Why announce it in July - outside of the fuller Budget on 30th Oct?
What was the point?
Just looks like Reeves was talked into it by bean counting and narrow-minded Treasury officials who wanted cuts asap and she thought it would look good to be grappling with the issues and making these "difficult decisions" that Starmer keeps on about.
Politically it is utterly stupid.
Why die on this hill?
If it is a cold winter then Starmer is going to bitterly regret not getting involved in the economic stuff.
If it's a cold winter what difference does it make?
Why announce it in July - outside of the fuller Budget on 30th Oct?
What was the point?
Just looks like Reeves was talked into it by bean counting and narrow-minded Treasury officials who wanted cuts asap and she thought it would look good to be grappling with the issues and making these "difficult decisions" that Starmer keeps on about.
Politically it is utterly stupid.
Why die on this hill?
If it is a cold winter then Starmer is going to bitterly regret not getting involved in the economic stuff.
Putting down a marker, I think. To get people ready for "tough choices".
I think Labour will tough this one out. The cut will stand.
The former vice-president Dick Cheney, a lifelong Republican, will vote for the Democratic nominee, Kamala Harris, in November’s presidential election, he said in a statement on Friday.
“In our nation’s 248-year history, there has never been an individual who is a greater threat to our republic than Donald Trump,” Cheney said of the former president and Republican nominee
The former vice-president Dick Cheney, a lifelong Republican, will vote for the Democratic nominee, Kamala Harris, in November’s presidential election, he said in a statement on Friday.
“In our nation’s 248-year history, there has never been an individual who is a greater threat to our republic than Donald Trump,” Cheney said of the former president and Republican nominee
That's not very helpful to Kamala, who was trying to get away from the fearmongering to paint Trump as just 'weird'.
The former vice-president Dick Cheney, a lifelong Republican, will vote for the Democratic nominee, Kamala Harris, in November’s presidential election, he said in a statement on Friday.
“In our nation’s 248-year history, there has never been an individual who is a greater threat to our republic than Donald Trump,” Cheney said of the former president and Republican nominee
That's not very helpful to Kamala, who was trying to get away from the fearmongering to paint Trump as just 'weird'.
The former vice-president Dick Cheney, a lifelong Republican, will vote for the Democratic nominee, Kamala Harris, in November’s presidential election, he said in a statement on Friday.
“In our nation’s 248-year history, there has never been an individual who is a greater threat to our republic than Donald Trump,” Cheney said of the former president and Republican nominee
Trump's latest tweet is rather unhinged. It's long, so I won't repost it, but it's fairly clear to me he isn't going to accept any result at the election that isn't him.
Trump's latest tweet is rather unhinged. It's long, so I won't repost it, but it's fairly clear to me he isn't going to accept any result at the election that isn't him.
Trump's latest tweet is rather unhinged. It's long, so I won't repost it, but it's fairly clear to me he isn't going to accept any result at the election that isn't him.
The former vice-president Dick Cheney, a lifelong Republican, will vote for the Democratic nominee, Kamala Harris, in November’s presidential election, he said in a statement on Friday.
“In our nation’s 248-year history, there has never been an individual who is a greater threat to our republic than Donald Trump,” Cheney said of the former president and Republican nominee
That's not very helpful to Kamala, who was trying to get away from the fearmongering to paint Trump as just 'weird'.
Nothing wrong with the message, as long as the Democrats aren't having to use any of their bandwidth to project it.
"...Facebook (1977) ...memes and ideas going viral (1978) ...the real impact of the space program (1979) ...the selfie (1978) ...Netflix bingeing (1977) ...surveillance society (1974) ...Google (1971) ...the confrontational tone of public discourse (1974) ...surfing the web—and even reaches for the metaphor of an “information highway” (1979)"
If they did find self-assembling nano particles in vaccines, I would be very impressed. Did they also find a warp drive whilst they were there? Or was it just really tiny bits?
Self assembling nano warp drive, maybe?
But if they haven’t self assembled in the last 3 years do they actually work?
ICYMI from a couple of weeks ago, a one minute video on how Lewis Hamilton's driving style is unsuited to current F1 cars, with an interesting discussion of other drivers in the comments. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJPSSJAJY_A
"The NHS in England has been "broken" by successive Conservative-led governments - and the state it is now in is "unforgiveable", Sir Keir Starmer has told the BBC.
In his first major interview in Downing Street, the prime minister said a review of the health service to be published on Thursday finds changes to the NHS were "hopelessly misconceived".
He said austerity in the coalition years, and then the Conservative government's handling of the pandemic, left the NHS in an "awful position"."
That doesn't make any sense since NHS spending has been protected. He's just warming us up for huge tax rises. I hope the public are not dumb enough to fall for this ruse.
Healthcare costs typically rise quicker than inflation because of an ageing population and technological advancements. COVID-19 has added to those costs. Over the period of Tory rule, NHS funding was relatively protected and rose, but slower than it had under Blair/Brown, while of course inflation has been high. The result is an NHS in an “awful position”.
"...Facebook (1977) ...memes and ideas going viral (1978) ...the real impact of the space program (1979) ...the selfie (1978) ...Netflix bingeing (1977) ...surveillance society (1974) ...Google (1971) ...the confrontational tone of public discourse (1974) ...surfing the web—and even reaches for the metaphor of an “information highway” (1979)"
The former vice-president Dick Cheney, a lifelong Republican, will vote for the Democratic nominee, Kamala Harris, in November’s presidential election, he said in a statement on Friday.
“In our nation’s 248-year history, there has never been an individual who is a greater threat to our republic than Donald Trump,” Cheney said of the former president and Republican nominee
That's not very helpful to Kamala, who was trying to get away from the fearmongering to paint Trump as just 'weird'.
The former vice-president Dick Cheney, a lifelong Republican, will vote for the Democratic nominee, Kamala Harris, in November’s presidential election, he said in a statement on Friday.
“In our nation’s 248-year history, there has never been an individual who is a greater threat to our republic than Donald Trump,” Cheney said of the former president and Republican nominee
That's not very helpful to Kamala, who was trying to get away from the fearmongering to paint Trump as just 'weird'.
The former vice-president Dick Cheney, a lifelong Republican, will vote for the Democratic nominee, Kamala Harris, in November’s presidential election, he said in a statement on Friday.
“In our nation’s 248-year history, there has never been an individual who is a greater threat to our republic than Donald Trump,” Cheney said of the former president and Republican nominee
That's not very helpful to Kamala, who was trying to get away from the fearmongering to paint Trump as just 'weird'.
That's rather an unorthodox extrapolation.
If I were Harris I'm not sure I'd be entirely thrilled by Cheney's endorsement. Not a nice man and a highly controversial figure. Her commentary on it was somewhat hesitant and she was obviously choosing her words carefully.
The point, surely, is it shows that Trump is so extreme that even somebody as extreme as Cheney can't support him, which speaks to something deeply wrong somewhere. That is what the Dems need independent voters to be thinking.
It's like that time the Ku Klux Klan linked to Westboro Street Baptist Church but added a rider that this did not signify they endorsed WSBC's views.
I'm curious how many will want to (a lot do have to subsidise various bus services as it is), and of those how many will be able to afford it.
That's a positive. We need integrated transport, and 30-40 years of bus privatisation has shown that it needs more coordination imo. The best public transport systems exist afaics in places where there is strong input from public authorities.
That's one for local and regional Councils or Mayors; I think the main challenge will be capacity building so there can be professionalism in the organisation.
The former vice-president Dick Cheney, a lifelong Republican, will vote for the Democratic nominee, Kamala Harris, in November’s presidential election, he said in a statement on Friday.
“In our nation’s 248-year history, there has never been an individual who is a greater threat to our republic than Donald Trump,” Cheney said of the former president and Republican nominee
That's not very helpful to Kamala, who was trying to get away from the fearmongering to paint Trump as just 'weird'.
That's rather an unorthodox extrapolation.
If I were Harris I'm not sure I'd be entirely thrilled by Cheney's endorsement. Not a nice man and a highly controversial figure. Her commentary on it was somewhat hesitant and she was obviously choosing her words carefully.
The point, surely, is it shows that Trump is so extreme that even somebody as extreme as Cheney can't support him, which speaks to something deeply wrong somewhere. That is what the Dems need independent voters to be thinking.
It's like that time the Ku Klux Klan linked to Westboro Street Baptist Church but added a rider that this did not signify they endorsed WSBC's views.
I am not sure how William will spin the notion that although Satan finds Trump too extreme and dangerous that is good news for Trump. Particularly if it is announced at a joint press conference with Jesus.
"The NHS in England has been "broken" by successive Conservative-led governments - and the state it is now in is "unforgiveable", Sir Keir Starmer has told the BBC.
In his first major interview in Downing Street, the prime minister said a review of the health service to be published on Thursday finds changes to the NHS were "hopelessly misconceived".
He said austerity in the coalition years, and then the Conservative government's handling of the pandemic, left the NHS in an "awful position"."
That doesn't make any sense since NHS spending has been protected. He's just warming us up for huge tax rises. I hope the public are not dumb enough to fall for this ruse.
Healthcare costs typically rise quicker than inflation because of an ageing population and technological advancements. COVID-19 has added to those costs. Over the period of Tory rule, NHS funding was relatively protected and rose, but slower than it had under Blair/Brown, while of course inflation has been high. The result is an NHS in an “awful position”.
It always will be, not just because of the two reasons you identify, but also more importantly because it is provided at zero upfront cost, so demand is infinite. Supply will never ever keep up, even if we devote 90% of our GDP to healthcare.
There is no perfect way to deliver healthcare. But saner countries like France or Switzerland, where most people need to contribute at least token amounts for their treatment, don't have that specific problem.
The former vice-president Dick Cheney, a lifelong Republican, will vote for the Democratic nominee, Kamala Harris, in November’s presidential election, he said in a statement on Friday.
“In our nation’s 248-year history, there has never been an individual who is a greater threat to our republic than Donald Trump,” Cheney said of the former president and Republican nominee
That's not very helpful to Kamala, who was trying to get away from the fearmongering to paint Trump as just 'weird'.
That's rather an unorthodox extrapolation.
If I were Harris I'm not sure I'd be entirely thrilled by Cheney's endorsement. Not a nice man and a highly controversial figure. Her commentary on it was somewhat hesitant and she was obviously choosing her words carefully.
The point, surely, is it shows that Trump is so extreme that even somebody as extreme as Cheney can't support him, which speaks to something deeply wrong somewhere. That is what the Dems need independent voters to be thinking.
It's like that time the Ku Klux Klan linked to Westboro Street Baptist Church but added a rider that this did not signify they endorsed WSBC's views.
I am not sure how William will spin the notion that although Satan finds Trump too extreme and dangerous that is good news for Trump. Particularly if it is announced at a joint press conference with Jesus.
Well, Putin apparently endorsed Harris the other day...
"The NHS in England has been "broken" by successive Conservative-led governments - and the state it is now in is "unforgiveable", Sir Keir Starmer has told the BBC.
In his first major interview in Downing Street, the prime minister said a review of the health service to be published on Thursday finds changes to the NHS were "hopelessly misconceived".
He said austerity in the coalition years, and then the Conservative government's handling of the pandemic, left the NHS in an "awful position"."
That doesn't make any sense since NHS spending has been protected. He's just warming us up for huge tax rises. I hope the public are not dumb enough to fall for this ruse.
Healthcare costs typically rise quicker than inflation because of an ageing population and technological advancements. COVID-19 has added to those costs. Over the period of Tory rule, NHS funding was relatively protected and rose, but slower than it had under Blair/Brown, while of course inflation has been high. The result is an NHS in an “awful position”.
It always will be, not just because of the two reasons you identify, but also more importantly because it is provided at zero upfront cost, so demand is infinite. Supply will never ever keep up, even if we devote 90% of our GDP to healthcare.
There is no perfect way to deliver healthcare. But saner countries like France or Switzerland, where most people need to contribute at least token amounts for their treatment, don't have that specific problem.
Demand is not infinite, but it is acute. When you’ve broken your hip, in agony, you will pay anything to get it fixed. Are we ok with that?
So in the “demand management “ frame of mind you have to answer the question who doesn’t get treated that is currently treated?
Should the burdens of healthcare fall on those unlucky enough to fall at their moment of peril or be covered by all of us?
The former vice-president Dick Cheney, a lifelong Republican, will vote for the Democratic nominee, Kamala Harris, in November’s presidential election, he said in a statement on Friday.
“In our nation’s 248-year history, there has never been an individual who is a greater threat to our republic than Donald Trump,” Cheney said of the former president and Republican nominee
That's not very helpful to Kamala, who was trying to get away from the fearmongering to paint Trump as just 'weird'.
I think it's fine for other people to do the fearmongering, and for Harris to be free to concentrate on other issues.
"The NHS in England has been "broken" by successive Conservative-led governments - and the state it is now in is "unforgiveable", Sir Keir Starmer has told the BBC.
In his first major interview in Downing Street, the prime minister said a review of the health service to be published on Thursday finds changes to the NHS were "hopelessly misconceived".
He said austerity in the coalition years, and then the Conservative government's handling of the pandemic, left the NHS in an "awful position"."
That doesn't make any sense since NHS spending has been protected. He's just warming us up for huge tax rises. I hope the public are not dumb enough to fall for this ruse.
Healthcare costs typically rise quicker than inflation because of an ageing population and technological advancements. COVID-19 has added to those costs. Over the period of Tory rule, NHS funding was relatively protected and rose, but slower than it had under Blair/Brown, while of course inflation has been high. The result is an NHS in an “awful position”.
It always will be, not just because of the two reasons you identify, but also more importantly because it is provided at zero upfront cost, so demand is infinite. Supply will never ever keep up, even if we devote 90% of our GDP to healthcare.
There is no perfect way to deliver healthcare. But saner countries like France or Switzerland, where most people need to contribute at least token amounts for their treatment, don't have that specific problem.
There are some upfront costs in the UK NHS. We have prescription charges, dental charges.
France and Switzerland both spend more on healthcare than the UK. French healthcare spending as a proportion of GDP is close to double what it was in 1980. So, similar growth to the UK. Thus, I am unclear what the specific problem the French and Swiss systems don’t have is…?
"The NHS in England has been "broken" by successive Conservative-led governments - and the state it is now in is "unforgiveable", Sir Keir Starmer has told the BBC.
In his first major interview in Downing Street, the prime minister said a review of the health service to be published on Thursday finds changes to the NHS were "hopelessly misconceived".
He said austerity in the coalition years, and then the Conservative government's handling of the pandemic, left the NHS in an "awful position"."
That doesn't make any sense since NHS spending has been protected. He's just warming us up for huge tax rises. I hope the public are not dumb enough to fall for this ruse.
Healthcare costs typically rise quicker than inflation because of an ageing population and technological advancements. COVID-19 has added to those costs. Over the period of Tory rule, NHS funding was relatively protected and rose, but slower than it had under Blair/Brown, while of course inflation has been high. The result is an NHS in an “awful position”.
It always will be, not just because of the two reasons you identify, but also more importantly because it is provided at zero upfront cost, so demand is infinite. Supply will never ever keep up, even if we devote 90% of our GDP to healthcare.
There is no perfect way to deliver healthcare. But saner countries like France or Switzerland, where most people need to contribute at least token amounts for their treatment, don't have that specific problem.
There are some upfront costs in the UK NHS. We have prescription charges, dental charges.
France and Switzerland both spend more on healthcare than the UK. French healthcare spending as a proportion of GDP is close to double what it was in 1980. So, similar growth to the UK. Thus, I am unclear what the specific problem the French and Swiss systems don’t have is…?
The long waiting lists for anything that isn’t life-threatening.
"The NHS in England has been "broken" by successive Conservative-led governments - and the state it is now in is "unforgiveable", Sir Keir Starmer has told the BBC.
In his first major interview in Downing Street, the prime minister said a review of the health service to be published on Thursday finds changes to the NHS were "hopelessly misconceived".
He said austerity in the coalition years, and then the Conservative government's handling of the pandemic, left the NHS in an "awful position"."
That doesn't make any sense since NHS spending has been protected. He's just warming us up for huge tax rises. I hope the public are not dumb enough to fall for this ruse.
Healthcare costs typically rise quicker than inflation because of an ageing population and technological advancements. COVID-19 has added to those costs. Over the period of Tory rule, NHS funding was relatively protected and rose, but slower than it had under Blair/Brown, while of course inflation has been high. The result is an NHS in an “awful position”.
It always will be, not just because of the two reasons you identify, but also more importantly because it is provided at zero upfront cost, so demand is infinite. Supply will never ever keep up, even if we devote 90% of our GDP to healthcare.
There is no perfect way to deliver healthcare. But saner countries like France or Switzerland, where most people need to contribute at least token amounts for their treatment, don't have that specific problem.
There are some upfront costs in the UK NHS. We have prescription charges, dental charges.
France and Switzerland both spend more on healthcare than the UK. French healthcare spending as a proportion of GDP is close to double what it was in 1980. So, similar growth to the UK. Thus, I am unclear what the specific problem the French and Swiss systems don’t have is…?
The long waiting lists for anything that isn’t life-threatening.
Well, if we don’t want long waiting lists, we should do what France and Switzerland do, and spend more on healthcare. Switzerland has some of the highest healthcare expenditure in the world.
You need max of 41 (and realistically only 39 or 40) to make the final. So the moderate wing are guaranteed to get someone in the final.
So there is no chance whatsoever of the final being Jenrick v Badenoch - unless Jenrick has lent at least 14 votes which isn't realistic.
If Badenoch thinks Jenrick is lending votes, then Jenrick's true lead over Badenoch is even greater - making Badenoch's chance of making the final even less than it appears.
Yes looks like Kemi may be heading down the Portillo 2001 route, the initial darling of the right and clear favourite but who MPs knocked out before the members vote
Yep. Replacing a potential star with an unelectable dud.
Why announce it in July - outside of the fuller Budget on 30th Oct?
What was the point?
Just looks like Reeves was talked into it by bean counting and narrow-minded Treasury officials who wanted cuts asap and she thought it would look good to be grappling with the issues and making these "difficult decisions" that Starmer keeps on about.
Politically it is utterly stupid.
Why die on this hill?
If it is a cold winter then Starmer is going to bitterly regret not getting involved in the economic stuff.
If it's a cold winter what difference does it make?
It was the right thing to do.
Typical selfish arsehole. They can afford 10B for train drivers and Doctor's who are already loaded and their first task is to ensure more pensioner deaths , what kind of moron are you, this was done badly without any thought whatsoever by idiots.
"The NHS in England has been "broken" by successive Conservative-led governments - and the state it is now in is "unforgiveable", Sir Keir Starmer has told the BBC.
In his first major interview in Downing Street, the prime minister said a review of the health service to be published on Thursday finds changes to the NHS were "hopelessly misconceived".
He said austerity in the coalition years, and then the Conservative government's handling of the pandemic, left the NHS in an "awful position"."
That doesn't make any sense since NHS spending has been protected. He's just warming us up for huge tax rises. I hope the public are not dumb enough to fall for this ruse.
Healthcare costs typically rise quicker than inflation because of an ageing population and technological advancements. COVID-19 has added to those costs. Over the period of Tory rule, NHS funding was relatively protected and rose, but slower than it had under Blair/Brown, while of course inflation has been high. The result is an NHS in an “awful position”.
It always will be, not just because of the two reasons you identify, but also more importantly because it is provided at zero upfront cost, so demand is infinite. Supply will never ever keep up, even if we devote 90% of our GDP to healthcare.
There is no perfect way to deliver healthcare. But saner countries like France or Switzerland, where most people need to contribute at least token amounts for their treatment, don't have that specific problem.
There are some upfront costs in the UK NHS. We have prescription charges, dental charges.
France and Switzerland both spend more on healthcare than the UK. French healthcare spending as a proportion of GDP is close to double what it was in 1980. So, similar growth to the UK. Thus, I am unclear what the specific problem the French and Swiss systems don’t have is…?
The long waiting lists for anything that isn’t life-threatening.
Well, if we don’t want long waiting lists, we should do what France and Switzerland do, and spend more on healthcare. Switzerland has some of the highest healthcare expenditure in the world.
They should make the NHS more efficient rather than a shambolic mess.
"The NHS in England has been "broken" by successive Conservative-led governments - and the state it is now in is "unforgiveable", Sir Keir Starmer has told the BBC.
In his first major interview in Downing Street, the prime minister said a review of the health service to be published on Thursday finds changes to the NHS were "hopelessly misconceived".
He said austerity in the coalition years, and then the Conservative government's handling of the pandemic, left the NHS in an "awful position"."
That doesn't make any sense since NHS spending has been protected. He's just warming us up for huge tax rises. I hope the public are not dumb enough to fall for this ruse.
Healthcare costs typically rise quicker than inflation because of an ageing population and technological advancements. COVID-19 has added to those costs. Over the period of Tory rule, NHS funding was relatively protected and rose, but slower than it had under Blair/Brown, while of course inflation has been high. The result is an NHS in an “awful position”.
It always will be, not just because of the two reasons you identify, but also more importantly because it is provided at zero upfront cost, so demand is infinite. Supply will never ever keep up, even if we devote 90% of our GDP to healthcare.
There is no perfect way to deliver healthcare. But saner countries like France or Switzerland, where most people need to contribute at least token amounts for their treatment, don't have that specific problem.
There are some upfront costs in the UK NHS. We have prescription charges, dental charges.
France and Switzerland both spend more on healthcare than the UK. French healthcare spending as a proportion of GDP is close to double what it was in 1980. So, similar growth to the UK. Thus, I am unclear what the specific problem the French and Swiss systems don’t have is…?
The long waiting lists for anything that isn’t life-threatening.
Well, if we don’t want long waiting lists, we should do what France and Switzerland do, and spend more on healthcare. Switzerland has some of the highest healthcare expenditure in the world.
It’s not a money problem as much as it’s an organisational problem. But when you treat a healthcare organisation like a religion, it becomes impossible to meaningfully make reforms to it. In no other Western country would there be a labour dispute between the government and ‘the doctors’.
Trump's latest tweet is rather unhinged. It's long, so I won't repost it, but it's fairly clear to me he isn't going to accept any result at the election that isn't him.
The way he's getting his supporters riled up, expect January 6th Mark 2 in 2025.
One of the notable things about January 6th is, given the size of the US, the relatively small number of people involved. In Left/Green circles there's sometimes a discussion about clicktivism, and whether encouraging people to "take action" online makes it more or less likely that they will do something in person.
I read many of the comments below Trump's post and I wonder whether most of them won't do anything beyond letting off some steam on Musk's fascist echo chamber.
"The NHS in England has been "broken" by successive Conservative-led governments - and the state it is now in is "unforgiveable", Sir Keir Starmer has told the BBC.
In his first major interview in Downing Street, the prime minister said a review of the health service to be published on Thursday finds changes to the NHS were "hopelessly misconceived".
He said austerity in the coalition years, and then the Conservative government's handling of the pandemic, left the NHS in an "awful position"."
That doesn't make any sense since NHS spending has been protected. He's just warming us up for huge tax rises. I hope the public are not dumb enough to fall for this ruse.
Healthcare costs typically rise quicker than inflation because of an ageing population and technological advancements. COVID-19 has added to those costs. Over the period of Tory rule, NHS funding was relatively protected and rose, but slower than it had under Blair/Brown, while of course inflation has been high. The result is an NHS in an “awful position”.
It always will be, not just because of the two reasons you identify, but also more importantly because it is provided at zero upfront cost, so demand is infinite. Supply will never ever keep up, even if we devote 90% of our GDP to healthcare.
There is no perfect way to deliver healthcare. But saner countries like France or Switzerland, where most people need to contribute at least token amounts for their treatment, don't have that specific problem.
There are some upfront costs in the UK NHS. We have prescription charges, dental charges.
France and Switzerland both spend more on healthcare than the UK. French healthcare spending as a proportion of GDP is close to double what it was in 1980. So, similar growth to the UK. Thus, I am unclear what the specific problem the French and Swiss systems don’t have is…?
The long waiting lists for anything that isn’t life-threatening.
Well, if we don’t want long waiting lists, we should do what France and Switzerland do, and spend more on healthcare. Switzerland has some of the highest healthcare expenditure in the world.
It’s not a money problem as much as it’s an organisational problem. But when you treat a healthcare organisation like a religion, it becomes impossible to meaningfully make reforms to it. In no other Western country would there be a labour dispute between the government and ‘the doctors’.
This has happened literally next door to Britain in Ireland.
You need max of 41 (and realistically only 39 or 40) to make the final. So the moderate wing are guaranteed to get someone in the final.
So there is no chance whatsoever of the final being Jenrick v Badenoch - unless Jenrick has lent at least 14 votes which isn't realistic.
If Badenoch thinks Jenrick is lending votes, then Jenrick's true lead over Badenoch is even greater - making Badenoch's chance of making the final even less than it appears.
Yes looks like Kemi may be heading down the Portillo 2001 route, the initial darling of the right and clear favourite but who MPs knocked out before the members vote
Yep. Replacing a potential star with an unelectable dud.
Even IDS did get a few poll leads against Blair though and made big gains locally
"The NHS in England has been "broken" by successive Conservative-led governments - and the state it is now in is "unforgiveable", Sir Keir Starmer has told the BBC.
In his first major interview in Downing Street, the prime minister said a review of the health service to be published on Thursday finds changes to the NHS were "hopelessly misconceived".
He said austerity in the coalition years, and then the Conservative government's handling of the pandemic, left the NHS in an "awful position"."
That doesn't make any sense since NHS spending has been protected. He's just warming us up for huge tax rises. I hope the public are not dumb enough to fall for this ruse.
Healthcare costs typically rise quicker than inflation because of an ageing population and technological advancements. COVID-19 has added to those costs. Over the period of Tory rule, NHS funding was relatively protected and rose, but slower than it had under Blair/Brown, while of course inflation has been high. The result is an NHS in an “awful position”.
It always will be, not just because of the two reasons you identify, but also more importantly because it is provided at zero upfront cost, so demand is infinite. Supply will never ever keep up, even if we devote 90% of our GDP to healthcare.
There is no perfect way to deliver healthcare. But saner countries like France or Switzerland, where most people need to contribute at least token amounts for their treatment, don't have that specific problem.
There are some upfront costs in the UK NHS. We have prescription charges, dental charges.
France and Switzerland both spend more on healthcare than the UK. French healthcare spending as a proportion of GDP is close to double what it was in 1980. So, similar growth to the UK. Thus, I am unclear what the specific problem the French and Swiss systems don’t have is…?
The long waiting lists for anything that isn’t life-threatening.
Well, if we don’t want long waiting lists, we should do what France and Switzerland do, and spend more on healthcare. Switzerland has some of the highest healthcare expenditure in the world.
It’s not a money problem as much as it’s an organisational problem. But when you treat a healthcare organisation like a religion, it becomes impossible to meaningfully make reforms to it. In no other Western country would there be a labour dispute between the government and ‘the doctors’.
The former vice-president Dick Cheney, a lifelong Republican, will vote for the Democratic nominee, Kamala Harris, in November’s presidential election, he said in a statement on Friday.
“In our nation’s 248-year history, there has never been an individual who is a greater threat to our republic than Donald Trump,” Cheney said of the former president and Republican nominee
That's not very helpful to Kamala, who was trying to get away from the fearmongering to paint Trump as just 'weird'.
That's rather an unorthodox extrapolation.
If I were Harris I'm not sure I'd be entirely thrilled by Cheney's endorsement. Not a nice man and a highly controversial figure. Her commentary on it was somewhat hesitant and she was obviously choosing her words carefully.
The point, surely, is it shows that Trump is so extreme that even somebody as extreme as Cheney can't support him, which speaks to something deeply wrong somewhere. That is what the Dems need independent voters to be thinking.
It's like that time the Ku Klux Klan linked to Westboro Street Baptist Church but added a rider that this did not signify they endorsed WSBC's views.
Cheney and Bush in 2004 were the last Republicans to win the popular vote
"The NHS in England has been "broken" by successive Conservative-led governments - and the state it is now in is "unforgiveable", Sir Keir Starmer has told the BBC.
In his first major interview in Downing Street, the prime minister said a review of the health service to be published on Thursday finds changes to the NHS were "hopelessly misconceived".
He said austerity in the coalition years, and then the Conservative government's handling of the pandemic, left the NHS in an "awful position"."
That doesn't make any sense since NHS spending has been protected. He's just warming us up for huge tax rises. I hope the public are not dumb enough to fall for this ruse.
Healthcare costs typically rise quicker than inflation because of an ageing population and technological advancements. COVID-19 has added to those costs. Over the period of Tory rule, NHS funding was relatively protected and rose, but slower than it had under Blair/Brown, while of course inflation has been high. The result is an NHS in an “awful position”.
It always will be, not just because of the two reasons you identify, but also more importantly because it is provided at zero upfront cost, so demand is infinite. Supply will never ever keep up, even if we devote 90% of our GDP to healthcare.
There is no perfect way to deliver healthcare. But saner countries like France or Switzerland, where most people need to contribute at least token amounts for their treatment, don't have that specific problem.
Demand is not infinite, but it is acute. When you’ve broken your hip, in agony, you will pay anything to get it fixed. Are we ok with that?
So in the “demand management “ frame of mind you have to answer the question who doesn’t get treated that is currently treated?
Should the burdens of healthcare fall on those unlucky enough to fall at their moment of peril or be covered by all of us?
Demand is rising mostly because of demographics:
"But perhaps the biggest challenge is that there are now 11 million over‑65s in the UK, up from 9.2 million in 2011, and older people are more likely to need care. A report today from consultancy Carnall Farrar (CF), warns that if demand continues to grow at its current rate, by 2029 the NHS will need to do 50% more work than it does now"
"The NHS in England has been "broken" by successive Conservative-led governments - and the state it is now in is "unforgiveable", Sir Keir Starmer has told the BBC.
In his first major interview in Downing Street, the prime minister said a review of the health service to be published on Thursday finds changes to the NHS were "hopelessly misconceived".
He said austerity in the coalition years, and then the Conservative government's handling of the pandemic, left the NHS in an "awful position"."
That doesn't make any sense since NHS spending has been protected. He's just warming us up for huge tax rises. I hope the public are not dumb enough to fall for this ruse.
Healthcare costs typically rise quicker than inflation because of an ageing population and technological advancements. COVID-19 has added to those costs. Over the period of Tory rule, NHS funding was relatively protected and rose, but slower than it had under Blair/Brown, while of course inflation has been high. The result is an NHS in an “awful position”.
It always will be, not just because of the two reasons you identify, but also more importantly because it is provided at zero upfront cost, so demand is infinite. Supply will never ever keep up, even if we devote 90% of our GDP to healthcare.
There is no perfect way to deliver healthcare. But saner countries like France or Switzerland, where most people need to contribute at least token amounts for their treatment, don't have that specific problem.
There are some upfront costs in the UK NHS. We have prescription charges, dental charges.
France and Switzerland both spend more on healthcare than the UK. French healthcare spending as a proportion of GDP is close to double what it was in 1980. So, similar growth to the UK. Thus, I am unclear what the specific problem the French and Swiss systems don’t have is…?
The long waiting lists for anything that isn’t life-threatening.
Well, if we don’t want long waiting lists, we should do what France and Switzerland do, and spend more on healthcare. Switzerland has some of the highest healthcare expenditure in the world.
It’s not a money problem as much as it’s an organisational problem. But when you treat a healthcare organisation like a religion, it becomes impossible to meaningfully make reforms to it. In no other Western country would there be a labour dispute between the government and ‘the doctors’.
"The NHS in England has been "broken" by successive Conservative-led governments - and the state it is now in is "unforgiveable", Sir Keir Starmer has told the BBC.
In his first major interview in Downing Street, the prime minister said a review of the health service to be published on Thursday finds changes to the NHS were "hopelessly misconceived".
He said austerity in the coalition years, and then the Conservative government's handling of the pandemic, left the NHS in an "awful position"."
That doesn't make any sense since NHS spending has been protected. He's just warming us up for huge tax rises. I hope the public are not dumb enough to fall for this ruse.
Healthcare costs typically rise quicker than inflation because of an ageing population and technological advancements. COVID-19 has added to those costs. Over the period of Tory rule, NHS funding was relatively protected and rose, but slower than it had under Blair/Brown, while of course inflation has been high. The result is an NHS in an “awful position”.
It always will be, not just because of the two reasons you identify, but also more importantly because it is provided at zero upfront cost, so demand is infinite. Supply will never ever keep up, even if we devote 90% of our GDP to healthcare.
There is no perfect way to deliver healthcare. But saner countries like France or Switzerland, where most people need to contribute at least token amounts for their treatment, don't have that specific problem.
Why is demand infinite? Germs don't know how much we pay for antibiotics. Does Britain replace more hips than France?
"The NHS in England has been "broken" by successive Conservative-led governments - and the state it is now in is "unforgiveable", Sir Keir Starmer has told the BBC.
In his first major interview in Downing Street, the prime minister said a review of the health service to be published on Thursday finds changes to the NHS were "hopelessly misconceived".
He said austerity in the coalition years, and then the Conservative government's handling of the pandemic, left the NHS in an "awful position"."
That doesn't make any sense since NHS spending has been protected. He's just warming us up for huge tax rises. I hope the public are not dumb enough to fall for this ruse.
Healthcare costs typically rise quicker than inflation because of an ageing population and technological advancements. COVID-19 has added to those costs. Over the period of Tory rule, NHS funding was relatively protected and rose, but slower than it had under Blair/Brown, while of course inflation has been high. The result is an NHS in an “awful position”.
It always will be, not just because of the two reasons you identify, but also more importantly because it is provided at zero upfront cost, so demand is infinite. Supply will never ever keep up, even if we devote 90% of our GDP to healthcare.
There is no perfect way to deliver healthcare. But saner countries like France or Switzerland, where most people need to contribute at least token amounts for their treatment, don't have that specific problem.
There are some upfront costs in the UK NHS. We have prescription charges, dental charges.
France and Switzerland both spend more on healthcare than the UK. French healthcare spending as a proportion of GDP is close to double what it was in 1980. So, similar growth to the UK. Thus, I am unclear what the specific problem the French and Swiss systems don’t have is…?
The long waiting lists for anything that isn’t life-threatening.
Well, if we don’t want long waiting lists, we should do what France and Switzerland do, and spend more on healthcare. Switzerland has some of the highest healthcare expenditure in the world.
It’s not a money problem as much as it’s an organisational problem. But when you treat a healthcare organisation like a religion, it becomes impossible to meaningfully make reforms to it. In no other Western country would there be a labour dispute between the government and ‘the doctors’.
We do have a healthcare system that is (in some ways) very centralised and politicised. Greater centralisation may make it more efficient than, say, the expensive Swiss system. Those are complex debates.
But the NHS has repeatedly been reformed, so I don’t see this impossibility of which you speak.
And other countries have labour disputes between the government and doctors: there’s the famous 1999 doctors’ strike in Israel, and they struck again in 2023. We can go back to the 1962 Saskatchewan doctors’ strike, or the 1986 Ontario doctors’ strike. Junior doctors in NZ went on strike in the 2000s.
"The NHS in England has been "broken" by successive Conservative-led governments - and the state it is now in is "unforgiveable", Sir Keir Starmer has told the BBC.
In his first major interview in Downing Street, the prime minister said a review of the health service to be published on Thursday finds changes to the NHS were "hopelessly misconceived".
He said austerity in the coalition years, and then the Conservative government's handling of the pandemic, left the NHS in an "awful position"."
That doesn't make any sense since NHS spending has been protected. He's just warming us up for huge tax rises. I hope the public are not dumb enough to fall for this ruse.
Healthcare costs typically rise quicker than inflation because of an ageing population and technological advancements. COVID-19 has added to those costs. Over the period of Tory rule, NHS funding was relatively protected and rose, but slower than it had under Blair/Brown, while of course inflation has been high. The result is an NHS in an “awful position”.
It always will be, not just because of the two reasons you identify, but also more importantly because it is provided at zero upfront cost, so demand is infinite. Supply will never ever keep up, even if we devote 90% of our GDP to healthcare.
There is no perfect way to deliver healthcare. But saner countries like France or Switzerland, where most people need to contribute at least token amounts for their treatment, don't have that specific problem.
There are some upfront costs in the UK NHS. We have prescription charges, dental charges.
France and Switzerland both spend more on healthcare than the UK. French healthcare spending as a proportion of GDP is close to double what it was in 1980. So, similar growth to the UK. Thus, I am unclear what the specific problem the French and Swiss systems don’t have is…?
The long waiting lists for anything that isn’t life-threatening.
Well, if we don’t want long waiting lists, we should do what France and Switzerland do, and spend more on healthcare. Switzerland has some of the highest healthcare expenditure in the world.
It’s not a money problem as much as it’s an organisational problem. But when you treat a healthcare organisation like a religion, it becomes impossible to meaningfully make reforms to it. In no other Western country would there be a labour dispute between the government and ‘the doctors’.
Trump's latest tweet is rather unhinged. It's long, so I won't repost it, but it's fairly clear to me he isn't going to accept any result at the election that isn't him.
The way he's getting his supporters riled up, expect January 6th Mark 2 in 2025.
Only his latest one?
That's a good point, well put.
A Jamiroquai Tribute Band Performance Part Deux is baked in for Jan 6, if Trump loses.
It may well happen if he wins - MAGA is a paranoid cult. Look for Meal Team Six to show up to “Defend The Result”. If he’s lost, it’s a steal. If he wins TheCommieNaziDemocracts are going to steal it.
Trump's latest tweet is rather unhinged. It's long, so I won't repost it, but it's fairly clear to me he isn't going to accept any result at the election that isn't him.
The way he's getting his supporters riled up, expect January 6th Mark 2 in 2025.
He never was and never has been willing to accept losing, it seems to have broken him. He openly said to a crowd in the 2016 primaries that he had been saying it was rigged but he stopped when he won, the only difference now is he believes what he claims and because he'll go to prison if he loses he has to rile up his supporters even more.
There will definitely be violence if he loses, and probably a constitutional crisis as several swing states refuse to certify election results at his demand.
For their part the Democrats will probably be more litigious if they lose and try some Trump legal tactics in a few close races.
"The NHS in England has been "broken" by successive Conservative-led governments - and the state it is now in is "unforgiveable", Sir Keir Starmer has told the BBC.
In his first major interview in Downing Street, the prime minister said a review of the health service to be published on Thursday finds changes to the NHS were "hopelessly misconceived".
He said austerity in the coalition years, and then the Conservative government's handling of the pandemic, left the NHS in an "awful position"."
That doesn't make any sense since NHS spending has been protected. He's just warming us up for huge tax rises. I hope the public are not dumb enough to fall for this ruse.
Healthcare costs typically rise quicker than inflation because of an ageing population and technological advancements. COVID-19 has added to those costs. Over the period of Tory rule, NHS funding was relatively protected and rose, but slower than it had under Blair/Brown, while of course inflation has been high. The result is an NHS in an “awful position”.
It always will be, not just because of the two reasons you identify, but also more importantly because it is provided at zero upfront cost, so demand is infinite. Supply will never ever keep up, even if we devote 90% of our GDP to healthcare.
There is no perfect way to deliver healthcare. But saner countries like France or Switzerland, where most people need to contribute at least token amounts for their treatment, don't have that specific problem.
There are some upfront costs in the UK NHS. We have prescription charges, dental charges.
France and Switzerland both spend more on healthcare than the UK. French healthcare spending as a proportion of GDP is close to double what it was in 1980. So, similar growth to the UK. Thus, I am unclear what the specific problem the French and Swiss systems don’t have is…?
The long waiting lists for anything that isn’t life-threatening.
Well, if we don’t want long waiting lists, we should do what France and Switzerland do, and spend more on healthcare. Switzerland has some of the highest healthcare expenditure in the world.
It’s not a money problem as much as it’s an organisational problem. But when you treat a healthcare organisation like a religion, it becomes impossible to meaningfully make reforms to it. In no other Western country would there be a labour dispute between the government and ‘the doctors’.
We do have a healthcare system that is (in some ways) very centralised and politicised. Greater centralisation may make it more efficient than, say, the expensive Swiss system. Those are complex debates.
But the NHS has repeatedly been reformed, so I don’t see this impossibility of which you speak.
And other countries have labour disputes between the government and doctors: there’s the famous 1999 doctors’ strike in Israel, and they struck again in 2023. We can go back to the 1962 Saskatchewan doctors’ strike, or the 1986 Ontario doctors’ strike. Junior doctors in NZ went on strike in the 2000s.
I wonder if Starmer has made a mistake in his line of attack.
The NHS has more funding, more staff etc than ever before.
Funding has risen, continuously, since it was created. In real, inflation adjusted terms. Under all governments.
What metric is being missed? There’s an obvious one….
"The NHS in England has been "broken" by successive Conservative-led governments - and the state it is now in is "unforgiveable", Sir Keir Starmer has told the BBC.
In his first major interview in Downing Street, the prime minister said a review of the health service to be published on Thursday finds changes to the NHS were "hopelessly misconceived".
He said austerity in the coalition years, and then the Conservative government's handling of the pandemic, left the NHS in an "awful position"."
That doesn't make any sense since NHS spending has been protected. He's just warming us up for huge tax rises. I hope the public are not dumb enough to fall for this ruse.
Healthcare costs typically rise quicker than inflation because of an ageing population and technological advancements. COVID-19 has added to those costs. Over the period of Tory rule, NHS funding was relatively protected and rose, but slower than it had under Blair/Brown, while of course inflation has been high. The result is an NHS in an “awful position”.
It always will be, not just because of the two reasons you identify, but also more importantly because it is provided at zero upfront cost, so demand is infinite. Supply will never ever keep up, even if we devote 90% of our GDP to healthcare.
There is no perfect way to deliver healthcare. But saner countries like France or Switzerland, where most people need to contribute at least token amounts for their treatment, don't have that specific problem.
There are some upfront costs in the UK NHS. We have prescription charges, dental charges.
France and Switzerland both spend more on healthcare than the UK. French healthcare spending as a proportion of GDP is close to double what it was in 1980. So, similar growth to the UK. Thus, I am unclear what the specific problem the French and Swiss systems don’t have is…?
The long waiting lists for anything that isn’t life-threatening.
Well, if we don’t want long waiting lists, we should do what France and Switzerland do, and spend more on healthcare. Switzerland has some of the highest healthcare expenditure in the world.
It’s not a money problem as much as it’s an organisational problem. But when you treat a healthcare organisation like a religion, it becomes impossible to meaningfully make reforms to it. In no other Western country would there be a labour dispute between the government and ‘the doctors’.
We do have a healthcare system that is (in some ways) very centralised and politicised. Greater centralisation may make it more efficient than, say, the expensive Swiss system. Those are complex debates.
But the NHS has repeatedly been reformed, so I don’t see this impossibility of which you speak.
And other countries have labour disputes between the government and doctors: there’s the famous 1999 doctors’ strike in Israel, and they struck again in 2023. We can go back to the 1962 Saskatchewan doctors’ strike, or the 1986 Ontario doctors’ strike. Junior doctors in NZ went on strike in the 2000s.
I wonder if Starmer has made a mistake in his line of attack.
The NHS has more funding, more staff etc than ever before.
Funding has risen, continuously, since it was created. In real, inflation adjusted terms. Under all governments.
What metric is being missed? There’s an obvious one….
I think most people’s experience of the NHS is of a service in decline and I think their own experience will be more persuasive than your argument.
"The NHS in England has been "broken" by successive Conservative-led governments - and the state it is now in is "unforgiveable", Sir Keir Starmer has told the BBC.
In his first major interview in Downing Street, the prime minister said a review of the health service to be published on Thursday finds changes to the NHS were "hopelessly misconceived".
He said austerity in the coalition years, and then the Conservative government's handling of the pandemic, left the NHS in an "awful position"."
That doesn't make any sense since NHS spending has been protected. He's just warming us up for huge tax rises. I hope the public are not dumb enough to fall for this ruse.
Healthcare costs typically rise quicker than inflation because of an ageing population and technological advancements. COVID-19 has added to those costs. Over the period of Tory rule, NHS funding was relatively protected and rose, but slower than it had under Blair/Brown, while of course inflation has been high. The result is an NHS in an “awful position”.
It always will be, not just because of the two reasons you identify, but also more importantly because it is provided at zero upfront cost, so demand is infinite. Supply will never ever keep up, even if we devote 90% of our GDP to healthcare.
There is no perfect way to deliver healthcare. But saner countries like France or Switzerland, where most people need to contribute at least token amounts for their treatment, don't have that specific problem.
There are some upfront costs in the UK NHS. We have prescription charges, dental charges.
France and Switzerland both spend more on healthcare than the UK. French healthcare spending as a proportion of GDP is close to double what it was in 1980. So, similar growth to the UK. Thus, I am unclear what the specific problem the French and Swiss systems don’t have is…?
The long waiting lists for anything that isn’t life-threatening.
Well, if we don’t want long waiting lists, we should do what France and Switzerland do, and spend more on healthcare. Switzerland has some of the highest healthcare expenditure in the world.
It’s not a money problem as much as it’s an organisational problem. But when you treat a healthcare organisation like a religion, it becomes impossible to meaningfully make reforms to it. In no other Western country would there be a labour dispute between the government and ‘the doctors’.
We do have a healthcare system that is (in some ways) very centralised and politicised. Greater centralisation may make it more efficient than, say, the expensive Swiss system. Those are complex debates.
But the NHS has repeatedly been reformed, so I don’t see this impossibility of which you speak.
And other countries have labour disputes between the government and doctors: there’s the famous 1999 doctors’ strike in Israel, and they struck again in 2023. We can go back to the 1962 Saskatchewan doctors’ strike, or the 1986 Ontario doctors’ strike. Junior doctors in NZ went on strike in the 2000s.
I wonder if Starmer has made a mistake in his line of attack.
The NHS has more funding, more staff etc than ever before.
Funding has risen, continuously, since it was created. In real, inflation adjusted terms. Under all governments.
What metric is being missed? There’s an obvious one….
I think most people’s experience of the NHS is of a service in decline and I think their own experience will be more persuasive than your argument.
It proves more money does not help , just gets worse and worse.
Comments
It was the right thing to do.
I think Labour will tough this one out. The cut will stand.
“In our nation’s 248-year history, there has never been an individual who is a greater threat to our republic than Donald Trump,” Cheney said of the former president and Republican nominee
Observer: Tories' health reforms ‘left UK open’ to Covid calamity
Observer 2nd: Johnson: questions on uranium lobby link
Express: Winter fuel storm ‘is Labour's poll tax’
People: Tax the rich to fund winter fuel
Mail: Warning over multiple tax raid by Reeves [that's remarkably clunky]
Times: 721 children in rogue surgeon investigation
Times 2nd: Cladding justice blocked, says Gove
Mirror: Oasis tour to go global
Telegraph: BBC ‘has breached rules 1,500 times’ over Gaza war
Telegraph 2nd: Private school VAT raid faces High Court challenge
Star: Oi!!! Get your round in, Pinocchio [Exclusive: Folks blessed with oversized hooters slowest at buying a pint]
Star 2nd: Trump in UFO ‘threat’
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c79w0rvpg2eo
https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1832589096029450360
The way he's getting his supporters riled up, expect January 6th Mark 2 in 2025.
https://x.com/skynews/status/1832651606883520618?s=61
F1: not a huge shock, but Newey's gone for Aston Martin over Ferrari: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/articles/c4gqd8lz9g1o
I think there's a fair amount in earlier Arthur C Clarke and Isaac Asimov ("Caves of Steel", 1954?), never mind Caxton for memes
Good meme for a Sunday.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJPSSJAJY_A
The point, surely, is it shows that Trump is so extreme that even somebody as extreme as Cheney can't support him, which speaks to something deeply wrong somewhere. That is what the Dems need independent voters to be thinking.
It's like that time the Ku Klux Klan linked to Westboro Street Baptist Church but added a rider that this did not signify they endorsed WSBC's views.
That's one for local and regional Councils or Mayors; I think the main challenge will be capacity building so there can be professionalism in the organisation.
Bristol is one to watch, perhaps.
There is no perfect way to deliver healthcare. But saner countries like France or Switzerland, where most people need to contribute at least token amounts for their treatment, don't have that specific problem.
So in the “demand management “ frame of mind you have to answer the question who doesn’t get treated that is currently treated?
Should the burdens of healthcare fall on those unlucky enough to fall at their moment of peril or be covered by all of us?
I do wonder how well Hamilton will stack up against Leclerc.
France and Switzerland both spend more on healthcare than the UK. French healthcare spending as a proportion of GDP is close to double what it was in 1980. So, similar growth to the UK. Thus, I am unclear what the specific problem the French and Swiss systems don’t have is…?
I read many of the comments below Trump's post and I wonder whether most of them won't do anything beyond letting off some steam on Musk's fascist echo chamber.
Doctors were on strike in Portugal in 2024.
https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2024/07/24/doctors-strike-in-portugal-for-better-working-conditions-and-pay
Germany in 2024
https://www.euronews.com/2024/01/30/doctors-in-germany-go-on-strike-in-a-dispute-over-pay-and-working-hours
Slovenia in 2024
https://eurohealthobservatory.who.int/monitors/health-systems-monitor/analyses
Sweden in 2024
https://www.euractiv.com/section/health-consumers/news/strike-by-swedish-health-workers-escalates-as-holiday-season-approaches/
There are loads more, but I think I have made the point.
"But perhaps the biggest challenge is that there are now 11 million over‑65s in the UK, up from 9.2 million in 2011, and older people are more likely to need care. A report today from consultancy Carnall Farrar (CF), warns that if demand continues to grow at its current rate, by 2029 the NHS will need to do 50% more work than it does now"
https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/sep/07/three-reports-nhs-malaise-rachel-reeves-lord-darzi
The others don’t mention the dispute as being with government though, only being with employers.
NEW THREAD
But the NHS has repeatedly been reformed, so I don’t see this impossibility of which you speak.
And other countries have labour disputes between the government and doctors: there’s the famous 1999 doctors’ strike in Israel, and they struck again in 2023. We can go back to the 1962 Saskatchewan doctors’ strike, or the 1986 Ontario doctors’ strike. Junior doctors in NZ went on strike in the 2000s.
Government vs Doctors:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_South_Korean_medical_crisis
Israel:
https://www.bmj.com/content/382/bmj.p1729
Netherlands:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1173303/#:~:text=In the Netherlands 7000 GPs,the quality of their care.
Spain:
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2022/11/23/in-spain-doctors-are-exhausted-angry-and-striking-indefinitely_6005287_4.html
Italy
https://www.bmj.com/content/383/bmj.p2898#:~:text=Healthcare professionals in Italy staged,the government's 2024 budget bill.
France
https://www.euronews.com/health/2023/10/13/we-feel-harassed-meet-the-doctors-in-france-going-on-strike-to-protest-working-conditions#:~:text=It is part of a,in the Senate this month.
Indeed it is quite hard to find a country where doctors and other health professionals have not had industrial disputes with government.
It may well happen if he wins - MAGA is a paranoid cult. Look for Meal Team Six to show up to “Defend The Result”. If he’s lost, it’s a steal. If he wins TheCommieNaziDemocracts are going to steal it.
Riot either way…
There will definitely be violence if he loses, and probably a constitutional crisis as several swing states refuse to certify election results at his demand.
For their part the Democrats will probably be more litigious if they lose and try some Trump legal tactics in a few close races.
The NHS has more funding, more staff etc than ever before.
Funding has risen, continuously, since it was created. In real, inflation adjusted terms. Under all governments.
What metric is being missed? There’s an obvious one….