. I'm loving Trump, not because of his policies, but he shines a light on the all the wrongs in this world. Certain elites, certain religions, certain nations and colours have protection and can do what they want. Equality needs to be applied. Women must be freed from domination in some religion. Gays must have equal rights in others. Democracy must be restored from teh EU and Blair/Clegg etc. The alt-right are doing this. Long live Le Pen, Trump, Wildeers etc.
I find the scoffing at Scott Adams most amusing - he doesn't vote. He lives in California and lost all his speaking engagements for simply saying he thought Trump would win the persuasion game.
The Swamp and Dems are publicly crucifying Milo despite being the actual victim of abuse. It's very unattractive behaviour. And it's all so predictable in terms of character attacks. You're Stupid>Bigot>Anti-Semite>Crazy>White Supremacist>Nazi>Paedo
Indeed. And that's why opinion polls are wrong as we decent people have to keep quiet about voting for decent poltiicans. It's a cruel world, run by the Left
I've seen several prominent Trump supporters in citizen journalist land say that they're never alone just in case..., never alone with a woman, get approached by women who are out of their league da de da.
It's really ugly stuff - Roger Stone [who I think is cooky] has just had his YouTube channel deleted. There's dozens of examples of conservative views being squished/advertisers intimidated et al.
The attacks on PewDiePie were absurd - and hurt him massively in the pocket. This isn't a conspiracy theory - it's blinking obvious.
Well, I have been given training (after much pain) to say nothing at all or be vague when an unknown person or a known leftie asks you a leading questions. Sadly, some record me, edit it to change the emphasis and publish it. Bastards. Now, I say nothing.
I don't think anything was edited in your repetitive and constant astroturfing for Zac's mayoral campaign, was it?
Tory HQ saying...Copeland, we might win if we get all our troops on the ground. Labour...we've won Stoke. Copeland, we're favourites, but it's marginal.
I heard someone on radio 4 or 5 say he'd seen the Tories look 'confident' followed by the stats on when Labour last lost a by election when in opposition ....followed by the observation that "it should be remembered that 1982 (?) there was also an unpopular hard left Labour leader..."
It's unlike the BBC to stick their neck out unless it's all over.
Either a) the Tories are confident or b) they're managing expectations so a Labour hold can be painted as a triumph for Corbyn....which I don't think would unduly upset them....
I don't think anyone knows. Mr Herdson's excellent point was Labour will win if all Labour supporters actually vote. It will be down to GOTV, and seemingly Jezza is making people stay at home on Thursday. But, in what number. I'm still forecasting 2 Labour holds.
Me mates in UKIP won't answer my questions about Stoke. Normally means a party is doing badly. Tories answering me re: Copeland and Labour re: Stoke. That might tell a story, but DYOR.
Copeland byelection: Corbyn proving 'barrier' in Sellafield seat
Vox pop from Stoke:
Alan: “We definitely vote UKIP. I voted Labour all my life. Never again. Corbyn’s the main reason. I think Theresa May’s doing a good job. She’s certainly the best leader in the Commons at the moment. I’ve never voted Tory.”
Ann: “I would. I believe she’ll do what she said.”
Alan: “I’d find it very difficult to vote for the Tories.”
Ann: “Labour isn’t the party it was. And Tony Blair, how he dares to show his face, I don’t know. This city has always been Labour, but I don’t think we are now.”
Copeland byelection: Corbyn proving 'barrier' in Sellafield seat
Vox pop from Stoke:
Alan: “We definitely vote UKIP. I voted Labour all my life. Never again. Corbyn’s the main reason. I think Theresa May’s doing a good job. She’s certainly the best leader in the Commons at the moment. I’ve never voted Tory.”
Ann: “I would. I believe she’ll do what she said.”
Alan: “I’d find it very difficult to vote for the Tories.”
Ann: “Labour isn’t the party it was. And Tony Blair, how he dares to show his face, I don’t know. This city has always been Labour, but I don’t think we are now.”
Of course, what the Left misunderstand is that the right wing diatribes are not about directly bringing in a uber nationalist world, but just about getting focus in the areas that matter. By turning attention to the right, they get the message out that ISIS must be dealt with and the Church is full of buggers and the Left are an undemocratic, self serving elite. I'm loving Trump, not because of his policies, but he shines a light on the all the wrongs in this world. Certain elites, certain religions, certain nations and colours have protection and can do what they want. Equality needs to be applied. Women must be freed from domination in some religion. Gays must have equal rights in others. Democracy must be restored from teh EU and Blair/Clegg etc. The alt-right are doing this. Long live Le Pen, Trump, Wildeers etc.
I find the scoffing at Scott Adams most amusing - he doesn't vote. He lives in California and lost all his speaking engagements for simply saying he thought Trump would win the persuasion game.
The Swamp and Dems are publicly crucifying Milo despite being the actual victim of abuse. It's very unattractive behaviour. And it's all so predictable in terms of character attacks. You're Stupid>Bigot>Anti-Semite>Crazy>White Supremacist>Nazi>Paedo
Indeed. And that's why opinion polls are wrong as we decent people have to keep quiet about voting for decent poltiicans. It's a cruel world, run by the Left
I've seen several prominent Trump supporters in citizen journalist land say that they're never alone just in case..., never alone with a woman, get approached by women who are out of their league da de da.
It's really ugly stuff - Roger Stone [who I think is cooky] has just had his YouTube channel deleted. There's dozens of examples of conservative views being squished/advertisers intimidated et al.
The attacks on PewDiePie were absurd - and hurt him massively in the pocket. This isn't a conspiracy theory - it's blinking obvious.
Well, I have been given training (after much pain) to say nothing at all or be vague when an unknown person or a known leftie asks you a leading questions. Sadly, some record me, edit it to change the emphasis and publish it. Bastards. Now, I say nothing.
I was monstered by the Daily Mail a decade ago - and they wrote gossip twaddle twice without approaching me. When one did finally call me - I asked him if ruining my career and livelihood was worth 200 chip paper words. I could feel the award silence and hung up.
Tory HQ saying...Copeland, we might win if we get all our troops on the ground. Labour...we've won Stoke. Copeland, we're favourites, but it's marginal.
I heard someone on radio 4 or 5 say he'd seen the Tories look 'confident' followed by the stats on when Labour last lost a by election when in opposition ....followed by the observation that "it should be remembered that 1982 (?) there was also an unpopular hard left Labour leader..."
It's unlike the BBC to stick their neck out unless it's all over.
The last time Labour lost a by-election in opposition was 2012: Bradford West.
1982 was the last time the Conservatives (or indeed, anyone) gained a by-election when in government.
I'd be wary of comments saying that the Conservatives looked 'confident'. There's no doubt that the Tory team in Copeland was enjoying the election but really they're in a no-lose position (subject to something completely unexpected, like an under-the-radar Lib Dem surge). The radio vox pop is probably confusing 'enjoyment' for 'confidence'.
That said, the enjoyment is coming from a confidence about doing well; it's just that 'doing well' starts some way before 'winning'.
Copeland byelection: Corbyn proving 'barrier' in Sellafield seat
Vox pop from Stoke:
Alan: “We definitely vote UKIP. I voted Labour all my life. Never again. Corbyn’s the main reason. I think Theresa May’s doing a good job. She’s certainly the best leader in the Commons at the moment. I’ve never voted Tory.”
Ann: “I would. I believe she’ll do what she said.”
Alan: “I’d find it very difficult to vote for the Tories.”
Ann: “Labour isn’t the party it was. And Tony Blair, how he dares to show his face, I don’t know. This city has always been Labour, but I don’t think we are now.”
Maybe relying too much on personal feeling, but I think Lab>Con is a very hard jump for people/communities who have been tribal Labour all their life
I'm sure it is very difficult - but when there's a 113 point gap in net favourability ratings between the two leaders among the over-65s some people may be tempted to change the habits of a lifetime.....
Copeland byelection: Corbyn proving 'barrier' in Sellafield seat
Vox pop from Stoke:
Alan: “We definitely vote UKIP. I voted Labour all my life. Never again. Corbyn’s the main reason. I think Theresa May’s doing a good job. She’s certainly the best leader in the Commons at the moment. I’ve never voted Tory.”
Ann: “I would. I believe she’ll do what she said.”
Alan: “I’d find it very difficult to vote for the Tories.”
Ann: “Labour isn’t the party it was. And Tony Blair, how he dares to show his face, I don’t know. This city has always been Labour, but I don’t think we are now.”
Maybe relying too much on personal feeling, but I think Lab>Con is a very hard jump for people/communities who have been tribal Labour all their life
Do you think UKIP would have been better off without Nuttall standing....And going with a local candidate?
Really wouldn't know. My guess is that, apart from the MEPs, UKIP don't really have many good candidates, not that I personally think Nuttall is bad. The fact that people are desperate to try and say a Liverpool fan who says he was at Hillsborough wasn't there, in the name of party politics, is such poor form I am quite amazed. Especially from people who repeatedly post partisan lies on here because they want them to be true.
I still think they are only marginal second favourites. Polls and betting markets have been about as much use as a chocolate teapot recently, I think their use as a guide is on the wane.
Your definition of 'virtue signalling' is interesting. I fear it may begin to seem like a term that is over-used, now meaning someone you disagree with, something like 'racist'.
I'll admit to the 'alt' term, although I jib at the 'right' smear.
I was hoping to compare and contrast the two populations. One is a set of refugees and migrants who have trudged a thousand miles and now find themselves in France (which is regarded by many as civilised).
I applaud those who go to Calais to help, without thinking about publicity. I have contributed a small amount of money to their cause
The other is a set of starving children, unable to stand in many cases, living in an active war-zone. I reserve my higher praise for those who toil unrecognised in South Sudan. I contribute a slightly higher amount to these groups.
In both cases, the amount is a pittance, so my virtue or otherwise is irrelevant.
As always, I may make my case badly. Revolting? Did I miss off an apostrophe?
Paul Joseph Watson The irony of being attacked by the BBC while their chief political editor begs to meet me because they're frightened of irrelevancy.
Tory HQ saying...Copeland, we might win if we get all our troops on the ground. Labour...we've won Stoke. Copeland, we're favourites, but it's marginal.
I heard someone on radio 4 or 5 say he'd seen the Tories look 'confident' followed by the stats on when Labour last lost a by election when in opposition ....followed by the observation that "it should be remembered that 1982 (?) there was also an unpopular hard left Labour leader..."
It's unlike the BBC to stick their neck out unless it's all over.
The last time Labour lost a by-election in opposition was 2012: Bradford West.
1982 was the last time the Conservatives (or indeed, anyone) gained a by-election when in government.
I'd be wary of comments saying that the Conservatives looked 'confident'. There's no doubt that the Tory team in Copeland was enjoying the election but really they're in a no-lose position (subject to something completely unexpected, like an under-the-radar Lib Dem surge). The radio vox pop is probably confusing 'enjoyment' for 'confidence'.
That said, the enjoyment is coming from a confidence about doing well; it's just that 'doing well' starts some way before 'winning'.
Theresa May doesn't seem to scare the horses. The class thing that was up front under Cameron and Osborne has gone. She is - ahem - detoffifyng the Tory party. She was kinda Remain, but is getting on with implementing the Leave decision of the people.
The difference with Corbyn is striking. Even voters are noticing.....
Copeland byelection: Corbyn proving 'barrier' in Sellafield seat
Vox pop from Stoke:
Alan: “We definitely vote UKIP. I voted Labour all my life. Never again. Corbyn’s the main reason. I think Theresa May’s doing a good job. She’s certainly the best leader in the Commons at the moment. I’ve never voted Tory.”
Ann: “I would. I believe she’ll do what she said.”
Alan: “I’d find it very difficult to vote for the Tories.”
Ann: “Labour isn’t the party it was. And Tony Blair, how he dares to show his face, I don’t know. This city has always been Labour, but I don’t think we are now.”
Maybe relying too much on personal feeling, but I think Lab>Con is a very hard jump for people/communities who have been tribal Labour all their life
I'm sure it is very difficult - but when there's a 113 point gap in net favourability ratings between the two leaders among the over-65s some people may be tempted to change the habits of a lifetime.....
Yeah, sure, but there is a difference between admitting May is doing a better job than Corbyn, and voting Tory. I made the jump from Lab to UKIP, but honestly think my family would be disappointed in me if I said I was voting Tory, and we don't live in a Labour heartland at all. Both my Parents prefer May to Corbyn, but they'd never vote Tory
On topic: As others have said, a superb article by David H.
There has been a lot of discussion about the Labour vote, but the other side of the coin is: how strong is the motivation of Tory-leaning voters? It seems to me that the negative message motivating Labour (vote Labour to kick the government over the local hospital issue) is likely to be a stronger one than the slightly vague, positive, Tory message (vote Tory to show your support for their policies on nuclear power and maybe Brexit).
This is just a specific example of the general point that by-elections tend to be about kicking the government. Whether Corbyn is so dramatically voter-repellent as to overcome that natural law of by-elections is the nub of the question.
On topic: As others have said, a superb article by David H.
There has been a lot of discussion about the Labour vote, but the other side of the coin is: how strong is the motivation of Tory-leaning voters? It seems to me that the negative message motivating Labour (vote Labour to kick the government over the local hospital issue) is likely to be a stronger one than the slightly vague, positive, Tory message (vote Tory to show your support for their policies on nuclear power and maybe Brexit).
This is just a specific example of the general point that by-elections tend to be about kicking the government. Whether Corbyn is so dramatically voter-repellent as to overcome that natural law of by-elections is the nub of the question.
I think you understate the importance of the nuclear industry in this by-election - and the Labour leader's views. Can you imagine Labour fighting a by-election in a mining seat, and the leader saying that to protect the health of miners, he wanted to close all the pits?
Actually, there was a Conservative gain in 1953, Sunderland South, from Labour. However, the swing, 1.5%, is still less than the swing required in Copeland.
Labour to retain both seats must be the value bet.
Copeland byelection: Corbyn proving 'barrier' in Sellafield seat
Vox pop from Stoke:
Alan: “We definitely vote UKIP. I voted Labour all my life. Never again. Corbyn’s the main reason. I think Theresa May’s doing a good job. She’s certainly the best leader in the Commons at the moment. I’ve never voted Tory.”
Ann: “I would. I believe she’ll do what she said.”
Alan: “I’d find it very difficult to vote for the Tories.”
Ann: “Labour isn’t the party it was. And Tony Blair, how he dares to show his face, I don’t know. This city has always been Labour, but I don’t think we are now.”
Maybe relying too much on personal feeling, but I think Lab>Con is a very hard jump for people/communities who have been tribal Labour all their life
I'm sure it is very difficult - but when there's a 113 point gap in net favourability ratings between the two leaders among the over-65s some people may be tempted to change the habits of a lifetime.....
For many ingrained voters, it will be too much of a jump. But actively supporting a Con candidate and accepting the risk of passively letting one in are two different things. Lab switches to UKIP, LD, others or abstentions are the bigger risks.
(Even now, in the mid- to high-teens Con poll leads, the direct Lab-Con swing is small; the effective swing is driven mainly by third-party effects and lesser certainty to vote among 2015 Lab voters).
Copeland byelection: Corbyn proving 'barrier' in Sellafield seat
Vox pop from Stoke:
Alan: “We definitely vote UKIP. I voted Labour all my life. Never again. Corbyn’s the main reason. I think Theresa May’s doing a good job. She’s certainly the best leader in the Commons at the moment. I’ve never voted Tory.”
Ann: “I would. I believe she’ll do what she said.”
Alan: “I’d find it very difficult to vote for the Tories.”
Ann: “Labour isn’t the party it was. And Tony Blair, how he dares to show his face, I don’t know. This city has always been Labour, but I don’t think we are now.”
Maybe relying too much on personal feeling, but I think Lab>Con is a very hard jump for people/communities who have been tribal Labour all their life
I'm sure it is very difficult - but when there's a 113 point gap in net favourability ratings between the two leaders among the over-65s some people may be tempted to change the habits of a lifetime.....
For many ingrained voters, it will be too much of a jump. But actively supporting a Con candidate and accepting the risk of passively letting one in are two different things. Lab switches to UKIP, LD, others or abstentions are the bigger risks.
(Even now, in the mid- to high-teens Con poll leads, the direct Lab-Con swing is small; the effective swing is driven mainly by third-party effects and lesser certainty to vote among 2015 Lab voters).
I simply can't find an example of a governing party overcoming a lead of 6.5% in by-election conditions.
Labour gained Darlington in 1983, just before going down to a massive defeat, so why should they lost Copeland?
Copeland byelection: Corbyn proving 'barrier' in Sellafield seat
Vox pop from Stoke:
Alan: “We definitely vote UKIP. I voted Labour all my life. Never again. Corbyn’s the main reason. I think Theresa May’s doing a good job. She’s certainly the best leader in the Commons at the moment. I’ve never voted Tory.”
Ann: “I would. I believe she’ll do what she said.”
Alan: “I’d find it very difficult to vote for the Tories.”
Ann: “Labour isn’t the party it was. And Tony Blair, how he dares to show his face, I don’t know. This city has always been Labour, but I don’t think we are now.”
Maybe relying too much on personal feeling, but I think Lab>Con is a very hard jump for people/communities who have been tribal Labour all their life
I'm sure it is very difficult - but when there's a 113 point gap in net favourability ratings between the two leaders among the over-65s some people may be tempted to change the habits of a lifetime.....
For many ingrained voters, it will be too much of a jump. But actively supporting a Con candidate and accepting the risk of passively letting one in are two different things. Lab switches to UKIP, LD, others or abstentions are the bigger risks.
(Even now, in the mid- to high-teens Con poll leads, the direct Lab-Con swing is small; the effective swing is driven mainly by third-party effects and lesser certainty to vote among 2015 Lab voters).
I simply can't find an example of a governing party overcoming a lead of 6.5% in by-election conditions.
Labour gained Darlington in 1983, just before going down to a massive defeat, so why should they lost Copeland?
An excellent thread David. You make the 5/2 odds against a Labour hold in Copeland look like the political bet of the year thus far and there was I thinking I was entitled to that particular brownie point by suggesting the best value wager was the then 10/11 odds available on Labour holding Stoke Central. Of course there's still the small matter of landing these two bets!
ouch. They must of thought this willl be a good way to get publicity.....worst case is we lose £500 deposit.....
They stood 32 candidates at the GE2015, all lost their deposits, natch. - The Cannabis is safer than Alcohol party de-registered last year and is now the Citizens Independent Social Thought Alliance, same initials but doesn’t have quite the same ring to it. – Presumably the EC fine was due to their late entry into the snap elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly.
I think you understate the importance of the nuclear industry in this by-election - and the Labour leader's views. Can you imagine Labour fighting a by-election in a mining seat, and the leader saying that to protect the health of miners, he wanted to close all the pits?
Yes, fair point, and that will certainly be a big drag on the Labour vote. I'm not sure it will boost the Conservative vote much, though, so it comes down to whether Labour can make this a referendum on the local hospital.
An excellent thread David. You make the 5/2 odds against a Labour hold in Copeland look like the political bet of the year thus far and there was I thinking I was entitled to that particular brownie point by suggesting the best value wager was the then 10/11 odds available on Labour holding Stoke Central. Of course there's still the small matter of landing these two bets!
Labour are priced at 11 - 12.5 on SPIN.
The market resolves at 25 for 1st, 10 for 2nd.
I bought £40 a point at 12.0, and it feels like a very good bet. The market however is currently suspended.
Comments
I understand the point but timeliness matters and has a material affect.
(It's on wikipedia, but I'm not sure if the thing about the oil/dung being the source of the infection has been proved)
- Voting Labour is seen as part of working class life
- Voting Tory is seen as somehow alien
As I've suggested for several months, Mrs May gets the views and concerns of normal people more than an OE ever will.
(*) Numbers pulled out of my a*se for illustrative purposes only.
So its not all bad.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxDAyUiXphg
This is the point in the discussion where I will have to bow out, as the details of what currently and might work are unknown to me. I can hypothesise, but anything I propose might be unworkable due to the annoying presence of reality.
Dr Sox might be a good person to comment further.
He thing about predicting both outcomes of a coin flip is you can claim to be right no matter what.
But then if you're happy to see the left flail about with limp wristed approaches and failed signalling policies I'm not going to get in your way,
I think the RMT needs to be taken on properly in this one, the top of ASLEF appears to be able to talk and compromise - now the shadow of Crow is gone, time to stop taking the easy route out and always giving in to the RMT.
Might explain the particular struggles of the NHS this winter....
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15086737.SNP_aide_with_pro_IRA_views_passes_candidate_vetting/
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/15102373.Revealed__picture_of_SNP_candidate_on_pro_IRA_march/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/10/nicola-sturgeon-apologises-msps-ira-freedom-fighters-comment/
ALEX Salmond has been accused of acting like Donald Trump, after accusing the “yoon media” of presenting an “alternative reality” to Scots.
In an echo of President Trump’s attacks on the US media over "fake news", the former First Minister said people should not trust Unionist papers that always criticised the SNP.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15105537.Salmond_accused_of_acting_like_Trump_after_attacking__yoon_media_/?ref=mr&lp=1
https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/833978182202171394
Tory HQ saying...Copeland, we might win if we get all our troops on the ground.
Labour...we've won Stoke. Copeland, we're favourites, but it's marginal.
In other words, in this election, my reading is that the maximum realistic Labour vote is greater than the maximum realistic Con vote.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-39037698
I don't take a partisan view on this - I welcome efforts by news organisations, however imperfect, to be a bit more analytical. A proper reckoning of that legacy would be well worth the license fee.
To me, a higher no of deaths implies a higher no of very sick people, and so an increase in A&E hospital admissions.
It's like watching a teenager besotted with a boy band.
It's really ugly stuff - Roger Stone [who I think is cooky] has just had his YouTube channel deleted. There's dozens of examples of conservative views being squished/advertisers intimidated et al.
The attacks on PewDiePie were absurd - and hurt him massively in the pocket. This isn't a conspiracy theory - it's blinking obvious.
http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/14899384?utm_hp_ref=uk&ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067
Eliminate 'the Swamp' and Dems, and you're probably left with a Corbynista sized core of true believers...
It's unlike the BBC to stick their neck out unless it's all over.
Police are being called in to investigate allegations of corruption and cronyism at Scotland’s largest local authority. The Times has learnt that the executive director of land and environmental services at Glasgow city council has resigned from his £120,000-a-year position.....
.....Claims that a Labour administration had given favourable treatment to Mears Scotland triggered a police investigation in neighbouring North Lanarkshire council which led to the council leader being deposed last year. A Glasgow council insider claimed there were parallels between the two authorities, stating: “Internal audit are currently looking into a number of the same people and contractors who were involved in the corruption scandal in North Lanarkshire.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/70ee7fb0-f7c2-11e6-a6f0-cb4e831c1cc0
Labour pins its hopes on antipathy to Tory-backed plans to downgrade maternity unit to retain seat it has held for 80 years
Even the most committed Labour campaigners in the once safe seat of Copeland admit there is one topic of conversation that comes up more often than most: the leader.
“Corbyn is a real barrier. Comes up every fifth or sixth contact I’ve made,” said one downcast Labour canvasser after rapping on doors in west Cumbria ahead of next Thursday’s byelection. “Those who voted Labour in the general election in 2015 who mention Corbyn in the main aren’t voting at all.”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/21/copeland-byelection-corbyn-proving-barrier-in-sellafield-seat?CMP=share_btn_tw
For Labour, this evidence should ring alarm bells. Those who voted Labour in 2015 split about 2:1 in favour of Remain over Leave. By early May 2016 that had risen to almost 3:1 for current Labour voters, thanks almost entirely to the desertion of former Labour voters backing Leave. In the sample, 42% of the 137 Leave supporters who voted Labour in 2015 would not back the party today and overall the number of current Labour voters backing Leave is 29% down on 2015"
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/05/29/guest-slot-polling-analysis-finds-labour-loses-supporters-of-brexit/
Also, of course, a green Christmas = a white Easter.
Alan: “We definitely vote UKIP. I voted Labour all my life. Never again. Corbyn’s the main reason. I think Theresa May’s doing a good job. She’s certainly the best leader in the Commons at the moment. I’ve never voted Tory.”
Ann: “I would. I believe she’ll do what she said.”
Alan: “I’d find it very difficult to vote for the Tories.”
Ann: “Labour isn’t the party it was. And Tony Blair, how he dares to show his face, I don’t know. This city has always been Labour, but I don’t think we are now.”
http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2017/02/can-the-conservatives-win-in-stoke.html
Me mates in UKIP won't answer my questions about Stoke. Normally means a party is doing badly. Tories answering me re: Copeland and Labour re: Stoke. That might tell a story, but DYOR.
*raises an eyebrow at Morris Dancer/deep understanding thread*
1982 was the last time the Conservatives (or indeed, anyone) gained a by-election when in government.
I'd be wary of comments saying that the Conservatives looked 'confident'. There's no doubt that the Tory team in Copeland was enjoying the election but really they're in a no-lose position (subject to something completely unexpected, like an under-the-radar Lib Dem surge). The radio vox pop is probably confusing 'enjoyment' for 'confidence'.
That said, the enjoyment is coming from a confidence about doing well; it's just that 'doing well' starts some way before 'winning'.
I still think they are only marginal second favourites. Polls and betting markets have been about as much use as a chocolate teapot recently, I think their use as a guide is on the wane.
Your definition of 'virtue signalling' is interesting. I fear it may begin to seem like a term that is over-used, now meaning someone you disagree with, something like 'racist'.
I'll admit to the 'alt' term, although I jib at the 'right' smear.
I was hoping to compare and contrast the two populations. One is a set of refugees and migrants who have trudged a thousand miles and now find themselves in France (which is regarded by many as civilised).
I applaud those who go to Calais to help, without thinking about publicity. I have contributed a small amount of money to their cause
The other is a set of starving children, unable to stand in many cases, living in an active war-zone. I reserve my higher praise for those who toil unrecognised in South Sudan. I contribute a slightly higher amount to these groups.
In both cases, the amount is a pittance, so my virtue or otherwise is irrelevant.
As always, I may make my case badly. Revolting? Did I miss off an apostrophe?
Anybody know more?
Paul Joseph Watson
The irony of being attacked by the BBC while their chief political editor begs to meet me because they're frightened of irrelevancy.
The difference with Corbyn is striking. Even voters are noticing.....
https://www.icmunlimited.com/polls/
There has been a lot of discussion about the Labour vote, but the other side of the coin is: how strong is the motivation of Tory-leaning voters? It seems to me that the negative message motivating Labour (vote Labour to kick the government over the local hospital issue) is likely to be a stronger one than the slightly vague, positive, Tory message (vote Tory to show your support for their policies on nuclear power and maybe Brexit).
This is just a specific example of the general point that by-elections tend to be about kicking the government. Whether Corbyn is so dramatically voter-repellent as to overcome that natural law of by-elections is the nub of the question.
Labour to retain both seats must be the value bet.
(Even now, in the mid- to high-teens Con poll leads, the direct Lab-Con swing is small; the effective swing is driven mainly by third-party effects and lesser certainty to vote among 2015 Lab voters).
http://time.com/4675860/donald-trump-fake-news-attacks/
Labour gained Darlington in 1983, just before going down to a massive defeat, so why should they lost Copeland?
http://www.populus.co.uk/2017/02/what-does-a-good-brexit-look-like-to-the-british-public/
Of course there's still the small matter of landing these two bets!
The market resolves at 25 for 1st, 10 for 2nd.
I bought £40 a point at 12.0, and it feels like a very good bet. The market however is currently suspended.