politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Three Score and Ten? Has the NHS reached the end of its natura

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/PipsFunFacts/status/1013470059937910786

Sadly, that sort of thing is all too common. Australia takes it rather seriously, I believe ...

Bromptonaut said:

https://twitter.com/alessandraaster/status/1013429202639622149?s=21

But there’s no way to ask the EU if what you want is acceptable before triggering Article 50. They just won’t discuss it.

MTimT said:

Pulpstar said:

Spain should have a second penalty and hence probably won that. The volume of nonsense spouted about how good the Russians were (They weren't) did my nut on the radio.
I hope Croatia stick seven past them.

Pulpstar, it's a long time since I've played football. But I am sure that when I played, it was only handball when it was deliberate. How on earth was the Russian penalty awarded on that basis? Or has the rule changed/did I misremember it?

The tournament is taking place in Russia, so of course it’s a penalty. Vladimir says so, you’re not trying to argue with Vladimir are you?

DecrepitJohnL said:

Can the NHS do more for early diagnosis? For instance, I know I am at risk of diabetes but I can't wander into Boots for an indicator to pee on. I could hassle my GP to send me to hospital for a blood test but that seems OTT with no symptoms. Sure, my hypothetical test from Boots might be only 80 per cent accurate but that would be a lot better than nothing at all. Can I use my phone camera and some sort of AI app to check my eyes, or moles?

Go private. Contact your local private medical centre (Spire is a good place to start). Ask them for a diabetes test. They will test you for diabetes and prediabetes. It'll cost between £200 and £500. Shut up and pay the money, it will be well worth it.

JosiasJessop said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

So why are we proceeding with HS2 (which is also over budget) but not proceeding with the Pennine project not a "Sod Everyone Else' approach?

Look one moment you say you wish to honour the manifesto, and then you say you want to break it by scrapping HS2. Make your mind up.

And again I repeat: the two projects are different. HS2 is a new railway line, and experience with HS1 and Crossrail are generally positive. In addition, saying HS2 is 'over budget' at the moment - and on the basis of those links you gave - is rather silly. It's still early days. ISTR similar was said about Crossrail early doors.

The electrification schemes are massive updates to existing, operating railways, and the track record of these schemes - including ones currently ongoing - is very poor.

I don't want the electrification schemes to be cancelled; they're needed. However I cannot see how they can be continued until Network Rail sorts out the delivery of such schemes. And sadly we cannot wait forever for that to happen, as new stock needs ordering, and we need to know whether it will be diesel, bi-mode or electric.

It's all a bloody mess. But you don't have an answer.

I've posted links which show the cost of HS2 rose by £8 billion on original estimations. HS2 is still proceeding.

The Pennine route improvement costs have increased a few million and is set to be scrapped.

So either scrap them both on cost grounds or keep them both.

Can you not see the hypocrisy of Grayling and yourself?

viewcode said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Can the NHS do more for early diagnosis? For instance, I know I am at risk of diabetes but I can't wander into Boots for an indicator to pee on. I could hassle my GP to send me to hospital for a blood test but that seems OTT with no symptoms. Sure, my hypothetical test from Boots might be only 80 per cent accurate but that would be a lot better than nothing at all. Can I use my phone camera and some sort of AI app to check my eyes, or moles?

Go private. Contact your local private medical centre (Spire is a good place to start). Ask them for a diabetes test. They will test you for diabetes and prediabetes. It'll cost between £200 and £500. Shut up and pay the money, it will be well worth it.

"It's not about the money, it's about sending a message: everything burns!"

Sandpit said:

MTimT said:

Pulpstar said:

Spain should have a second penalty and hence probably won that. The volume of nonsense spouted about how good the Russians were (They weren't) did my nut on the radio.
I hope Croatia stick seven past them.

Pulpstar, it's a long time since I've played football. But I am sure that when I played, it was only handball when it was deliberate. How on earth was the Russian penalty awarded on that basis? Or has the rule changed/did I misremember it?

The tournament is taking place in Russia, so of course it’s a penalty. Vladimir says so, you’re not trying to argue with Vladimir are you?

LOL. Serious question though. To me, the Spanish player was still in the air with his back to the play when the ball that had passed him cleanly came back off another player onto his arm, so how could he have deliberately have handled the ball?

MTimT said:

Sandpit said:

MTimT said:

Pulpstar said:

Spain should have a second penalty and hence probably won that. The volume of nonsense spouted about how good the Russians were (They weren't) did my nut on the radio.
I hope Croatia stick seven past them.

Pulpstar, it's a long time since I've played football. But I am sure that when I played, it was only handball when it was deliberate. How on earth was the Russian penalty awarded on that basis? Or has the rule changed/did I misremember it?

The tournament is taking place in Russia, so of course it’s a penalty. Vladimir says so, you’re not trying to argue with Vladimir are you?

LOL. Serious question though. To me, the Spanish player was still in the air with his back to the play when the ball that had passed him cleanly came back off another player onto his arm, so how could he have deliberately have handled the ball?

He deliberately stuck his arm in the air (an "unnatural" position) to increase the chances of blocking the ball.

TheScreamingEagles said:

JosiasJessop said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

So why are we proceeding with HS2 (which is also over budget) but not proceeding with the Pennine project not a "Sod Everyone Else' approach?

Look one moment you say you wish to honour the manifesto, and then you say you want to break it by scrapping HS2. Make your mind up.

And again I repeat: the two projects are different. HS2 is a new railway line, and experience with HS1 and Crossrail are generally positive. In addition, saying HS2 is 'over budget' at the moment - and on the basis of those links you gave - is rather silly. It's still early days. ISTR similar was said about Crossrail early doors.

The electrification schemes are massive updates to existing, operating railways, and the track record of these schemes - including ones currently ongoing - is very poor.

I don't want the electrification schemes to be cancelled; they're needed. However I cannot see how they can be continued until Network Rail sorts out the delivery of such schemes. And sadly we cannot wait forever for that to happen, as new stock needs ordering, and we need to know whether it will be diesel, bi-mode or electric.

It's all a bloody mess. But you don't have an answer.

I've posted links which show the cost of HS2 rose by £8 billion on original estimations. HS2 is still proceeding.

The Pennine route improvement costs have increased a few million and is set to be scrapped.

So either scrap them both on cost grounds or keep them both.

Can you not see the hypocrisy of Grayling and yourself?

I'm not being hypocritical, and I have no skin in this game. I also think Grayling and the DfT have massively mishandled things (and have said in the past how Labour have mucked up their attacks on him).

You need to re-read your links. Projections defined by a man unconnected with the project are not good evidence. In addition, prices early doors often increase and decrease, to be brought in line later on. It's too early to say what the eff is going to happen.

In addition, the Pennine route improvements are just like the GWML upgrade, WCML upgrade, or (near you) Preston to Blackpool: the costs of the upgrades to an operating route do not become clear until the work starts. The latter had (from memory) three different contractors try to do the work, Balfour Beatty giving up in 2015. It was due to be delivered in May 2016 and was over two years late. Utter chaos. Why do you think the Pennine electrification would be different?

I'm amused your commitment to the manifesto ('the only one to have won them a majority this century.') has lasted just a few posts...

DecrepitJohnL said:

viewcode said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Can the NHS do more for early diagnosis? For instance, I know I am at risk of diabetes but I can't wander into Boots for an indicator to pee on. I could hassle my GP to send me to hospital for a blood test but that seems OTT with no symptoms. Sure, my hypothetical test from Boots might be only 80 per cent accurate but that would be a lot better than nothing at all. Can I use my phone camera and some sort of AI app to check my eyes, or moles?

Go private. Contact your local private medical centre (Spire is a good place to start). Ask them for a diabetes test. They will test you for diabetes and prediabetes. It'll cost between £200 and £500. Shut up and pay the money, it will be well worth it.

Indeed but I can pee on a bit of paper once a month. I can't pay £200 that often.

On Amazon it is possible to buy 100 urine test strips for about a tenner.

It is also possible to by a blood glucose tester, but a bit more expensive at about 50 pence per test. Easy to use though, and best done both fasting and 2 hours post meal.

Richard_Tyndall said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

OECD has France on higher per-capita expenditure in France: $4,600 vs $4,200 in 2016.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita

It may be that it depends on the small print as to what is classified as health spending.

Yep I saw the two sets of figures and went with the WHO version as I thought it was probably more accurate. Since I am arguing for more spending anyway - to German or Dutch levels - I didn't think it would be contentious. I would be interested to know why the two organisations have such different figures.

I imagine it will be down to classification of social care costs. As a general rule it's tough comparing health spending between countires at a fine grained level as what is and isn't considered health spending in countries varies widely. And wildly.

RobD said:

Bromptonaut said:

https://twitter.com/alessandraaster/status/1013429202639622149?s=21

But there’s no way to ask the EU if what you want is acceptable before triggering Article 50. They just won’t discuss it.

We still haven't got as far as deciding what "WE" want. That could reasonably have been done before triggering Article 50. We could then have had a productive time discussing how acceptable it was and what could be varied. Instead, we've spent the time debating with ourselves.

1 all and we've not had 4 four minutes

DecrepitJohnL said:

viewcode said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Can the NHS do more for early diagnosis? For instance, I know I am at risk of diabetes but I can't wander into Boots for an indicator to pee on. I could hassle my GP to send me to hospital for a blood test but that seems OTT with no symptoms. Sure, my hypothetical test from Boots might be only 80 per cent accurate but that would be a lot better than nothing at all. Can I use my phone camera and some sort of AI app to check my eyes, or moles?

Go private. Contact your local private medical centre (Spire is a good place to start). Ask them for a diabetes test. They will test you for diabetes and prediabetes. It'll cost between £200 and £500. Shut up and pay the money, it will be well worth it.

Indeed but I can pee on a bit of paper once a month. I can't pay £200 that often.

Do you, or do you not, want to find out if you are diabetic (or are showing precursor signs of same)? If you do, go private as I recommend. They will send the diagnosis to your GP. You can then make an appointment with your GP to discuss it. At that point you are in the system and the NHS should kick in at that point. But you do have to kickstart it and this is how you do it.

You know what everybody says about the NHS caring about you and will take care of you? It's bollocks. You only get good care if you have sharp elbows and you have to develop them.

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1013482997289545728

NickPalmer said:

Before 1944 the anthem was the Internationale, which in most countries, except Britain with the Red Flag, is the anthem of most left-wing parties, e.g. the French Socialists.

Did history begin with the revolution?

NickPalmer said:

If yoiu play the Russian anthem in the Ukraine, they can send you to prison for 5 years. Similar restrictions apply in the Baltic States.

You mean the Soviet anthem.

JonnyJimmy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Pulpstar said:

Lab hold High Peak, lab hold Keighley, lab gain Pudsey with this nonsense re the railways tbh

Is High Peak next to Glossop?

Glossop is in High Peak.

Ah, thought I recognised the name. My Dad's from Glossop and his mum still lives there. As does my godfather, who occasionally comes down to watch Spurs v Man U with my Dad (a big Spurs fan). He was gutted that the Tories won his seat, but wasn't surprised given Corbyn. He's no fan of Jez, and that may be enough for him to abstain, but he'd never consider a vote for the blues. But he's pro Brext. It's quite confusing..

It is a lovely part of the world.

One of my besties lived there until she moved to Manchester.

Bromptonaut said:

RobD said:

Bromptonaut said:

https://twitter.com/alessandraaster/status/1013429202639622149?s=21

But there’s no way to ask the EU if what you want is acceptable before triggering Article 50. They just won’t discuss it.

Do you usually need to talk to someone else to work out what you want?

It’s always some other fucker’s fault with you guys.

We worked out what we want and were entirely reasonable about it. The EU then turned around and demanded to have their cake and eat it too.

MTimT said:

Sandpit said:

MTimT said:

Sandpit said:

MTimT said:

Pulpstar said:

Spain should have a second penalty and hence probably won that. The volume of nonsense spouted about how good the Russians were (They weren't) did my nut on the radio.
I hope Croatia stick seven past them.

Pulpstar, it's a long time since I've played football. But I am sure that when I played, it was only handball when it was deliberate. How on earth was the Russian penalty awarded on that basis? Or has the rule changed/did I misremember it?

The tournament is taking place in Russia, so of course it’s a penalty. Vladimir says so, you’re not trying to argue with Vladimir are you?

LOL. Serious question though. To me, the Spanish player was still in the air with his back to the play when the ball that had passed him cleanly came back off another player onto his arm, so how could he have deliberately have handled the ball?

Vladimir’s friend Billy is obviously on his way back home from playing baseball this afternoon...

His other friend Garry was obviously helping his mum dig her allotment today...

They both think it was a penalty too.

Serious answer is that his arms were unnatuarally high, he may have had his back turned but he could reasonably have expected to have got his arm in the way of the ball, hence it was a deliberate handball.

Figured that must be it and was wondering what his arms were doing up so high. Thanks

If he were jumping normally, then his hands wouldn’t be still above his head at the apogee of his vertical trajectory, the only reason they were up there (in the opinion of the referee) was to get in the way of the ball.

Bromptonaut said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Bromptonaut said:

RobD said:

Bromptonaut said:

https://twitter.com/alessandraaster/status/1013429202639622149?s=21

But there’s no way to ask the EU if what you want is acceptable before triggering Article 50. They just won’t discuss it.

Do you usually need to talk to someone else to work out what you want?

It’s always some other fucker’s fault with you guys.

We worked out what we want and were entirely reasonable about it. The EU then turned around and demanded to have their cake and eat it too.

The EU didn’t turn round (how does that metaphor work anyway?) in response to some stated request.

Firstly no such request has been made by the U.K. Government.

Secondly they’ve been entirely consistent in saying what options they will consider from the outset.

Perhaps you’re thinking of a different EU, the one that only exists in your mind.

At first the UK came out of the blocks quite specifically. We want to take back control, leave the ECJ, leave the Single Market and Customs Union but have the closest free trade deal possible within those caveats. That was a reasonable starting point to negotiate from and the prior Irish government started working with our government to facilitate continued free trade once we had left.

The problem and stumbling block came afterwards when the Irish changed government and effectively cancelled the technological facilitation work that had begun and basically insisted that NI remain in Single Market and Customs Union.

Foxy said:

Glad you liked it. I agree on the Public Health. Being moved to Councils was not in itself a problem, but at a time of peak council austerity it was always going to suffer.

I may be wrong and someone will correct me but I don't believe Councils received additional funding for taking on the Public Health function.

It was one of the many things the Coalition got wrong - the need to get the public finances under control after the catastrophe of the Brown years was understandable but too much time was spent on easy targets and "quick wins" rather than taking a long hard look at where public money needed to be spent in the present and future.

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/1013485894341406721

Perhaps they programmed the bots to be uninterested in football?

DecrepitJohnL said:

williamglenn said:

NickPalmer said:

Before 1944 the anthem was the Internationale, which in most countries, except Britain with the Red Flag, is the anthem of most left-wing parties, e.g. the French Socialists.

Did history begin with the revolution?

NickPalmer said:

If yoiu play the Russian anthem in the Ukraine, they can send you to prison for 5 years. Similar restrictions apply in the Baltic States.

You mean the Soviet anthem.

Didn't Putin change the Russian anthem back to the Soviet one?

Same tune but different lyrics. The Soviet one is all about the party of Lenin, etc.

Musically it's one of the very best anthems.

Why does Eddie Marsan continue to produce these facepalm takes?

https://twitter.com/eddiemarsan/status/1013471474349428737?s=21

stodge said:

Afternoon all

if you had told me a fortnight ago neither Spain nor Portugal would be in the last eight, I would not have believed you. Their opening Group match was sublime and perhaps both sides left their hearts and souls on that field as neither side has performed since.

Jingoistic nonsense notwithstanding, I'm sure both Spain and Portugal will be contenders in Euro 2020.

On topic, a superb piece from Dr Foxy, for which many thanks. I note the transfer of the public health function from the NHS to councils under the Coalition (a terrible move) - the former had a degree of spending protection, the latter did not and the public health function has suffered cuts along with other local council services.

I regard health information and health education as critical - getting good health habits into individuals and families from an early age is vital. This needs to be expanded across all communication and media - I am appalled by celebrity chefs throwing vast quantities of salt into food. Cutting salt intake is recognised as a factor in improving health.

Health is not just the NHS (in reality a National Sickness Service) but a function of how we live and how we work. Better work life balance, working smarter rather than longer, less stressful commuting and travelling to work - all would improve general public health.

To take a more Thatcherite viewpoint - where is the self-responsibility and where is the corporate responsibility ? Forcing pubs and clubs to fund A&E care on Friday and Saturday nights might help on a number of levels but while binge drinking might not be the scourge it was attitudes to drug taking and the impact of such drugs on behaviours and actions are part of the overall debate on personal responsibility vs individual freedom and the role of the State in protecting not only ourselves but others and the national finances as a whole.

Fully agree with your sentiments. I think the responsibility of families to care for elderly relatives is a topic that will become more salient. People nowadays dont live as close to their parents as they used to, but maybe that needs to change...

rkrkrk said:

Nice thread header. Tax deductible savings accounts will only ever be a very small part of the picture i think. Even in Singapore i think they are something like 10% of THE. I'm wary of expanding the amount of tax free savings when we already have such generous ISA allowances.

I think drug prices are an area that can be squeezed a bit. I think the current medical trials model is skewed towards expensive innovations and misses some things that could save money. But overall i think its normal that as a society ages, and becomes wealthier, that we would spend more money on health. We don't have to be scared of that.

I agree with your last point. Surely better to spend an increasing proportion of our wealth on health than on more 'stuff' that we don't really need?

Philip_Thompson said:

Bromptonaut said:

It’s a Scooby Doo Brexit.

“If only those pesky Irish” etc.

Yes precisely.

The EU's phase one guidelines were issued under Kenny. There was continuity in Ireland's Brexit policy.

Hi Foxy...you do not mention technology....hospital admissions can be reduced to acute episodes..most operations can be done remotely etc...., and primary care can be managed by apps ands self monitoring....and that is before you factor in simple diagnostic testing that will be done on blood tests at home for most conditions....

the health system is on the cusp of doing so much more, and better and many, many times cheaper...and without the need for people to stay in acute care and without the need to pay for loads of expensive staff who are obsessed in their later years about where to invest their pension pots....

stodge said:

rkrkrk said:

Fully agree with your sentiments. I think the responsibility of families to care for elderly relatives is a topic that will become more salient. People nowadays dont live as close to their parents as they used to, but maybe that needs to change...

It's a difficult one - the care of people with dementia is of a very different level to "ordinary" residential care.

Norman Tebbit famously encouraged people to "get on their bikes and look for work". Sometimes the job and career means leaving the family area and going somewhere else. Rising house prices often mean the property owned by siblings cannot accommodate additional people - the old fashioned "granny flat" isn't the option it might have been.

It is much harder for an elderly person to up sticks and re-locate to a strange part of the country and lose relationships, friendships and networks.

It comes back to some quite fundamental questions about the kind of people we want to be and the kind of society we want to live in.

Alternatively, more and more youngsters stay living with their parents. There'll come a point when I say my parents live with me, not the other way round.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/1013485894341406721

Yeah, I'm mailing this from my dacha overlooking my troll farm outside the spa town of Novosunilsk

Does it have a good train service?

Bromptonaut said:

If that’s the case do you think the U.K. Government should have foreseen this problem would arise and should have had a solution to it before triggering Article 50?

No. Considering the Irish were working with us to avoid problems it seems reasonable to think they would continue to do so.

I do think once the Irish dug their heels in and cut off co-operation we should have done the same until they came back to the table. We should at that point have begun preparing in earnest for no deal, which would almost certainly have meant that rational co-operation would have resumed.

Instead we've portrayed ourselves as so weak we may as well say to the EU and the Taoiseach "what do you want us to sign?" Which of course is what some here want.

JosiasJessop said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

So why are we proceeding with HS2 (which is also over budget) but not proceeding with the Pennine project not a "Sod Everyone Else' approach?

Look one moment you say you wish to honour the manifesto, and then you say you want to break it by scrapping HS2. Make your mind up.

And again I repeat: the two projects are different. HS2 is a new railway line, and experience with HS1 and Crossrail are generally positive. In addition, saying HS2 is 'over budget' at the moment - and on the basis of those links you gave - is rather silly. It's still early days. ISTR similar was said about Crossrail early doors.

The electrification schemes are massive updates to existing, operating railways, and the track record of these schemes - including ones currently ongoing - is very poor.

I don't want the electrification schemes to be cancelled; they're needed. However I cannot see how they can be continued until Network Rail sorts out the delivery of such schemes. And sadly we cannot wait forever for that to happen, as new stock needs ordering, and we need to know whether it will be diesel, bi-mode or electric.

It's all a bloody mess. But you don't have an answer.

So if building a new line is the better option, then build a new transpennine link. Which I think is what was originally proposed back in 2014 ?

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Bromptonaut said:

If that’s the case do you think the U.K. Government should have foreseen this problem would arise and should have had a solution to it before triggering Article 50?

No. Considering the Irish were working with us to avoid problems it seems reasonable to think they would continue to do so.

I do think once the Irish dug their heels in and cut off co-operation we should have done the same until they came back to the table. We should at that point have begun preparing in earnest for no deal, which would almost certainly have meant that rational co-operation would have resumed.

Instead we've portrayed ourselves as so weak we may as well say to the EU and the Taoiseach "what do you want us to sign?" Which of course is what some here want.

All Ireland did was call time on the nonsense being peddled by DExEU and the Legatum institute about drones, Zeppelins and blockchain. Kenny would have done the same.

Kenny did not so the same.

Our position should have been we want free trade and will cooperate to facilitate it but if you refuse to cooperate our fall back is WTO.

Den v Cro looks like it might go to penalties...

Sandpit said:

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Bromptonaut said:

If that’s the case do you think the U.K. Government should have foreseen this problem would arise and should have had a solution to it before triggering Article 50?

No. Considering the Irish were working with us to avoid problems it seems reasonable to think they would continue to do so.

I do think once the Irish dug their heels in and cut off co-operation we should have done the same until they came back to the table. We should at that point have begun preparing in earnest for no deal, which would almost certainly have meant that rational co-operation would have resumed.

Instead we've portrayed ourselves as so weak we may as well say to the EU and the Taoiseach "what do you want us to sign?" Which of course is what some here want.

All Ireland did was call time on the nonsense being peddled by DExEU and the Legatum institute about drones, Zeppelins and blockchain. Kenny would have done the same.

Kenny did not so the same.

Our position should have been we want free trade and will cooperate to facilitate it but if you refuse to cooperate our fall back is WTO.

Only because Kenny left office, but there is a very solid consensus in Irish politics about this.

If you meant the first part in good faith you'd have no problem signing up to the backstop because it would be superseded by your super-duper trade agreement.

The UK has been trying to get the EU to talk about a trade agreement for two years so far...

Blame David Davis, he's the idiot that signed up to this sequencing of talks.

williamglenn said:

Sandpit said:

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Bromptonaut said:

If that’s the case do you think the U.K. Government should have foreseen this problem would arise and should have had a solution to it before triggering Article 50?

No. Considering the Irish were working with us to avoid problems it seems reasonable to think they would continue to do so.

I do think once the Irish dug their heels in and cut off co-operation we should have done the same until they came back to the table. We should at that point have begun preparing in earnest for no deal, which would almost certainly have meant that rational co-operation would have resumed.

Instead we've portrayed ourselves as so weak we may as well say to the EU and the Taoiseach "what do you want us to sign?" Which of course is what some here want.

All Ireland did was call time on the nonsense being peddled by DExEU and the Legatum institute about drones, Zeppelins and blockchain. Kenny would have done the same.

Kenny did not so the same.

Our position should have been we want free trade and will cooperate to facilitate it but if you refuse to cooperate our fall back is WTO.

Only because Kenny left office, but there is a very solid consensus in Irish politics about this.

If you meant the first part in good faith you'd have no problem signing up to the backstop because it would be superseded by your super-duper trade agreement.

The UK has been trying to get the EU to talk about a trade agreement for two years so far...

Until the UK knows where its customs borders are there's nothing to talk about.

The UK's customs borders are at the UK's borders unless a deal is agreed. Next question?

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sandpit said:

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Bromptonaut said:

If that’s the case do you think the U.K. Government should have foreseen this problem would arise and should have had a solution to it before triggering Article 50?

No. Considering the Irish were working with us to avoid problems it seems reasonable to think they would continue to do so.

I do think once the Irish dug their heels in and cut off co-operation we should have done the same until they came back to the table. We should at that point have begun preparing in earnest for no deal, which would almost certainly have meant that rational co-operation would have resumed.

Instead we've portrayed ourselves as so weak we may as well say to the EU and the Taoiseach "what do you want us to sign?" Which of course is what some here want.

All Ireland did was call time on the nonsense being peddled by DExEU and the Legatum institute about drones, Zeppelins and blockchain. Kenny would have done the same.

Kenny did not so the same.

Our position should have been we want free trade and will cooperate to facilitate it but if you refuse to cooperate our fall back is WTO.

Only because Kenny left office, but there is a very solid consensus in Irish politics about this.

If you meant the first part in good faith you'd have no problem signing up to the backstop because it would be superseded by your super-duper trade agreement.

The UK has been trying to get the EU to talk about a trade agreement for two years so far...

Blame David Davis, he's the idiot that signed up to this sequencing of talks.

Which was all fine until Barnier changed the December agreement to say that the UK had agreed to the EU annexing Northern Ireland.

williamglenn said:

Sandpit said:

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Bromptonaut said:

If that’s the case do you think the U.K. Government should have foreseen this problem would arise and should have had a solution to it before triggering Article 50?

No. Considering the Irish were working with us to avoid problems it seems reasonable to think they would continue to do so.

I do think once the Irish dug their heels in and cut off co-operation we should have done the same until they came back to the table. We should at that point have begun preparing in earnest for no deal, which would almost certainly have meant that rational co-operation would have resumed.

Instead we've portrayed ourselves as so weak we may as well say to the EU and the Taoiseach "what do you want us to sign?" Which of course is what some here want.

All Ireland did was call time on the nonsense being peddled by DExEU and the Legatum institute about drones, Zeppelins and blockchain. Kenny would have done the same.

Kenny did not so the same.

Our position should have been we want free trade and will cooperate to facilitate it but if you refuse to cooperate our fall back is WTO.

Only because Kenny left office, but there is a very solid consensus in Irish politics about this.

If you meant the first part in good faith you'd have no problem signing up to the backstop because it would be superseded by your super-duper trade agreement.

The UK has been trying to get the EU to talk about a trade agreement for two years so far...

Until the UK knows where its customs borders are there's nothing to talk about.

Why would the UK’s borders not be around the UK?

tlg86 said:

stodge said:

rkrkrk said:

Fully agree with your sentiments. I think the responsibility of families to care for elderly relatives is a topic that will become more salient. People nowadays dont live as close to their parents as they used to, but maybe that needs to change...

It's a difficult one - the care of people with dementia is of a very different level to "ordinary" residential care.

Norman Tebbit famously encouraged people to "get on their bikes and look for work". Sometimes the job and career means leaving the family area and going somewhere else. Rising house prices often mean the property owned by siblings cannot accommodate additional people - the old fashioned "granny flat" isn't the option it might have been.

It is much harder for an elderly person to up sticks and re-locate to a strange part of the country and lose relationships, friendships and networks.

It comes back to some quite fundamental questions about the kind of people we want to be and the kind of society we want to live in.

Alternatively, more and more youngsters stay living with their parents. There'll come a point when I say my parents live with me, not the other way round.

Agreed, simply not affordable or practical for many people who may well live on the other side of the world from their relatives. In any case there are some potentially perverse outcomes - eg should the children of abusive parents be forced to pay for their care? What about those who have been estranged and have spoken in decades?

Sandpit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sandpit said:

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Bromptonaut said:

If that’s the case do you think the U.K. Government should have foreseen this problem would arise and should have had a solution to it before triggering Article 50?

No. Considering the Irish were working with us to avoid problems it seems reasonable to think they would continue to do so.

I do think once the Irish dug their heels in and cut off co-operation we should have done the same until they came back to the table. We should at that point have begun preparing in earnest for no deal, which would almost certainly have meant that rational co-operation would have resumed.

Instead we've portrayed ourselves as so weak we may as well say to the EU and the Taoiseach "what do you want us to sign?" Which of course is what some here want.

All Ireland did was call time on the nonsense being peddled by DExEU and the Legatum institute about drones, Zeppelins and blockchain. Kenny would have done the same.

Kenny did not so the same.

Our position should have been we want free trade and will cooperate to facilitate it but if you refuse to cooperate our fall back is WTO.

Only because Kenny left office, but there is a very solid consensus in Irish politics about this.

If you meant the first part in good faith you'd have no problem signing up to the backstop because it would be superseded by your super-duper trade agreement.

The UK has been trying to get the EU to talk about a trade agreement for two years so far...

Blame David Davis, he's the idiot that signed up to this sequencing of talks.

Which was all fine until Barnier changed the December agreement to say that the UK had agreed to the EU annexing Northern Ireland.

As soon as he did that the UK government should have said that a line was crossed and we were now looking at WTO in earnest until the EU is willing to talk trade.

tlg86 said:

Alternatively, more and more youngsters stay living with their parents. There'll come a point when I say my parents live with me, not the other way round.

It's been the historical norm in much of Europe for centuries - influenced by the Russian side of my family, I kept my parents with me throughout their lives. It evolved - when I was in my late 20s, my dad said it had become like having a younger brother, which I took as a compliment. The last year of my mum's life was tricky because I'd recently been elected in Nottingham and she was largely bedridden in London and only willing to get daily personal care from me. I got to know the M1 really well; constituents accepted that I'd dash off after meetings.

That was a bit extreme, but I've few regrets and I think it's not a bad model to have multi-generations in reach of each other. It often gives grandparents in particular a new lease of life. The idea that if the kids don't leave home by 20 there's a problem is too generalised.

Philip_Thompson said:

Sandpit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sandpit said:

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Bromptonaut said:

If that’s the case do you think the U.K. Government should have foreseen this problem would arise and should have had a solution to it before triggering Article 50?

No. Considering the Irish were working with us to avoid problems it seems reasonable to think they would continue to do so.

I do think once the Irish dug their heels in and cut off co-operation we should have done the same until they came back to the table. We should at that point have begun preparing in earnest for no deal, which would almost certainly have meant that rational co-operation would have resumed.

Instead we've portrayed ourselves as so weak we may as well say to the EU and the Taoiseach "what do you want us to sign?" Which of course is what some here want.

All Ireland did was call time on the nonsense being peddled by DExEU and the Legatum institute about drones, Zeppelins and blockchain. Kenny would have done the same.

Kenny did not so the same.

Our position should have been we want free trade and will cooperate to facilitate it but if you refuse to cooperate our fall back is WTO.

Only because Kenny left office, but there is a very solid consensus in Irish politics about this.

If you meant the first part in good faith you'd have no problem signing up to the backstop because it would be superseded by your super-duper trade agreement.

The UK has been trying to get the EU to talk about a trade agreement for two years so far...

Blame David Davis, he's the idiot that signed up to this sequencing of talks.

Which was all fine until Barnier changed the December agreement to say that the UK had agreed to the EU annexing Northern Ireland.

As soon as he did that the UK government should have said that a line was crossed and we were now looking at WTO in earnest until the EU is willing to talk trade.

The problem is that a line wasn't crossed. The EU's draft is a minimalist interpretation of paragraph 49. The commitment in paragraph 50 is an internal UK matter.

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Sandpit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sandpit said:

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Bromptonaut said:

If that’s the case do you think the U.K. Government should have foreseen this problem would arise and should have had a solution to it before triggering Article 50?

No. Considering the Irish were working with us to avoid problems it seems reasonable to think they would continue to do so.

I do think once the Irish dug their heels in and cut off co-operation we should have done the same until they came back to the table. We should at that point have begun preparing in earnest for no deal, which would almost certainly have meant that rational co-operation would have resumed.

Instead we've portrayed ourselves as so weak we may as well say to the EU and the Taoiseach "what do you want us to sign?" Which of course is what some here want.

All Ireland did was call time on the nonsense being peddled by DExEU and the Legatum institute about drones, Zeppelins and blockchain. Kenny would have done the same.

Kenny did not so the same.

Our position should have been we want free trade and will cooperate to facilitate it but if you refuse to cooperate our fall back is WTO.

Only because Kenny left office, but there is a very solid consensus in Irish politics about this.

If you meant the first part in good faith you'd have no problem signing up to the backstop because it would be superseded by your super-duper trade agreement.

The UK has been trying to get the EU to talk about a trade agreement for two years so far...

Blame David Davis, he's the idiot that signed up to this sequencing of talks.

Which was all fine until Barnier changed the December agreement to say that the UK had agreed to the EU annexing Northern Ireland.

As soon as he did that the UK government should have said that a line was crossed and we were now looking at WTO in earnest until the EU is willing to talk trade.

The problem is that a line wasn't crossed. The EU's draft is a minimalist interpretation of paragraph 49. The commitment in paragraph 50 is an internal UK matter.

No its not, article 49 explicitly says the fallback applies to the UK, then Barnier said that it can't apply to the UK in contravention of what article 49 says.

Secondly article 50 is something the EU signed up to not the UK alone. Without article 50 there is no article 49, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

Sandpit said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Sandpit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sandpit said:

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Bromptonaut said:

If that’s the case do you think the U.K. Government should have foreseen this problem would arise and should have had a solution to it before triggering Article 50?

No. Considering the Irish were working with us to avoid problems it seems reasonable to think they would continue to do so.

I do think once the Irish dug their heels in and cut off co-operation we should have done the same until they came back to the table. We should at that point have begun preparing in earnest for no deal, which would almost certainly have meant that rational co-operation would have resumed.

Instead we've portrayed ourselves as so weak we may as well say to the EU and the Taoiseach "what do you want us to sign?" Which of course is what some here want.

All Ireland did was call time on the nonsense being peddled by DExEU and the Legatum institute about drones, Zeppelins and blockchain. Kenny would have done the same.

Kenny did not so the same.

Our position should have been we want free trade and will cooperate to facilitate it but if you refuse to cooperate our fall back is WTO.

Only because Kenny left office, but there is a very solid consensus in Irish politics about this.

If you meant the first part in good faith you'd have no problem signing up to the backstop because it would be superseded by your super-duper trade agreement.

The UK has been trying to get the EU to talk about a trade agreement for two years so far...

Blame David Davis, he's the idiot that signed up to this sequencing of talks.

Which was all fine until Barnier changed the December agreement to say that the UK had agreed to the EU annexing Northern Ireland.

As soon as he did that the UK government should have said that a line was crossed and we were now looking at WTO in earnest until the EU is willing to talk trade.

My suggestion now is that the government announces it’s spending £1bn a week on no-deal preparations, to be taken from the £39bn, until a deal is agreed.

Reasonable. £39bn in 9 months can pay for a lot of no deal preparations.

We should also say that without a deal we will slash our corporation tax rates well below those in Ireland in case anyone like Google wants to relocate to the UK.

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

No its not, article 49 explicitly says the fallback applies to the UK, then Barnier said that it can't apply to the EU in contravention of what article 49 says.

Secondly article 50 is something the EU signed up to not the UK alone. Without article 50 there is no article 49, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

Paragraph 49 is specifically about North -South cooperation and the UK government is the competent authority - that's why it talks about the UK. Refer back to paragraph 46 which says that the principles are specific to the unique circumstance on the island of Ireland.

The principles are specific to Ireland but that does not mean it applies to Ireland alone. Afterall Barnier isn't seeking it to apply to the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland alone, he wants it to apply to the EU and Northern Ireland as he views the Republic of Ireland and the EU as indivisible. Well Northern Ireland and the UK are indivisible just the same and nothing in 46-50 contradicts that.