If Starmer goes Reeves is by far the best alternative – politicalbetting.com

TOPPING said:

Foxy said:

IanB2 said:

TOPPING said:

IanB2 said:

TOPPING said:

Heathener said:

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

Meanwhile, an American perspective, which is obviously because of Brexit…

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-09-24/inflation-and-supply-shortages-mean-a-return-of-empty-shelves-and-panic-buying

”Walk around a supermarket in the U.S. or Europe and you will see some empty shelves once more. This isn’t due to people panic-buying toilet paper, as they did early on in the pandemic; rather it’s because supply chains are clogged at almost every stage between Asian factories and grocery stock rooms.

“But rising prices and patchy availability mean it’s only a matter of time before shoppers start purchasing in bulk again — this time to avoid future sticker shock.

“Supply lines are struggling as producers such as Vietnam, responsible for making everything from sneakers to coffee, are hurt by Covid restrictions. Surging virus cases and consumer demand are leading to congested ports. Shipping containers are in the wrong place. Sea freight costs are up tenfold. If goods do arrive at the destined ports, there are too few truck drivers to transport them to retailers. Shortages of workers to harvest and prepare foods are also adding to the pressures.”

Now, I know I'm in a posh part of LA, but I haven't seen any shortages... yet.

Today I filled up my (@Dura_Ace approved) car with petrol, without problems.

My gut - and it's just a gut - is that there is a post Covid demand boom, that is causing supply crunches everywhere. But it's most acute in the UK, simply because Covid hit almost immediately following Brexit. It meant that those who could drive could earn great money in less stressful food delivery jobs, and the normal steady flow people through training was disrupted.

And you know what, that's OK.

No-one is going to starve. Things will adjust. The cost of trucking stuff around will probably increase. And yes, that will have an impact on the price we pay for things.

That post was fine until you got to the 'it's ok' bit.

No it isn't. If you lived here you'd realise that it really, really, isn't. We have horrendous multiple crises going on in the UK at the moment. You may not be a fan of the NHS, for instance, but the situation is absolutely dire. I know several people who have had cancer diagnoses missed during the past 18 months and are now in real trouble. Try getting a face to face appointment with a GP and it's nigh-impossible.

And there are people who ARE on the bread line, especially with the cut in universal credit.

I could go on but please don't post aloof messages from sunny LA trying to tell us it's all fine. That's as bad as the Metropolitan Elite Remainers who never, ever, got the issue in the ghost towns of the north and east of England.

Great post.

On one of your points, a friend of mine found a lump in her breast. Phoned the GP - I have a lump in my chest. GP - we need an online triage with the doctor. My friend - what the **** will an online triage with the doctor do? Will he say oh well that's fine? GP - them's the rules.

So she had the online meeting and was duly summoned in to see the doctor in person two hours later.

What a monumental waste of resources. Cui Bono?

tbf I think that online consultations are now widely available is one of the upsides to come out of the pandemic, and have potential to save both patients and the NHS considerable amounts of time. My checkup for a stomach condition usually consists of a trip to Southampton (car, bus, boat, bus, walk, bus, walk) and a scheduled 20-minute appointment that basically consists of "how are things going?", "OK", "let us know if anything changes", ends, with ten more minutes of talking around the houses since a physical appointment where you get shown the door after five minutes is psychologically difficult. Similarly people are getting seen for routine matters quickly online and GPs are able to give out speedy advice without having the sniffling patient sitting in their office.

The problems are elsewhere - the load of covid patients on hospitals, the reduction in capacity due to all the precautions, the huge backlog, the cancellation of many less critical procedures, and, in a few cases, inability to meet serious demands such as the recently reported cancelled chemo treatment sessions.

Depends. A mate who is a GP said that turning off whatever the system was of instant messaging to the surgery at the weekend saved them hours as a non-trivial % of people who did so "got better" before Monday.

But then there is blanket application of the rules. Certain conditions - and finding a lump in your breast is certainly one of them - are wholly inappropriate for online consultations.

Oh and the last person I knew who had breast cancer (which I hope it is not for this friend) was the brother of a friend of mine.

Yes but by your own anecdote the time and money wasted is minimal and the patient got seen quickly anyway.

Indeed as an urgent priority! Which is the purpose of triage.

It was the third appointment she had including the description of her symptoms to the receptionist.

Is that really the most efficient way?

swing_voter said:

RochdalePioneers said:

IanB2 said:

FF43 said:

swing_voter said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

turbotubbs said:

Heathener said:

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

Meanwhile, an American perspective, which is obviously because of Brexit…

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-09-24/inflation-and-supply-shortages-mean-a-return-of-empty-shelves-and-panic-buying

”Walk around a supermarket in the U.S. or Europe and you will see some empty shelves once more. This isn’t due to people panic-buying toilet paper, as they did early on in the pandemic; rather it’s because supply chains are clogged at almost every stage between Asian factories and grocery stock rooms.

“But rising prices and patchy availability mean it’s only a matter of time before shoppers start purchasing in bulk again — this time to avoid future sticker shock.

“Supply lines are struggling as producers such as Vietnam, responsible for making everything from sneakers to coffee, are hurt by Covid restrictions. Surging virus cases and consumer demand are leading to congested ports. Shipping containers are in the wrong place. Sea freight costs are up tenfold. If goods do arrive at the destined ports, there are too few truck drivers to transport them to retailers. Shortages of workers to harvest and prepare foods are also adding to the pressures.”

Now, I know I'm in a posh part of LA, but I haven't seen any shortages... yet.

Today I filled up my (@Dura_Ace approved) car with petrol, without problems.

My gut - and it's just a gut - is that there is a post Covid demand boom, that is causing supply crunches everywhere. But it's most acute in the UK, simply because Covid hit almost immediately following Brexit. It meant that those who could drive could earn great money in less stressful food delivery jobs, and the normal steady flow people through training was disrupted.

And you know what, that's OK.

No-one is going to starve. Things will adjust. The cost of trucking stuff around will probably increase. And yes, that will have an impact on the price we pay for things.

That post was fine until you got to the 'it's ok' bit.

No it isn't. If you lived here you'd realise that it really, really, isn't. We have horrendous multiple crises going on in the UK at the moment. You may not be a fan of the NHS, for instance, but the situation is absolutely dire. I know several people who have had cancer diagnoses missed during the past 18 months and are now in real trouble. Try getting a face to face appointment with a GP and it's nigh-impossible.

And there are people who ARE on the bread line, especially with the cut in universal credit.

I could go on but please don't post aloof messages from sunny LA trying to tell us it's all fine. That's as bad as the Metropolitan Elite Remainers who never, ever, got the issue in the ghost towns of the north and east of England.

I think you go a bit far - we have some enormous challenges ahead, but we always do. The NHS has had winter crisis for as long as I can remember. There will never be enough money, time, medics to do all that could be done.
I'd suggest you look elsewhere. We are not uniquely struggling. Things will improve. My guess is the fuel 'crisis' will be over by the weekend.

They don't seem to be struggling quite as much as we are. In terms of loss of life expectancy, Covid has hit the UK harder than many countries, and nowhere else has has people queuing for petrol. European supermarket shelves aren't as empty as ours, either. Pasta, chopped tomatoes and kidney beans almost all gone on my last shoping trip.

BREXIT has really put us in a bad place.

Brexit is an unserious project lead by unserious people, which is the big issue we have right now. They start out by claiming shortages are a feature, not a bug, of Brexit, because they drive up wages. Then they deny that shortages actually exist, because no-one wants to do without important stuff. Or, if they can't deny it, they claim everyone else also had shortages. Finally they blame everyone else for the consequences of their own decisions; companies, the media, Remainers, the EU.

(Which is not to say a serious Brexit wasn't possible in another universe, but that Brexit wouldn't have won the referendum or subsequent election)

We should have started closely aligned (SM & CU), and diverged slowly over many years (as appropriate and once someone had worked out what we wanted to do), as many argued at the time, including myself.

We have tried to achieve a sharp break and will probably now find ourselves forced to realign slowly.

We haven't even done that. There has been no "sharp break" in reality, only in practice. Our standards remain their standards. Their practices remain our practices. We could remove the artificial barriers we have imposed very easily and very quickly.

now that would make an interesting Labour Party conference resolution..........

Taz said:

Heathener said:

Casino_Royale said:

My two-year is very fluid. She identifies as a dinosaur, cat, fox, train and a car - all inside the space of a few minutes.

Can we please stop belittling gender fluidity on this site? The gammon dismissal of a serious issue with complexity and nuance is pretty revolting and off-putting. It demeans this place as a forum of polite and gentle intellectual debate.

If I say it's offensive you'll accuse me of being woke but yes it is offensive.

Perhaps you’d have more moral higher ground if you didn’t use puerile, offensive terms like gammon. A term recently deemed offensive by Ofcom, among others, or is that an acceptable term as it’s an acceptable prejudice ?

Casino_Royale said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Dura_Ace said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

and amazingly by 70%/30% reject AUKUS

The Labour left have been proven right about every major foreign policy issue of the past 30 years so maybe we should listen to them.

I really don't like the left wing of the Labour Party, but this post is right on the money. They've certainly been right more than they've been wrong.

The Labour Left wouldn't have intervened in Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone or Afghanistan to target Al Qaeda, would have pulled us out of NATO and made large cuts in the defence budget. They wouldn't have stopped genocide, Somali pirates, or challenged Russian aggression. It's more likely we'd be living in a more dangerous world, not a safer one. Foreign policy is full of complicated choices that do not present easy answers and not intervening can be as dangerous as intervening.

I suspect this is cited for two reasons - Iraq and Palestine - and whilst the wisdom of Western policy on those two issues can be debated a reflexive antipathy against any form of military intervention and a policy of instinctive pacifism simply gifts the field to the most unpleasant actors with the strongest motivation to do harm.

TOPPING said:

MaxPB said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

MaxPB said:

DavidL said:

RochdalePioneers said:

DavidL said:

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

MattW said:

Morning all.

I see that SKS is being unexcoriated by his far left for not keeping a promise on a "£15 per hour" minimum wage.

Where was this promise?

And does setting a minimum wage at about 40% (rough number) of Median Wage work?

You know, if it is ever going to work it would be now when the labour market is incredibly tight and the supply of labour is more restricted than it was. Employers would need to focus on getting more out of their more expensive staff, even if it involved training them.

I think that you need to be very careful with policies such as the NMW so as not to overdo it and cause unnecessary unemployment but you should also take advantage of situations such as we have right now. Doing so will transfer more of the burden of financing the low paid from in work benefits to where it belongs, on those that employ them. It is an opportunity to reduce inequality and reduce government spending. I am not sure about £15 but an increase substantially beyond inflation and well over £10 makes sense.

Thankfully the market is doing a good job at the moment, of lifting many people above the minimum wage without needing any government intervention.

True, But I read on here that labour shortages are a bad thing. Or something.

They are a bad thing. Do you think the current pay rises to cover labour shortages will last once the labour pool rebalances?

If you want a sustained rise in pay and conditions you need a balanced labour market. Otherwise it is far too easy to reverse once alternate labour is available.

Actually yes, I do. Firstly wages are sticky downwards as economists say and secondly the ending of free movement means that the pool of labour is more fixed than it has been for the last 20 years. We will still need to import people with skills we lack (including, shamefully, stealing nurses and doctors from poorer countries) but the mass importation of labour we have seen in recent years destroying any bargaining power for the low paid is over. Thank god for that.

There will be disruptions and dislocations as a result, we have been very hooked on cheap labour, but over time this will prove to be a very positive policy for the UK driving training, productivity and a reduction in inequality.

We're going to look a lot more like Switzerland in terms of its walled off labour market. That means significant wage hikes at the bottom and companies having to invest in training and productivity gains to increase output per employee. Where that isn't possible prices will go up. It will end up being the most redistributive policy this nation has seen from older rich people to the younger working poor.

We're more likely to be replacing the young working poor with young unemployed poor once this has played out.

There's a million job vacancies in the UK and that number is going up for both skilled and unskilled labour. For years we've been papering over the cracks in our labour market with imported cheap workers. Now we can't.

I can't wait for our end state of being like Switzerland and paying £10 for a decaf Americano from starbux.

TOPPING said:

Foxy said:

TOPPING said:

MaxPB said:

TOPPING said:

Heathener said:

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

Meanwhile, an American perspective, which is obviously because of Brexit…

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-09-24/inflation-and-supply-shortages-mean-a-return-of-empty-shelves-and-panic-buying

”Walk around a supermarket in the U.S. or Europe and you will see some empty shelves once more. This isn’t due to people panic-buying toilet paper, as they did early on in the pandemic; rather it’s because supply chains are clogged at almost every stage between Asian factories and grocery stock rooms.

“But rising prices and patchy availability mean it’s only a matter of time before shoppers start purchasing in bulk again — this time to avoid future sticker shock.

“Supply lines are struggling as producers such as Vietnam, responsible for making everything from sneakers to coffee, are hurt by Covid restrictions. Surging virus cases and consumer demand are leading to congested ports. Shipping containers are in the wrong place. Sea freight costs are up tenfold. If goods do arrive at the destined ports, there are too few truck drivers to transport them to retailers. Shortages of workers to harvest and prepare foods are also adding to the pressures.”

Now, I know I'm in a posh part of LA, but I haven't seen any shortages... yet.

Today I filled up my (@Dura_Ace approved) car with petrol, without problems.

My gut - and it's just a gut - is that there is a post Covid demand boom, that is causing supply crunches everywhere. But it's most acute in the UK, simply because Covid hit almost immediately following Brexit. It meant that those who could drive could earn great money in less stressful food delivery jobs, and the normal steady flow people through training was disrupted.

And you know what, that's OK.

No-one is going to starve. Things will adjust. The cost of trucking stuff around will probably increase. And yes, that will have an impact on the price we pay for things.

That post was fine until you got to the 'it's ok' bit.

No it isn't. If you lived here you'd realise that it really, really, isn't. We have horrendous multiple crises going on in the UK at the moment. You may not be a fan of the NHS, for instance, but the situation is absolutely dire. I know several people who have had cancer diagnoses missed during the past 18 months and are now in real trouble. Try getting a face to face appointment with a GP and it's nigh-impossible.

And there are people who ARE on the bread line, especially with the cut in universal credit.

I could go on but please don't post aloof messages from sunny LA trying to tell us it's all fine. That's as bad as the Metropolitan Elite Remainers who never, ever, got the issue in the ghost towns of the north and east of England.

Great post.

On one of your points, a friend of mine found a lump in her breast. Phoned the GP - I have a lump in my chest. GP - we need an online triage with the doctor. My friend - what the **** will an online triage with the doctor do? Will he say oh well that's fine? GP - them's the rules.

So she had the online meeting and was duly summoned in to see the doctor in person two hours later.

What a monumental waste of resources. Cui Bono?

Hold on, the GPs have made these rules for themselves and have been resisting DoH forcing them to turn back the clock to all in person appointments. GPs are the worst. It's time to get rid of the concept of a GP surgery.

Please don't get me started on GPs or the NHS.

I have previously been in a consultation with a GP where they and I together googled my symptoms* as they had no idea what to make of them.

*nothing crazy - my pupils were different sizes following a fall.

Basic neuro-anatomy and cranial nerve examination.

Bur I am not surprised, I have often found medical students at finals incapable of this basic examination and interpretation of findings.

Is it just that there's always some out of the way non-typical condition that GPs might not have come across or is it something more fundamental in the training?

Alistair said:

The vague mood music I got from reading about the rail franchise thing that wasn't explicitly stated was that this was possibly systematic by the Franchise group and that all their financial dealings with the government are now suspect and will be re audited.

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

MaxPB said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

MaxPB said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Casino_Royale said:

My two-year is very fluid. She identifies as a dinosaur, cat, fox, train and a car - all inside the space of a few minutes.

Love it!

Until a few months ago my five year old was saying that when she grows up she wants to be a butterfly.

You need to get her on butterfly hormone therapy. Just teach her to say they key words and the tavistock will hand them over!

You know this stuff is very unbecoming of you. I expected better of both you and @Philip_Thompson.

You should read our debate last night if you want to see what a rational and respectful debate on trans issues looks like.

Trans issues are serious but that's no reason to not have a sense of humour.

There’s no joke here - its just blatant undermining and belittlement. Remember @MaxPB happily describes transwomen as “men in dresses”.

You say someone with a cock and bollocks can be a woman. It's ridiculous.

There’s no need to be rude.

How was that rude in comparison to you saying we were unbecoming, undermining and belittling because of talking about butterflies and young children. You threw the first stone.

I most certainly did not. I’m calling out outright bigotry and abuse and you’re hiding behind “oh it was just a joke”.

Saying that my five year old wanted to be a butterfly is outright bigotry and abuse?

Take a break. You need to get some perspective.

Nope. I’ve said all I have to say on the matter anyway. You knew exactly what you were doing and I expected better. That’s all.

Yes I had a light hearted exchange with another father on this site.

Then you chose to make it ugly.

Nope. You’re the one who hid belittlement behind a “joke”. You can play innocent all you want.

Foxy said:

TOPPING said:

Foxy said:

IanB2 said:

TOPPING said:

IanB2 said:

TOPPING said:

Heathener said:

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

Meanwhile, an American perspective, which is obviously because of Brexit…

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-09-24/inflation-and-supply-shortages-mean-a-return-of-empty-shelves-and-panic-buying

”Walk around a supermarket in the U.S. or Europe and you will see some empty shelves once more. This isn’t due to people panic-buying toilet paper, as they did early on in the pandemic; rather it’s because supply chains are clogged at almost every stage between Asian factories and grocery stock rooms.

“But rising prices and patchy availability mean it’s only a matter of time before shoppers start purchasing in bulk again — this time to avoid future sticker shock.

“Supply lines are struggling as producers such as Vietnam, responsible for making everything from sneakers to coffee, are hurt by Covid restrictions. Surging virus cases and consumer demand are leading to congested ports. Shipping containers are in the wrong place. Sea freight costs are up tenfold. If goods do arrive at the destined ports, there are too few truck drivers to transport them to retailers. Shortages of workers to harvest and prepare foods are also adding to the pressures.”

Now, I know I'm in a posh part of LA, but I haven't seen any shortages... yet.

Today I filled up my (@Dura_Ace approved) car with petrol, without problems.

My gut - and it's just a gut - is that there is a post Covid demand boom, that is causing supply crunches everywhere. But it's most acute in the UK, simply because Covid hit almost immediately following Brexit. It meant that those who could drive could earn great money in less stressful food delivery jobs, and the normal steady flow people through training was disrupted.

And you know what, that's OK.

No-one is going to starve. Things will adjust. The cost of trucking stuff around will probably increase. And yes, that will have an impact on the price we pay for things.

That post was fine until you got to the 'it's ok' bit.

No it isn't. If you lived here you'd realise that it really, really, isn't. We have horrendous multiple crises going on in the UK at the moment. You may not be a fan of the NHS, for instance, but the situation is absolutely dire. I know several people who have had cancer diagnoses missed during the past 18 months and are now in real trouble. Try getting a face to face appointment with a GP and it's nigh-impossible.

And there are people who ARE on the bread line, especially with the cut in universal credit.

I could go on but please don't post aloof messages from sunny LA trying to tell us it's all fine. That's as bad as the Metropolitan Elite Remainers who never, ever, got the issue in the ghost towns of the north and east of England.

Great post.

On one of your points, a friend of mine found a lump in her breast. Phoned the GP - I have a lump in my chest. GP - we need an online triage with the doctor. My friend - what the **** will an online triage with the doctor do? Will he say oh well that's fine? GP - them's the rules.

So she had the online meeting and was duly summoned in to see the doctor in person two hours later.

What a monumental waste of resources. Cui Bono?

tbf I think that online consultations are now widely available is one of the upsides to come out of the pandemic, and have potential to save both patients and the NHS considerable amounts of time. My checkup for a stomach condition usually consists of a trip to Southampton (car, bus, boat, bus, walk, bus, walk) and a scheduled 20-minute appointment that basically consists of "how are things going?", "OK", "let us know if anything changes", ends, with ten more minutes of talking around the houses since a physical appointment where you get shown the door after five minutes is psychologically difficult. Similarly people are getting seen for routine matters quickly online and GPs are able to give out speedy advice without having the sniffling patient sitting in their office.

The problems are elsewhere - the load of covid patients on hospitals, the reduction in capacity due to all the precautions, the huge backlog, the cancellation of many less critical procedures, and, in a few cases, inability to meet serious demands such as the recently reported cancelled chemo treatment sessions.

Depends. A mate who is a GP said that turning off whatever the system was of instant messaging to the surgery at the weekend saved them hours as a non-trivial % of people who did so "got better" before Monday.

But then there is blanket application of the rules. Certain conditions - and finding a lump in your breast is certainly one of them - are wholly inappropriate for online consultations.

Oh and the last person I knew who had breast cancer (which I hope it is not for this friend) was the brother of a friend of mine.

Yes but by your own anecdote the time and money wasted is minimal and the patient got seen quickly anyway.

Indeed as an urgent priority! Which is the purpose of triage.

It was the third appointment she had including the description of her symptoms to the receptionist.

Is that really the most efficient way?

Initial contact, triage by a trained clinician, face to face review within hours?

Yes, sounds pretty efficient to me, particularly for a system under massive strain.

There are examples of bad practice, but this is not one.

IanB2 said:

The "temporary" pre-Xmas extra visa programme is going to get extended, probably several times, and possibly expanded, isn't it?

rottenborough said:

John Rentoul
@JohnRentoul
Could
@AndyMcDonaldMP
or anyone explain why minimum wage should be £15, higher than current median wage, £13.68?

Foxy said:

TOPPING said:

Foxy said:

TOPPING said:

MaxPB said:

TOPPING said:

Heathener said:

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

Meanwhile, an American perspective, which is obviously because of Brexit…

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-09-24/inflation-and-supply-shortages-mean-a-return-of-empty-shelves-and-panic-buying

”Walk around a supermarket in the U.S. or Europe and you will see some empty shelves once more. This isn’t due to people panic-buying toilet paper, as they did early on in the pandemic; rather it’s because supply chains are clogged at almost every stage between Asian factories and grocery stock rooms.

“But rising prices and patchy availability mean it’s only a matter of time before shoppers start purchasing in bulk again — this time to avoid future sticker shock.

“Supply lines are struggling as producers such as Vietnam, responsible for making everything from sneakers to coffee, are hurt by Covid restrictions. Surging virus cases and consumer demand are leading to congested ports. Shipping containers are in the wrong place. Sea freight costs are up tenfold. If goods do arrive at the destined ports, there are too few truck drivers to transport them to retailers. Shortages of workers to harvest and prepare foods are also adding to the pressures.”

Now, I know I'm in a posh part of LA, but I haven't seen any shortages... yet.

Today I filled up my (@Dura_Ace approved) car with petrol, without problems.

My gut - and it's just a gut - is that there is a post Covid demand boom, that is causing supply crunches everywhere. But it's most acute in the UK, simply because Covid hit almost immediately following Brexit. It meant that those who could drive could earn great money in less stressful food delivery jobs, and the normal steady flow people through training was disrupted.

And you know what, that's OK.

No-one is going to starve. Things will adjust. The cost of trucking stuff around will probably increase. And yes, that will have an impact on the price we pay for things.

That post was fine until you got to the 'it's ok' bit.

No it isn't. If you lived here you'd realise that it really, really, isn't. We have horrendous multiple crises going on in the UK at the moment. You may not be a fan of the NHS, for instance, but the situation is absolutely dire. I know several people who have had cancer diagnoses missed during the past 18 months and are now in real trouble. Try getting a face to face appointment with a GP and it's nigh-impossible.

And there are people who ARE on the bread line, especially with the cut in universal credit.

I could go on but please don't post aloof messages from sunny LA trying to tell us it's all fine. That's as bad as the Metropolitan Elite Remainers who never, ever, got the issue in the ghost towns of the north and east of England.

Great post.

On one of your points, a friend of mine found a lump in her breast. Phoned the GP - I have a lump in my chest. GP - we need an online triage with the doctor. My friend - what the **** will an online triage with the doctor do? Will he say oh well that's fine? GP - them's the rules.

So she had the online meeting and was duly summoned in to see the doctor in person two hours later.

What a monumental waste of resources. Cui Bono?

Hold on, the GPs have made these rules for themselves and have been resisting DoH forcing them to turn back the clock to all in person appointments. GPs are the worst. It's time to get rid of the concept of a GP surgery.

Please don't get me started on GPs or the NHS.

I have previously been in a consultation with a GP where they and I together googled my symptoms* as they had no idea what to make of them.

*nothing crazy - my pupils were different sizes following a fall.

Basic neuro-anatomy and cranial nerve examination.

Bur I am not surprised, I have often found medical students at finals incapable of this basic examination and interpretation of findings.

Is it just that there's always some out of the way non-typical condition that GPs might not have come across or is it something more fundamental in the training?

Cranial nerve examination (which includes examination of the pupils) is just about the first thing I was taught as a 3rd year medical student on the wards, based on the neuro-anatomy taught in the pre-clinical years.

There has been a shift in educationalist thinking away from knowing facts to knowing where to find facts, and this is a medical example of that. I would argue differently, that this is a core body of knowledge for a doctor that enables understanding and identification of disease.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Casino_Royale said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Dura_Ace said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

and amazingly by 70%/30% reject AUKUS

The Labour left have been proven right about every major foreign policy issue of the past 30 years so maybe we should listen to them.

I really don't like the left wing of the Labour Party, but this post is right on the money. They've certainly been right more than they've been wrong.

The Labour Left wouldn't have intervened in Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone or Afghanistan to target Al Qaeda, would have pulled us out of NATO and made large cuts in the defence budget. They wouldn't have stopped genocide, Somali pirates, or challenged Russian aggression. It's more likely we'd be living in a more dangerous world, not a safer one. Foreign policy is full of complicated choices that do not present easy answers and not intervening can be as dangerous as intervening.

I suspect this is cited for two reasons - Iraq and Palestine - and whilst the wisdom of Western policy on those two issues can be debated a reflexive antipathy against any form of military intervention and a policy of instinctive pacifism simply gifts the field to the most unpleasant actors with the strongest motivation to do harm.

They've certainly been wrong sometimes. Personally, I don't think that the UK's foreign and defence policy choices have made either us or the world at large safer. The two big British wars of our lifetime, Iraq and Afghanistan, were unmitigated disasters. And what have we gained from cosying up to autocratic regimes in the Gulf? And if you're talking about defence cuts, I think you will find that the Tories have presided over far bigger cuts to military spending than Labour has. Down £10bn since 2010...

Dura_Ace said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

swing_voter said:

"They demand nationalising energy as Starmer says no, they promote a £10 minimum wage only for Starmer to be photographed at a demonstration demanding £15, Starmer comes down against Rosie Duffield on the trans issue, and amazingly by 70%/30% reject AUKUS"....

AUKUS should be rejected - hatched in secrecy with a fairly hard right Australian government, a deal that is unsupported by Asia's friendly nations, its potentially in breach of the NPT (as is the UK increase in nuclear warheads) and has maanged to sour relations with one of our closest partners in Europe... there's nothing to celebrate about AUKUS unless you own shares in a few defence companies or work in a specific shipyard...

I do not accept that

AUKUS has been welcomed across the Trans-Pacific and is addressing China's threats to those in the region

France lost a contract so what, that happens in defence contracts regularly

There is no reason why France and UK cannot work together on joint security and the defence of Europe

I watched a very interesting US Navy War College lecture on AUKUS which raised some points I hadn't considered.

1. It's all very vague but the only certainty is that the US 100% knows the boats will be built in the US and that Australia 100% knows that they will be built in Australia.
2. The DoD believes that the power asymmetry between the US and Australia is so great that the US will be able to bully (that's the exact word the presenter used) Australian politicians down to a very low level of local content in a way that the French couldn't.
3. The really aggrieved party (apart from the French) is India. They have repeatedly asked for access to US SSN technology for the past 15 years and repeatedly been told to fuck off. The Indians may now approach the French for Barracuda and the French may be inclined to say haan/oui.
4. Virginia isn't a serious option due to cost. Astute isn't a serious option due to lack of British industrial capability and the fact that the PWR2 reactor is now out of production. The fastest an Astute has ever been built is 9 years. GEDB built the much more complex USS New Hampshire in 18 months.
5. It'll probably be a new class of SSN but nobody really knows. The program is being run by the US Navy Office of Naval Reactors with a schedule of starting construction no earlier than 2030 with the first boat commissioned no earlier than 2040.

That's what you missed in this week's submarinebetting.com

TheWhiteRabbit said:

TOPPING said:

But there was only ever going to be one outcome of the online GP session: come in.

Could that not have been identified at the first engagement?

You operate a triage for everyone, and not everyone is going to be triaged straight to GP. Lots of people require a different sort of advice.

Casino_Royale said:

And, if you were here that long ago, I cancelled my Tory membership in 2010 over the defence cuts. I only re-joined after the 2015 GE when that started to be reversed, and I'm still not very happy about it.

noneoftheabove said:

rottenborough said:

John Rentoul
@JohnRentoul
Could
@AndyMcDonaldMP
or anyone explain why minimum wage should be £15, higher than current median wage, £13.68?

If it was £15 pretty confident that they would say it is too low and should be £20, with anyone thinking differently right wing scum. They are stuck in the battles of the 1980s.

noneoftheabove said:

rottenborough said:

John Rentoul
@JohnRentoul
Could
@AndyMcDonaldMP
or anyone explain why minimum wage should be £15, higher than current median wage, £13.68?

If it was £15 pretty confident that they would say it is too low and should be £20, with anyone thinking differently right wing scum. They are stuck in the battles of the 1980s.

Stocky said:

TOPPING said:

MaxPB said:

TOPPING said:

Heathener said:

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

Meanwhile, an American perspective, which is obviously because of Brexit…

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-09-24/inflation-and-supply-shortages-mean-a-return-of-empty-shelves-and-panic-buying

”Walk around a supermarket in the U.S. or Europe and you will see some empty shelves once more. This isn’t due to people panic-buying toilet paper, as they did early on in the pandemic; rather it’s because supply chains are clogged at almost every stage between Asian factories and grocery stock rooms.

“But rising prices and patchy availability mean it’s only a matter of time before shoppers start purchasing in bulk again — this time to avoid future sticker shock.

“Supply lines are struggling as producers such as Vietnam, responsible for making everything from sneakers to coffee, are hurt by Covid restrictions. Surging virus cases and consumer demand are leading to congested ports. Shipping containers are in the wrong place. Sea freight costs are up tenfold. If goods do arrive at the destined ports, there are too few truck drivers to transport them to retailers. Shortages of workers to harvest and prepare foods are also adding to the pressures.”

Now, I know I'm in a posh part of LA, but I haven't seen any shortages... yet.

Today I filled up my (@Dura_Ace approved) car with petrol, without problems.

My gut - and it's just a gut - is that there is a post Covid demand boom, that is causing supply crunches everywhere. But it's most acute in the UK, simply because Covid hit almost immediately following Brexit. It meant that those who could drive could earn great money in less stressful food delivery jobs, and the normal steady flow people through training was disrupted.

And you know what, that's OK.

No-one is going to starve. Things will adjust. The cost of trucking stuff around will probably increase. And yes, that will have an impact on the price we pay for things.

That post was fine until you got to the 'it's ok' bit.

No it isn't. If you lived here you'd realise that it really, really, isn't. We have horrendous multiple crises going on in the UK at the moment. You may not be a fan of the NHS, for instance, but the situation is absolutely dire. I know several people who have had cancer diagnoses missed during the past 18 months and are now in real trouble. Try getting a face to face appointment with a GP and it's nigh-impossible.

And there are people who ARE on the bread line, especially with the cut in universal credit.

I could go on but please don't post aloof messages from sunny LA trying to tell us it's all fine. That's as bad as the Metropolitan Elite Remainers who never, ever, got the issue in the ghost towns of the north and east of England.

Great post.

On one of your points, a friend of mine found a lump in her breast. Phoned the GP - I have a lump in my chest. GP - we need an online triage with the doctor. My friend - what the **** will an online triage with the doctor do? Will he say oh well that's fine? GP - them's the rules.

So she had the online meeting and was duly summoned in to see the doctor in person two hours later.

What a monumental waste of resources. Cui Bono?

Hold on, the GPs have made these rules for themselves and have been resisting DoH forcing them to turn back the clock to all in person appointments. GPs are the worst. It's time to get rid of the concept of a GP surgery.

Please don't get me started on GPs or the NHS.

I have previously been in a consultation with a GP where they and I together googled my symptoms* as they had no idea what to make of them.

*nothing crazy - my pupils were different sizes following a fall.

Not sure I like this site becoming one to air one's own medical issues but I'll join in anyway!

Turns out that a CT Scan reveals my stomach bulge on one side/ below belly button isn't, as previously thought, a Spigelian hernia. GP and specialist seem at a loss as to what it is because CT scan shows I'm tickety-boo down there.

I came straight out with it and said "Is it cancer". The specialist looked at me puzzled as to why I though I had cancer. I said, lamely, because it's a bulge. He said "if a cancerous bulge presented like that you'd have been dead weeks ago." I am a medical mystery it seems.

JosiasJessop said:

Alistair said:

The vague mood music I got from reading about the rail franchise thing that wasn't explicitly stated was that this was possibly systematic by the Franchise group and that all their financial dealings with the government are now suspect and will be re audited.

Any business or organisation should do that, surely? Even if you think it's a genuine mistake, you'd check all dealings to ensure the mistake hadn't been replicated to your detriment?

But in other news, I see Patisserie Valerie's auditor has been fined £2.3 million over that scandal. Reinforcing my (perhaps incorrect) view that the large accountancy firms are fairly cr@p.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58671915

Casino_Royale said:

Nigelb said:

Heathener said:

Casino_Royale said:

My two-year is very fluid. She identifies as a dinosaur, cat, fox, train and a car - all inside the space of a few minutes.

Can we please stop belittling gender fluidity on this site? The gammon dismissal of a serious issue with complexity and nuance is pretty revolting and off-putting. It demeans this place as a forum of polite and gentle intellectual debate.

If I say it's offensive you'll accuse me of being woke but yes it is offensive.

Trans jokes seem to be about where gay jokes were back in the 1980s.
Not the greatest place to be.

I'd turn that around: I'd say that's precisely why people are assuming this issue is exactly the same and not engaging their brains. They know how the gay rights issue turned out, and are desperate not to be on the wrong side of history this time, so conflate the two as identical and paint anyone who has reservations on aspects of it as reactionary hoping that the (relatively short) passage of time will vindicate them.

So, they get to be at the leading edge of progress, whilst condemning others who can't see it at the same time, thereby doubling-up their virtue.

Feels good doesn't it?

Except, it's not that simple. Every issue is different and in this one there are complexities and nuances to be taken into account where rights conflict. There are absurdities to it that some seem feel very uncomfortable in even recognising yet alone challenging (and, yes, that's where the humour comes in) and they prefer this reductionist and judgemental black & white approach instead.

Well, I say no to that. I am all for greater compassion for those with gender dysmorphia and those who struggle with their identity. I am also aware that without any form of nuance and boundary to self-identification this could impinge on the rights and identities of others, and I am also very cognisant of the lunacy of rebadging the fundamental realities of biology, and I won't be bullied, intimidated or shamed into saying anything different.

None of this applied to gay rights, where the debate was focussed on the morality of the act itself, its affect on the institution of marriage and how it might affect children, and I'd think less of anyone who simplistically conflated the two in order to avoid the inconvenient hard work of debating the complexities of this one.

Pulpstar said:

Stocky said:

Children 12-15 are only getting one dose of Pfiser. I've just discovered that 16- 17 3/4 year olds are also only getting one dose (previously it was assumed two).

Does this mean that children will not get a vaccine certificate? If so they will therefore be classed
as unvaccinated by other nations for purposes of international travel. The French rules, which are typical, are below:

"The French Government recognises the following vaccines: Pfizer, Moderna, Oxford/AstraZeneca, and Johnson & Johnson (the vaccines recognised by the European Medical Agency). “Fully vaccinated” is defined by the completion of a vaccination schedule, specifically:

1 week after the second dose of Pfizer, Moderna, Oxford/AstraZeneca"

Is anyone in the know about this? I've not seen this issue reported anywhere. If the government has overlooked this (surely not) then it is going to cause issues and will dissuade some children from getting vaccinated in the first place because it takes away the big plus of being classed as vaccinated for international travel.

One dose is probably enough for most under 18s immunologically, but it is a deviation from the manufacturer's recommendations which unlike the 12 week gap definitely won't improve efficacy this time.
Other nations can mandate as they like tbh.

related/unrelate - My colleague reports the covid/mask rules in Turkey were very strict.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Casino_Royale said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Casino_Royale said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Dura_Ace said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

and amazingly by 70%/30% reject AUKUS

The Labour left have been proven right about every major foreign policy issue of the past 30 years so maybe we should listen to them.

I really don't like the left wing of the Labour Party, but this post is right on the money. They've certainly been right more than they've been wrong.

The Labour Left wouldn't have intervened in Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone or Afghanistan to target Al Qaeda, would have pulled us out of NATO and made large cuts in the defence budget. They wouldn't have stopped genocide, Somali pirates, or challenged Russian aggression. It's more likely we'd be living in a more dangerous world, not a safer one. Foreign policy is full of complicated choices that do not present easy answers and not intervening can be as dangerous as intervening.

I suspect this is cited for two reasons - Iraq and Palestine - and whilst the wisdom of Western policy on those two issues can be debated a reflexive antipathy against any form of military intervention and a policy of instinctive pacifism simply gifts the field to the most unpleasant actors with the strongest motivation to do harm.

They've certainly been wrong sometimes. Personally, I don't think that the UK's foreign and defence policy choices have made either us or the world at large safer. The two big British wars of our lifetime, Iraq and Afghanistan, were unmitigated disasters. And what have we gained from cosying up to autocratic regimes in the Gulf? And if you're talking about defence cuts, I think you will find that the Tories have presided over far bigger cuts to military spending than Labour has. Down £10bn since 2010...

Afghanistan 1 (in 2001) was the right choice, but we should have gone in with lots of special forces to route out Al Quaeda of there and everywhere else subsequently - supporting Afghanistan to nation build.

I think most of us regret Iraq now, particularly since it took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan 1 and led to the unsuccessful Afghanistan 2.

However, I think in Kosovo and Sierra Leone we were successful, and Bosnia is now peaceful. Also, NATO has thrown up a shield around the Baltic States which Russia would otherwise have already nibbled off - just as they've done in Ukraine and Georgia - had they not joined NATO and the EU.

And, if you were here that long ago, I cancelled my Tory membership in 2010 over the defence cuts. I only re-joined after the 2015 GE when that started to be reversed, and I'm still not very happy about it.

I don't think we're that far apart on this. I don't like the left wing of the Labour Party that much as I indicated above, and I certainly don't think they are right about everything, but I think that some of their instincts are good - eg scepticism about getting entangled in US adventurism, arguing that cosying up to nasty autocratic regimes doesn't work, paying more attention to civilian casualties - and on the big calls, Iraq especially, they were bang on the money. I think there was a theoretical case for intervention in Afghanistan in 2001 but in reality it was never going to work.

Casino_Royale said:

Nigelb said:

Heathener said:

Casino_Royale said:

My two-year is very fluid. She identifies as a dinosaur, cat, fox, train and a car - all inside the space of a few minutes.

Can we please stop belittling gender fluidity on this site? The gammon dismissal of a serious issue with complexity and nuance is pretty revolting and off-putting. It demeans this place as a forum of polite and gentle intellectual debate.

If I say it's offensive you'll accuse me of being woke but yes it is offensive.

Trans jokes seem to be about where gay jokes were back in the 1980s.
Not the greatest place to be.

I'd turn that around: I'd say that's precisely why people are assuming this issue is exactly the same and not engaging their brains. They know how the gay rights issue turned out, and are desperate not to be on the wrong side of history this time, so conflate the two as identical and paint anyone who has reservations on aspects of it as reactionary hoping that the (relatively short) passage of time will vindicate them.

So, they get to be at the leading edge of progress, whilst condemning others who can't see it at the same time, thereby doubling-up their virtue.

Feels good doesn't it?

Except, it's not that simple. Every issue is different and in this one there are complexities and nuances to be taken into account where rights conflict. There are absurdities to it that some seem feel very uncomfortable in even recognising yet alone challenging (and, yes, that's where the humour comes in) and they prefer this reductionist and judgemental black & white approach instead.

Well, I say no to that. I am all for greater compassion for those with gender dysmorphia and those who struggle with their identity. I am also aware that without any form of nuance and boundary to self-identification this could impinge on the rights and identities of others, and I am also very cognisant of the lunacy of rebadging the fundamental realities of biology, and I won't be bullied, intimidated or shamed into saying anything different.

None of this applied to gay rights, where the debate was focussed on the morality of the act itself, its affect on the institution of marriage and how it might affect children, and I'd think less of anyone who simplistically conflated the two in order to avoid the inconvenient hard work of debating the complexities of this one.

Nigelb said:

Casino_Royale said:

Nigelb said:

Heathener said:

Casino_Royale said:

My two-year is very fluid. She identifies as a dinosaur, cat, fox, train and a car - all inside the space of a few minutes.

Can we please stop belittling gender fluidity on this site? The gammon dismissal of a serious issue with complexity and nuance is pretty revolting and off-putting. It demeans this place as a forum of polite and gentle intellectual debate.

If I say it's offensive you'll accuse me of being woke but yes it is offensive.

Trans jokes seem to be about where gay jokes were back in the 1980s.
Not the greatest place to be.

I'd turn that around: I'd say that's precisely why people are assuming this issue is exactly the same and not engaging their brains. They know how the gay rights issue turned out, and are desperate not to be on the wrong side of history this time, so conflate the two as identical and paint anyone who has reservations on aspects of it as reactionary hoping that the (relatively short) passage of time will vindicate them.

So, they get to be at the leading edge of progress, whilst condemning others who can't see it at the same time, thereby doubling-up their virtue.

Feels good doesn't it?

Except, it's not that simple. Every issue is different and in this one there are complexities and nuances to be taken into account where rights conflict. There are absurdities to it that some seem feel very uncomfortable in even recognising yet alone challenging (and, yes, that's where the humour comes in) and they prefer this reductionist and judgemental black & white approach instead.

Well, I say no to that. I am all for greater compassion for those with gender dysmorphia and those who struggle with their identity. I am also aware that without any form of nuance and boundary to self-identification this could impinge on the rights and identities of others, and I am also very cognisant of the lunacy of rebadging the fundamental realities of biology, and I won't be bullied, intimidated or shamed into saying anything different.

None of this applied to gay rights, where the debate was focussed on the morality of the act itself, its affect on the institution of marriage and how it might affect children, and I'd think less of anyone who simplistically conflated the two in order to avoid the inconvenient hard work of debating the complexities of this one.

Which is a slightly odd response to my point, which was about dismissive jokes.
"I am all for greater compassion", particularly.

Casino_Royale said:

Dura_Ace said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

swing_voter said:

"They demand nationalising energy as Starmer says no, they promote a £10 minimum wage only for Starmer to be photographed at a demonstration demanding £15, Starmer comes down against Rosie Duffield on the trans issue, and amazingly by 70%/30% reject AUKUS"....

AUKUS should be rejected - hatched in secrecy with a fairly hard right Australian government, a deal that is unsupported by Asia's friendly nations, its potentially in breach of the NPT (as is the UK increase in nuclear warheads) and has maanged to sour relations with one of our closest partners in Europe... there's nothing to celebrate about AUKUS unless you own shares in a few defence companies or work in a specific shipyard...

I do not accept that

AUKUS has been welcomed across the Trans-Pacific and is addressing China's threats to those in the region

France lost a contract so what, that happens in defence contracts regularly

There is no reason why France and UK cannot work together on joint security and the defence of Europe

I watched a very interesting US Navy War College lecture on AUKUS which raised some points I hadn't considered.

1. It's all very vague but the only certainty is that the US 100% knows the boats will be built in the US and that Australia 100% knows that they will be built in Australia.
2. The DoD believes that the power asymmetry between the US and Australia is so great that the US will be able to bully (that's the exact word the presenter used) Australian politicians down to a very low level of local content in a way that the French couldn't.
3. The really aggrieved party (apart from the French) is India. They have repeatedly asked for access to US SSN technology for the past 15 years and repeatedly been told to fuck off. The Indians may now approach the French for Barracuda and the French may be inclined to say haan/oui.
4. Virginia isn't a serious option due to cost. Astute isn't a serious option due to lack of British industrial capability and the fact that the PWR2 reactor is now out of production. The fastest an Astute has ever been built is 9 years. GEDB built the much more complex USS New Hampshire in 18 months.
5. It'll probably be a new class of SSN but nobody really knows. The program is being run by the US Navy Office of Naval Reactors with a schedule of starting construction no earlier than 2030 with the first boat commissioned no earlier than 2040.

That's what you missed in this week's submarinebetting.com

Do you have a link to this lecture please?

Philip_Thompson said:

Malmesbury said:

Pulpstar said:

Stocky said:

Children 12-15 are only getting one dose of Pfiser. I've just discovered that 16- 17 3/4 year olds are also only getting one dose (previously it was assumed two).

Does this mean that children will not get a vaccine certificate? If so they will therefore be classed
as unvaccinated by other nations for purposes of international travel. The French rules, which are typical, are below:

"The French Government recognises the following vaccines: Pfizer, Moderna, Oxford/AstraZeneca, and Johnson & Johnson (the vaccines recognised by the European Medical Agency). “Fully vaccinated” is defined by the completion of a vaccination schedule, specifically:

1 week after the second dose of Pfizer, Moderna, Oxford/AstraZeneca"

Is anyone in the know about this? I've not seen this issue reported anywhere. If the government has overlooked this (surely not) then it is going to cause issues and will dissuade some children from getting vaccinated in the first place because it takes away the big plus of being classed as vaccinated for international travel.

One dose is probably enough for most under 18s immunologically, but it is a deviation from the manufacturer's recommendations which unlike the 12 week gap definitely won't improve efficacy this time.
Other nations can mandate as they like tbh.

related/unrelate - My colleague reports the covid/mask rules in Turkey were very strict.

Funky fact -

Children being vaccinated because they live with someone who is clinically vulnerable are being offered 2 shots.

I can easily imagine some clipboardista saying "Well, if you come from a country where children are vaccinated, they need 2 shots. So if they have 1, they are not fully vaccinated".

The issue is attempting to define what being fully vaccinated means.

If the NHS or whoever say someone has completed their vaccination course then that should mean they're fully vaccinated. Whether that be one dose, two or three.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Casino_Royale said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Casino_Royale said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Dura_Ace said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

and amazingly by 70%/30% reject AUKUS

The Labour left have been proven right about every major foreign policy issue of the past 30 years so maybe we should listen to them.

I really don't like the left wing of the Labour Party, but this post is right on the money. They've certainly been right more than they've been wrong.

The Labour Left wouldn't have intervened in Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone or Afghanistan to target Al Qaeda, would have pulled us out of NATO and made large cuts in the defence budget. They wouldn't have stopped genocide, Somali pirates, or challenged Russian aggression. It's more likely we'd be living in a more dangerous world, not a safer one. Foreign policy is full of complicated choices that do not present easy answers and not intervening can be as dangerous as intervening.

I suspect this is cited for two reasons - Iraq and Palestine - and whilst the wisdom of Western policy on those two issues can be debated a reflexive antipathy against any form of military intervention and a policy of instinctive pacifism simply gifts the field to the most unpleasant actors with the strongest motivation to do harm.

They've certainly been wrong sometimes. Personally, I don't think that the UK's foreign and defence policy choices have made either us or the world at large safer. The two big British wars of our lifetime, Iraq and Afghanistan, were unmitigated disasters. And what have we gained from cosying up to autocratic regimes in the Gulf? And if you're talking about defence cuts, I think you will find that the Tories have presided over far bigger cuts to military spending than Labour has. Down £10bn since 2010...

Afghanistan 1 (in 2001) was the right choice, but we should have gone in with lots of special forces to route out Al Quaeda of there and everywhere else subsequently - supporting Afghanistan to nation build.

I think most of us regret Iraq now, particularly since it took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan 1 and led to the unsuccessful Afghanistan 2.

However, I think in Kosovo and Sierra Leone we were successful, and Bosnia is now peaceful. Also, NATO has thrown up a shield around the Baltic States which Russia would otherwise have already nibbled off - just as they've done in Ukraine and Georgia - had they not joined NATO and the EU.

And, if you were here that long ago, I cancelled my Tory membership in 2010 over the defence cuts. I only re-joined after the 2015 GE when that started to be reversed, and I'm still not very happy about it.

I don't think we're that far apart on this. I don't like the left wing of the Labour Party that much as I indicated above, and I certainly don't think they are right about everything, but I think that some of their instincts are good - eg scepticism about getting entangled in US adventurism, arguing that cosying up to nasty autocratic regimes doesn't work, paying more attention to civilian casualties - and on the big calls, Iraq especially, they were bang on the money. I think there was a theoretical case for intervention in Afghanistan in 2001 but in reality it was never going to work.

tlg86 said:

Foxy said:

JosiasJessop said:

Heathener said:

Casino_Royale said:

My two-year is very fluid. She identifies as a dinosaur, cat, fox, train and a car - all inside the space of a few minutes.

Can we please stop belittling gender fluidity on this site? The gammon dismissal of a serious issue with complexity and nuance is pretty revolting and off-putting. It demeans this place as a forum of polite and gentle intellectual debate.

If I say it's offensive you'll accuse me of being woke but yes it is offensive.

I've been keeping out of this recently, as it's so toxic and views will sadly not be changed.

I will jut say this:

I have known a fair few trans people. Two in particular were friends: one pre-transition, one post-transition. I see comments made about trans people on here, especially about how they're somehow a 'danger', and then think of those friends, and the bullying and sh*t they suffered just because they were, in some way, different.

I don't know about others, but I have certainly changed my views over recent years on this as an issue. As indeed I did over gay marriage, and clearly a lot of other people did too.

I am not sure where it all ends up, but some critical appraisal of gender norms, and how society polices those norms is not unwelcome.

Marriage is an entirely human construct. Gender isn't.

What is interesting about the debate is the focus on when a woman is a woman. The much more important question is when is a man a man?

My view is that as long as a person has the male sex organs, they are a man. If they don't have them, then they can identify as they like.

Stocky said:

tlg86 said:

Foxy said:

JosiasJessop said:

Heathener said:

Casino_Royale said:

My two-year is very fluid. She identifies as a dinosaur, cat, fox, train and a car - all inside the space of a few minutes.

Can we please stop belittling gender fluidity on this site? The gammon dismissal of a serious issue with complexity and nuance is pretty revolting and off-putting. It demeans this place as a forum of polite and gentle intellectual debate.

If I say it's offensive you'll accuse me of being woke but yes it is offensive.

I've been keeping out of this recently, as it's so toxic and views will sadly not be changed.

I will jut say this:

I have known a fair few trans people. Two in particular were friends: one pre-transition, one post-transition. I see comments made about trans people on here, especially about how they're somehow a 'danger', and then think of those friends, and the bullying and sh*t they suffered just because they were, in some way, different.

I don't know about others, but I have certainly changed my views over recent years on this as an issue. As indeed I did over gay marriage, and clearly a lot of other people did too.

I am not sure where it all ends up, but some critical appraisal of gender norms, and how society polices those norms is not unwelcome.

Marriage is an entirely human construct. Gender isn't.

What is interesting about the debate is the focus on when a woman is a woman. The much more important question is when is a man a man?

My view is that as long as a person has the male sex organs, they are a man. If they don't have them, then they can identify as they like.

I find that view quite bizarre, unscientific and illogical.

The male reproductive system goes deeper than a cock and balls and vice versa. And of course there is the difference in chromosomes. Telling someone who has changed gender that it doesn't count unless that which is visible is re-fashioned surgically may well encourage that gruesome operation on healthy tissue which they may otherwise have chose not to undergo.

Malmesbury said:

TOPPING said:

Foxy said:

TOPPING said:

Foxy said:

IanB2 said:

TOPPING said:

IanB2 said:

TOPPING said:

Heathener said:

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

Meanwhile, an American perspective, which is obviously because of Brexit…

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-09-24/inflation-and-supply-shortages-mean-a-return-of-empty-shelves-and-panic-buying

”Walk around a supermarket in the U.S. or Europe and you will see some empty shelves once more. This isn’t due to people panic-buying toilet paper, as they did early on in the pandemic; rather it’s because supply chains are clogged at almost every stage between Asian factories and grocery stock rooms.

“But rising prices and patchy availability mean it’s only a matter of time before shoppers start purchasing in bulk again — this time to avoid future sticker shock.

“Supply lines are struggling as producers such as Vietnam, responsible for making everything from sneakers to coffee, are hurt by Covid restrictions. Surging virus cases and consumer demand are leading to congested ports. Shipping containers are in the wrong place. Sea freight costs are up tenfold. If goods do arrive at the destined ports, there are too few truck drivers to transport them to retailers. Shortages of workers to harvest and prepare foods are also adding to the pressures.”

Now, I know I'm in a posh part of LA, but I haven't seen any shortages... yet.

Today I filled up my (@Dura_Ace approved) car with petrol, without problems.

My gut - and it's just a gut - is that there is a post Covid demand boom, that is causing supply crunches everywhere. But it's most acute in the UK, simply because Covid hit almost immediately following Brexit. It meant that those who could drive could earn great money in less stressful food delivery jobs, and the normal steady flow people through training was disrupted.

And you know what, that's OK.

No-one is going to starve. Things will adjust. The cost of trucking stuff around will probably increase. And yes, that will have an impact on the price we pay for things.

That post was fine until you got to the 'it's ok' bit.

No it isn't. If you lived here you'd realise that it really, really, isn't. We have horrendous multiple crises going on in the UK at the moment. You may not be a fan of the NHS, for instance, but the situation is absolutely dire. I know several people who have had cancer diagnoses missed during the past 18 months and are now in real trouble. Try getting a face to face appointment with a GP and it's nigh-impossible.

And there are people who ARE on the bread line, especially with the cut in universal credit.

I could go on but please don't post aloof messages from sunny LA trying to tell us it's all fine. That's as bad as the Metropolitan Elite Remainers who never, ever, got the issue in the ghost towns of the north and east of England.

Great post.

On one of your points, a friend of mine found a lump in her breast. Phoned the GP - I have a lump in my chest. GP - we need an online triage with the doctor. My friend - what the **** will an online triage with the doctor do? Will he say oh well that's fine? GP - them's the rules.

So she had the online meeting and was duly summoned in to see the doctor in person two hours later.

What a monumental waste of resources. Cui Bono?

tbf I think that online consultations are now widely available is one of the upsides to come out of the pandemic, and have potential to save both patients and the NHS considerable amounts of time. My checkup for a stomach condition usually consists of a trip to Southampton (car, bus, boat, bus, walk, bus, walk) and a scheduled 20-minute appointment that basically consists of "how are things going?", "OK", "let us know if anything changes", ends, with ten more minutes of talking around the houses since a physical appointment where you get shown the door after five minutes is psychologically difficult. Similarly people are getting seen for routine matters quickly online and GPs are able to give out speedy advice without having the sniffling patient sitting in their office.

The problems are elsewhere - the load of covid patients on hospitals, the reduction in capacity due to all the precautions, the huge backlog, the cancellation of many less critical procedures, and, in a few cases, inability to meet serious demands such as the recently reported cancelled chemo treatment sessions.

Depends. A mate who is a GP said that turning off whatever the system was of instant messaging to the surgery at the weekend saved them hours as a non-trivial % of people who did so "got better" before Monday.

But then there is blanket application of the rules. Certain conditions - and finding a lump in your breast is certainly one of them - are wholly inappropriate for online consultations.

Oh and the last person I knew who had breast cancer (which I hope it is not for this friend) was the brother of a friend of mine.

Yes but by your own anecdote the time and money wasted is minimal and the patient got seen quickly anyway.

Indeed as an urgent priority! Which is the purpose of triage.

It was the third appointment she had including the description of her symptoms to the receptionist.

Is that really the most efficient way?

Initial contact, triage by a trained clinician, face to face review within hours?

Yes, sounds pretty efficient to me, particularly for a system under massive strain.

There are examples of bad practice, but this is not one.

But there was only ever going to be one outcome of the online GP session: come in.

Could that not have been identified at the first engagement?

A relative has an ongoing medical condition. One of those which is controlled by daily medication, which allows her to lead a normal life. Every so often she needs to see a consultant - to check side effects, dosing etc. The process goes

1) She arranges to have some blood tests with the nurse at the GP's surgery
2) She has to arrange an appointment with the GP - x days in advance, because slots are rare.
3) The GP says hello, and gives her a referral to the consultant, since it is outside her (the GPs) area of expertise
4) The patient arranges the appointment with the consultant.
5) Sees the consultant.

Apparently, the universe would crack if she simply had x monthly appointments with the Consultant booked in.

Her condition is one where there is no "cure" - you are on these medications for life. So, why can't she just have a pre-booked appointment?

RochdalePioneers said:

Good morning fuel hoarders!

Talking about the Labour Party, I'm confused. In the resplendently perfect 2019 manifesto, it was His will that the minimum wage be £10 an hour. So how come a few years later Andy McWazzock quits in protest that its not £15 an hour and gets a cheering ovation from the Trotbune fringe meeting?

Its almost as if the purpose in his flounce was only to try and damage the Labour Party.

Philip_Thompson said:

Stocky said:

tlg86 said:

Foxy said:

JosiasJessop said:

Heathener said:

Casino_Royale said:

My two-year is very fluid. She identifies as a dinosaur, cat, fox, train and a car - all inside the space of a few minutes.

Can we please stop belittling gender fluidity on this site? The gammon dismissal of a serious issue with complexity and nuance is pretty revolting and off-putting. It demeans this place as a forum of polite and gentle intellectual debate.

If I say it's offensive you'll accuse me of being woke but yes it is offensive.

I've been keeping out of this recently, as it's so toxic and views will sadly not be changed.

I will jut say this:

I have known a fair few trans people. Two in particular were friends: one pre-transition, one post-transition. I see comments made about trans people on here, especially about how they're somehow a 'danger', and then think of those friends, and the bullying and sh*t they suffered just because they were, in some way, different.

I don't know about others, but I have certainly changed my views over recent years on this as an issue. As indeed I did over gay marriage, and clearly a lot of other people did too.

I am not sure where it all ends up, but some critical appraisal of gender norms, and how society polices those norms is not unwelcome.

Marriage is an entirely human construct. Gender isn't.

What is interesting about the debate is the focus on when a woman is a woman. The much more important question is when is a man a man?

My view is that as long as a person has the male sex organs, they are a man. If they don't have them, then they can identify as they like.

I find that view quite bizarre, unscientific and illogical.

The male reproductive system goes deeper than a cock and balls and vice versa. And of course there is the difference in chromosomes. Telling someone who has changed gender that it doesn't count unless that which is visible is re-fashioned surgically may well encourage that gruesome operation on healthy tissue which they may otherwise have chose not to undergo.

But if they're not having that operation then how have they changed gender? What have they actually changed?

Nigelb said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

MaxPB said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

MaxPB said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Casino_Royale said:

My two-year is very fluid. She identifies as a dinosaur, cat, fox, train and a car - all inside the space of a few minutes.

Love it!

Until a few months ago my five year old was saying that when she grows up she wants to be a butterfly.

You need to get her on butterfly hormone therapy. Just teach her to say they key words and the tavistock will hand them over!

You know this stuff is very unbecoming of you. I expected better of both you and @Philip_Thompson.

You should read our debate last night if you want to see what a rational and respectful debate on trans issues looks like.

Trans issues are serious but that's no reason to not have a sense of humour.

There’s no joke here - its just blatant undermining and belittlement. Remember @MaxPB happily describes transwomen as “men in dresses”.

You say someone with a cock and bollocks can be a woman. It's ridiculous.

There’s no need to be rude.

How was that rude in comparison to you saying we were unbecoming, undermining and belittling because of talking about butterflies and young children. You threw the first stone.

I most certainly did not. I’m calling out outright bigotry and abuse and you’re hiding behind “oh it was just a joke”.

Saying that my five year old wanted to be a butterfly is outright bigotry and abuse?

Take a break. You need to get some perspective.

Nope. I’ve said all I have to say on the matter anyway. You knew exactly what you were doing and I expected better. That’s all.

Yes I had a light hearted exchange with another father on this site.

Then you chose to make it ugly.

Nope. You’re the one who hid belittlement behind a “joke”. You can play innocent all you want.

Oh get that stick out of your arse! There's no need to go perpetually angry from 0 to 100 all the time.

My daughter wanting to be a butterfly is the truth. She's also at other times wanted to be a Princess, a Space Ranger, and a Mummy when she grows up. And many other things. It was a cute remark and why can't you just let it be cute instead of making it angry?

I try to stay out of the trans debate as much as possible because there's a lot more heat than light there. But if you want a serious opinion then yes children can want to be all sorts of different things when they grow up. Some want to be doctors, or police, or astronauts. Some even want to become politicians - indeed some teenagers even want to be Liberal republican politicians and end up becoming Conservative Foreign Secretary.

The thing is its not set in stone. As people grow up and go from young children, through puberty and then into adulthood they frequently change their mind.

So I think adults that have been through puberty and into adulthood - if they're trans then we should offer them all the help and support they need and can give so long as it doesn't violate safeguarding for women.

That all seems a reasonable compromise to me. Probably won't satisfy extremists on any side, but to me at least all that seems reasonable. But I'd rather not get into toxic discussions.

FWIW, I think it was Max's response, rather than your original post, that set it all off.

"...then we should offer them all the help and support they need and can give.." sounds most reasonable, but is sadly divorced from reality.

Stocky said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Stocky said:

tlg86 said:

Foxy said:

JosiasJessop said:

Heathener said:

Casino_Royale said:

My two-year is very fluid. She identifies as a dinosaur, cat, fox, train and a car - all inside the space of a few minutes.

Can we please stop belittling gender fluidity on this site? The gammon dismissal of a serious issue with complexity and nuance is pretty revolting and off-putting. It demeans this place as a forum of polite and gentle intellectual debate.

If I say it's offensive you'll accuse me of being woke but yes it is offensive.

I've been keeping out of this recently, as it's so toxic and views will sadly not be changed.

I will jut say this:

I have known a fair few trans people. Two in particular were friends: one pre-transition, one post-transition. I see comments made about trans people on here, especially about how they're somehow a 'danger', and then think of those friends, and the bullying and sh*t they suffered just because they were, in some way, different.

I don't know about others, but I have certainly changed my views over recent years on this as an issue. As indeed I did over gay marriage, and clearly a lot of other people did too.

I am not sure where it all ends up, but some critical appraisal of gender norms, and how society polices those norms is not unwelcome.

Marriage is an entirely human construct. Gender isn't.

What is interesting about the debate is the focus on when a woman is a woman. The much more important question is when is a man a man?

My view is that as long as a person has the male sex organs, they are a man. If they don't have them, then they can identify as they like.

I find that view quite bizarre, unscientific and illogical.

The male reproductive system goes deeper than a cock and balls and vice versa. And of course there is the difference in chromosomes. Telling someone who has changed gender that it doesn't count unless that which is visible is re-fashioned surgically may well encourage that gruesome operation on healthy tissue which they may otherwise have chose not to undergo.

But if they're not having that operation then how have they changed gender? What have they actually changed?

They identify as the other gender and have chosen to have this recognised more broadly. Good for them. We have accepted gender as being different from sex long ago.

Foxy said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

FF43 said:

swing_voter said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

turbotubbs said:

Heathener said:

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

Meanwhile, an American perspective, which is obviously because of Brexit…

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-09-24/inflation-and-supply-shortages-mean-a-return-of-empty-shelves-and-panic-buying

”Walk around a supermarket in the U.S. or Europe and you will see some empty shelves once more. This isn’t due to people panic-buying toilet paper, as they did early on in the pandemic; rather it’s because supply chains are clogged at almost every stage between Asian factories and grocery stock rooms.

“But rising prices and patchy availability mean it’s only a matter of time before shoppers start purchasing in bulk again — this time to avoid future sticker shock.

“Supply lines are struggling as producers such as Vietnam, responsible for making everything from sneakers to coffee, are hurt by Covid restrictions. Surging virus cases and consumer demand are leading to congested ports. Shipping containers are in the wrong place. Sea freight costs are up tenfold. If goods do arrive at the destined ports, there are too few truck drivers to transport them to retailers. Shortages of workers to harvest and prepare foods are also adding to the pressures.”

Now, I know I'm in a posh part of LA, but I haven't seen any shortages... yet.

Today I filled up my (@Dura_Ace approved) car with petrol, without problems.

My gut - and it's just a gut - is that there is a post Covid demand boom, that is causing supply crunches everywhere. But it's most acute in the UK, simply because Covid hit almost immediately following Brexit. It meant that those who could drive could earn great money in less stressful food delivery jobs, and the normal steady flow people through training was disrupted.

And you know what, that's OK.

No-one is going to starve. Things will adjust. The cost of trucking stuff around will probably increase. And yes, that will have an impact on the price we pay for things.

That post was fine until you got to the 'it's ok' bit.

No it isn't. If you lived here you'd realise that it really, really, isn't. We have horrendous multiple crises going on in the UK at the moment. You may not be a fan of the NHS, for instance, but the situation is absolutely dire. I know several people who have had cancer diagnoses missed during the past 18 months and are now in real trouble. Try getting a face to face appointment with a GP and it's nigh-impossible.

And there are people who ARE on the bread line, especially with the cut in universal credit.

I could go on but please don't post aloof messages from sunny LA trying to tell us it's all fine. That's as bad as the Metropolitan Elite Remainers who never, ever, got the issue in the ghost towns of the north and east of England.

I think you go a bit far - we have some enormous challenges ahead, but we always do. The NHS has had winter crisis for as long as I can remember. There will never be enough money, time, medics to do all that could be done.
I'd suggest you look elsewhere. We are not uniquely struggling. Things will improve. My guess is the fuel 'crisis' will be over by the weekend.

They don't seem to be struggling quite as much as we are. In terms of loss of life expectancy, Covid has hit the UK harder than many countries, and nowhere else has has people queuing for petrol. European supermarket shelves aren't as empty as ours, either. Pasta, chopped tomatoes and kidney beans almost all gone on my last shoping trip.

BREXIT has really put us in a bad place.

Brexit is an unserious project lead by unserious people, which is the big issue we have right now. They start out by claiming shortages are a feature, not a bug, of Brexit, because they drive up wages. Then they deny that shortages actually exist, because no-one wants to do without important stuff. Or, if they can't deny it, they claim everyone else also had shortages. Finally they blame everyone else for the consequences of their own decisions; companies, the media, Remainers, the EU.

As I have said before time for the lib dems to come out publicly and say they will join the single market and a accept freedom of movement

That would be honest rather than continually bemoaning abour Brexit

You do not like it, so say what you do want openly and honestly to the public

We have done that already:

"The basic thrust of the party’s position is therefore clear: to demonstrate how the version of Brexit that the government has chosen is disastrous for the UK in every respect, and to call for a different relationship in the immediate term – for example, membership of the Single Market"

From: https://www.libdems.org.uk/eu-relationship

Which is quite transparent in that it is seen as a way to convince the UK to Rejoin in the longer term. It was decided at conference that Rejoin would not be in the LD manifesto in the next GE, but rather small steps.

I think that rather open and honest, don't you?

edmundintokyo said:

noneoftheabove said:

rottenborough said:

John Rentoul
@JohnRentoul
Could
@AndyMcDonaldMP
or anyone explain why minimum wage should be £15, higher than current median wage, £13.68?

If it was £15 pretty confident that they would say it is too low and should be £20, with anyone thinking differently right wing scum. They are stuck in the battles of the 1980s.

IDK, I think what's happening is that British political people have a load of American politics in their twitter feed, and Biden who is considered centrist is saying you should get 15 currency units, so Britain also needs to have 15 currency units.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Gallowgate said:

RochdalePioneers said:

How about we don't go round the same trans "debate" again.

Perhaps esteemed posters shouldn't bait with the likes of “my daughter wants to transition to a butterfly hurr durr durr”

I've always been very clear with all my children that whatever identity they choose for themselves, I will love them unconditionally and support their choice in whatever way I can.
Unless they become Tories. Then they're dead to me.

RochdalePioneers said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

FF43 said:

swing_voter said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

turbotubbs said:

Heathener said:

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

Meanwhile, an American perspective, which is obviously because of Brexit…

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-09-24/inflation-and-supply-shortages-mean-a-return-of-empty-shelves-and-panic-buying

”Walk around a supermarket in the U.S. or Europe and you will see some empty shelves once more. This isn’t due to people panic-buying toilet paper, as they did early on in the pandemic; rather it’s because supply chains are clogged at almost every stage between Asian factories and grocery stock rooms.

“But rising prices and patchy availability mean it’s only a matter of time before shoppers start purchasing in bulk again — this time to avoid future sticker shock.

“Supply lines are struggling as producers such as Vietnam, responsible for making everything from sneakers to coffee, are hurt by Covid restrictions. Surging virus cases and consumer demand are leading to congested ports. Shipping containers are in the wrong place. Sea freight costs are up tenfold. If goods do arrive at the destined ports, there are too few truck drivers to transport them to retailers. Shortages of workers to harvest and prepare foods are also adding to the pressures.”

Now, I know I'm in a posh part of LA, but I haven't seen any shortages... yet.

Today I filled up my (@Dura_Ace approved) car with petrol, without problems.

My gut - and it's just a gut - is that there is a post Covid demand boom, that is causing supply crunches everywhere. But it's most acute in the UK, simply because Covid hit almost immediately following Brexit. It meant that those who could drive could earn great money in less stressful food delivery jobs, and the normal steady flow people through training was disrupted.

And you know what, that's OK.

No-one is going to starve. Things will adjust. The cost of trucking stuff around will probably increase. And yes, that will have an impact on the price we pay for things.

That post was fine until you got to the 'it's ok' bit.

No it isn't. If you lived here you'd realise that it really, really, isn't. We have horrendous multiple crises going on in the UK at the moment. You may not be a fan of the NHS, for instance, but the situation is absolutely dire. I know several people who have had cancer diagnoses missed during the past 18 months and are now in real trouble. Try getting a face to face appointment with a GP and it's nigh-impossible.

And there are people who ARE on the bread line, especially with the cut in universal credit.

I could go on but please don't post aloof messages from sunny LA trying to tell us it's all fine. That's as bad as the Metropolitan Elite Remainers who never, ever, got the issue in the ghost towns of the north and east of England.

I think you go a bit far - we have some enormous challenges ahead, but we always do. The NHS has had winter crisis for as long as I can remember. There will never be enough money, time, medics to do all that could be done.
I'd suggest you look elsewhere. We are not uniquely struggling. Things will improve. My guess is the fuel 'crisis' will be over by the weekend.

They don't seem to be struggling quite as much as we are. In terms of loss of life expectancy, Covid has hit the UK harder than many countries, and nowhere else has has people queuing for petrol. European supermarket shelves aren't as empty as ours, either. Pasta, chopped tomatoes and kidney beans almost all gone on my last shoping trip.

BREXIT has really put us in a bad place.

Brexit is an unserious project lead by unserious people, which is the big issue we have right now. They start out by claiming shortages are a feature, not a bug, of Brexit, because they drive up wages. Then they deny that shortages actually exist, because no-one wants to do without important stuff. Or, if they can't deny it, they claim everyone else also had shortages. Finally they blame everyone else for the consequences of their own decisions; companies, the media, Remainers, the EU.

As I have said before time for the lib dems to come out publicly and say they will join the single market and a accept freedom of movement

That would be honest rather than continually bemoaning abour Brexit

You do not like it, so say what you do want openly and honestly to the public

Hang on, what is wrong with "continually bemoaning about Brexit" if the delivery of Brexit is as shit as it is? Do supporters of Brexit want it to work or not?

We passed motions at conference calling for the restoration of FOM, renewed cultural ties, trade deals that work. You can't "join the single market" as that means EEA membership either via the EU or EFTA. We can do a bilateral deal like Switzerland giving us access.

TOPPING said:

Heathener said:

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

Meanwhile, an American perspective, which is obviously because of Brexit…

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-09-24/inflation-and-supply-shortages-mean-a-return-of-empty-shelves-and-panic-buying

”Walk around a supermarket in the U.S. or Europe and you will see some empty shelves once more. This isn’t due to people panic-buying toilet paper, as they did early on in the pandemic; rather it’s because supply chains are clogged at almost every stage between Asian factories and grocery stock rooms.

“But rising prices and patchy availability mean it’s only a matter of time before shoppers start purchasing in bulk again — this time to avoid future sticker shock.

“Supply lines are struggling as producers such as Vietnam, responsible for making everything from sneakers to coffee, are hurt by Covid restrictions. Surging virus cases and consumer demand are leading to congested ports. Shipping containers are in the wrong place. Sea freight costs are up tenfold. If goods do arrive at the destined ports, there are too few truck drivers to transport them to retailers. Shortages of workers to harvest and prepare foods are also adding to the pressures.”

Now, I know I'm in a posh part of LA, but I haven't seen any shortages... yet.

Today I filled up my (@Dura_Ace approved) car with petrol, without problems.

My gut - and it's just a gut - is that there is a post Covid demand boom, that is causing supply crunches everywhere. But it's most acute in the UK, simply because Covid hit almost immediately following Brexit. It meant that those who could drive could earn great money in less stressful food delivery jobs, and the normal steady flow people through training was disrupted.

And you know what, that's OK.

No-one is going to starve. Things will adjust. The cost of trucking stuff around will probably increase. And yes, that will have an impact on the price we pay for things.

That post was fine until you got to the 'it's ok' bit.

No it isn't. If you lived here you'd realise that it really, really, isn't. We have horrendous multiple crises going on in the UK at the moment. You may not be a fan of the NHS, for instance, but the situation is absolutely dire. I know several people who have had cancer diagnoses missed during the past 18 months and are now in real trouble. Try getting a face to face appointment with a GP and it's nigh-impossible.

And there are people who ARE on the bread line, especially with the cut in universal credit.

I could go on but please don't post aloof messages from sunny LA trying to tell us it's all fine. That's as bad as the Metropolitan Elite Remainers who never, ever, got the issue in the ghost towns of the north and east of England.

Great post.

On one of your points, a friend of mine found a lump in her breast. Phoned the GP - I have a lump in my chest. GP - we need an online triage with the doctor. My friend - what the **** will an online triage with the doctor do? Will he say oh well that's fine? GP - them's the rules.

So she had the online meeting and was duly summoned in to see the doctor in person two hours later.

What a monumental waste of resources. Cui Bono?

Charles said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Gallowgate said:

RochdalePioneers said:

How about we don't go round the same trans "debate" again.

Perhaps esteemed posters shouldn't bait with the likes of “my daughter wants to transition to a butterfly hurr durr durr”

I've always been very clear with all my children that whatever identity they choose for themselves, I will love them unconditionally and support their choice in whatever way I can.
Unless they become Tories. Then they're dead to me.

What if they transition to Tories or self-identify as such? Will you still regard them are “really” being Labour?

Foxy said:

Philip_Thompson said:

The thing I don't understand and can't wrap my head around is what people who say someone with a penis is a woman mean by the term "woman"? If you abolish all definitions of what a woman is, then how can other people say they are a woman, what are they saying they are in the first place?

People who are male who wish to become female and so transition - then that I understand. In which case they want to lose the penis and gain a cervix surely - so yes still someone with a penis is not a woman, which is why they're transitioning.

But if someone doesn't wish to transition, then what does it even mean to be a woman?

I just don't understand that, no matter how hard I try, so if someone could explain that, I'd appreciate it.

Gender reassignment surgery is a very long wait, even after a long wait for psychological assessment. Indeed people cannot usually go on the waiting list until they have taken hormones and lived as the new gender for a couple of years. There is the practical issue of how to live as the new gender while having the old genitalia in the meantime. Are people not supposed to go to public places during those years?

If gender surgery was to be a pre-condition of acceptance as the new gender (which I think is the majority opinion in the UK), then access to both gender dysphoria clinics and gender surgery needs to be greatly increased. Given scarce resources in terms of expertise, operating time, and finance, I cannot see that happening.

Taz said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Taz said:

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

MattW said:

Morning all.

I see that SKS is being unexcoriated by his far left for not keeping a promise on a "£15 per hour" minimum wage.

Where was this promise?

And does setting a minimum wage at about 40% (rough number) of Median Wage work?

You know, if it is ever going to work it would be now when the labour market is incredibly tight and the supply of labour is more restricted than it was. Employers would need to focus on getting more out of their more expensive staff, even if it involved training them.

I think that you need to be very careful with policies such as the NMW so as not to overdo it and cause unnecessary unemployment but you should also take advantage of situations such as we have right now. Doing so will transfer more of the burden of financing the low paid from in work benefits to where it belongs, on those that employ them. It is an opportunity to reduce inequality and reduce government spending. I am not sure about £15 but an increase substantially beyond inflation and well over £10 makes sense.

Thankfully the market is doing a good job at the moment, of lifting many people above the minimum wage without needing any government intervention.

True, But I read on here that labour shortages are a bad thing. Or something.

Labour shortages are very obviously a bad thing. If they can be resolved through raising salaries then all well and good. If they can't, then we are in a whole heap of trouble.

The whole retake control thing with brexit should see targeted migration based on need. So if it is not resolved by raising salaries we have the means to allow people access to our labour markets.

Or that is what we are told.

It was what we were told. And yet where we have not just need but a full-blown crisis the government refuses to allow targeted migration. Or even work visas (5k is a drop in the ocean).

Why is that? Surely a "points-based migration scheme" wasn't code for "stop migrants"?

I didn’t think it was but it beggars belief when we have skills gaps or shortages little is being done to fill them gaps.

CarlottaVance said:

Not a lot to say these days re covid hospital stats!

Admissions have been decelerating for 6 weeks now, and falling in real terms for the last 2 weeks.

Occupancy, similarly, now also falling by 10-20% per week (I'll spare you that graph).

https://twitter.com/nicfreeman1209/status/1442568693255479298?s=20

Malmesbury said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Good morning fuel hoarders!

Talking about the Labour Party, I'm confused. In the resplendently perfect 2019 manifesto, it was His will that the minimum wage be £10 an hour. So how come a few years later Andy McWazzock quits in protest that its not £15 an hour and gets a cheering ovation from the Trotbune fringe meeting?

Its almost as if the purpose in his flounce was only to try and damage the Labour Party.

Remember the whole Boris nicked Labour's platform thing? Well, Corbyn's £10 an hour became inadequate when Boris also pledged £10 an hour.

£10 an hour is ToryMinimumWage. So it doesn't count.

Bit like the councillor, a chap I knew encountered, who was deeply suspicious of "Tory jobs" coming to the area.

Malmesbury said:

Charles said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Gallowgate said:

RochdalePioneers said:

How about we don't go round the same trans "debate" again.

Perhaps esteemed posters shouldn't bait with the likes of “my daughter wants to transition to a butterfly hurr durr durr”

I've always been very clear with all my children that whatever identity they choose for themselves, I will love them unconditionally and support their choice in whatever way I can.
Unless they become Tories. Then they're dead to me.

What if they transition to Tories or self-identify as such? Will you still regard them are “really” being Labour?

What if they vote Tory, but chose to self identify as LibDems?

Just because of some physical thing, like a mark on a ballot paper, will you take away their right to self identify? etc etc

Pollyfillia at the Grauniad once wanted to "take over" the Libertarian brand. On the basis that it was a cool name and she thought that it should belong to proper people - who believed in things such as mandatory ID cards.