I had reason to go to hospital today. I've had periodic problems with arrhythmia over the years. In the past I've been with BUPA and the cardiologists have fixed it with a minimum of fuss and the whole thing is sorted relatively quickly.
Today I used the NHS and it was quite different. Everone was very nice but I never got near a cardiologist. I saw more nurses than I appeared in "Mash". Each one doing their own thing well but the highest I got was a Registrar who could only say after a day of tests. "You need to see a cardiologist' In BUPA the Cardiolgists did all the tests there and then. Maybe half an hour then a week later joined by an anaesthetist a few nurses a theatre -job done. £4,000 the lot
All fine and dandy if you won't miss £4k.
My point was that it would have cost the NHS more than that. To use maybe 6 or 7 people where one would do seemed like they were spending their money in the wrong places
I had reason to go to hospital today. I've had periodic problems with arrhythmia over the years. In the past I've been with BUPA and the cardiologists have fixed it with a minimum of fuss and the whole thing is sorted relatively quickly.
Today I used the NHS and it was quite different. Everone was very nice but I never got near a cardiologist. I saw more nurses than I appeared in "Mash". Each one doing their own thing well but the highest I got was a Registrar who could only say after a day of tests. "You need to see a cardiologist' In BUPA the Cardiolgists did all the tests there and then. Maybe half an hour then a week later joined by an anaesthetist a few nurses a theatre -job done. £4,000 the lot
All fine and dandy if you won't miss £4k.
My point was that it would have cost the NHS more than that. To use maybe 6 or 7 people where one would do seemed like they were spending their money in the wrong places
Yebbut. The NHS needs extra staffing, because if someone is rushed in with a massive coronary, or there's a terrorist they need crash teams on standby permanently. Not saying it's perfect. Far from it. But it's there for emergencies. And it ain't concerned with anyone's bank balance or insurance status should it occur.
Ch 4 News gives Ratcliffe a well deserved hammering. He avoided £4 billion in tax in the last 5 years lived as a tax exile in Monaco and claimed we had 21 million immigrants when the figure was 3 million. Presumably they were paying the tax he was avoiding
There's a bit of a side-of-a-bus argument going on here. The left repeatedly making the point that 'only' 3 million immigrants have arrived in the last five years isn't the zinger they think it is.
Though otoh it highlights ‘hard headed businessman’ Ratcliffe is either speaking through his arse or is a dishonest propagandiser. Also that the right despite their opportunistic outrage is mostly responsible for that 3 million.
The reality is that average annual net migration was higher under the Tories than under Labour. And yet somehow this is all the fault of "the left". Lol.
I think you're misunderstanding. Noone's denying that the Tories were terrible at controlling immigration. But also, no-one's voting for the left to keep immigration down because they don't appear to consider it a problem. Saying "it's only 3 million in five years" only reinforces this view. And pushes more voters towards Reform i.e. the party which majors on immigration and wasn't the right wing party in government when immigration surged. And this is bad news for Labour, because the more one right-wing party is clear of the other, the worse Labour do. And Reform is already the one in the lead.
Nobody is saying "it's only three million." They're saying that someone who doesn't know the difference between 3 million and 21 million is perhaps not very well informed on this topic. As for Reform not being in power when immigration surged, they currently contain more of the Johnson cabinet than the Tories do, so I'm not sure that comment is even true. Has it occurred to you that maybe these people keep screaming immigration because they want power and they've figured it's the easiest way to get it?
He didn't get the numbers wrong but the dates. He obviously meant to say that the population was 58 million in 2000 rather than in 2020.
LOL! on today's hot topic I think the good news is that it would be fairly easy for you to script AI to repost MAGA propaganda freeing you up to try and excuse Ratcliffe's racist missteps, probably there'd be enough of a productivity boost to take on Rupert Lowe or even the whole of Reform.
Bluntly, my reaction to Ratcliffe was "ill-informed berk". But Ratcliffe isn't up for election. And my reaction to the backlash, led by SKS, to Jim Ratcliffe was "you lot genuinely don't see the problem with immigration, do you? Occasionally you say you do - but it makes you feel bad to be on that side of the argument: and you're much more comfortable bashing anyone calking for less immigration than you are calling for less immigration yourself". And I'm a comfortable middle class voter in a suburb with nice middle class immigrants. I'm not likely to be pushed to Reform. But voters in, say, Denton, or Gorton, might react differently when reminded about how many immigrants the country has grown by in the last five years. And they're not going to be bashing the Tories there because the Tories are almost completely absent.
Immigration under Starmer’s government has fallen hugely. It’s down 69% from the peak under Johnson and is still falling. Does that not demonstrate that he/they do care about reducing immigration?
It mostly demonstrates that the stuff Sunak did in a panic as the full horror of the Boriswave became apparent is having some effect. I'm not aware of anything significant the Labour government has done to further reduce legal migration.
But also, it's worth remembering that immigration was a massive issue before the Boriswave. What was Brexit about if not immigration (those with longer memories may recall the farce of Cameron's "Emergency Brake" agreement). The reality is that the the British public want zero net migration, and have consistently voted for lower migration at pretty much every plausible opportunity for at least the last 20 years. Don't get me wrong, it's better for it to be at 200k net than 800k net, but any politician trying to claim that current 200k net is OK because it's less that 800k net is likely to get very short shift. It's still at least 200k too high.
Taking a step back, imagine if we could snap our fingers and remove 20% of the population. Leaving aside the morals of what happens to them for a second, just think about how much better it would make the country. House prices would drop spectacularly. Trains wouldn't be nearly as overcrowded. The traffic situation on the roads would improve massively. Etc, etc.
That's what could have happened if we'd just left immigration at more or less zero for the last 25 years. Ratcliffe is essentially right - we've allowed in way too many extra people, and really without any supporting infrastructure.
Far too late to turn the clock back now, and I'm not for a moment advocating chucking people out who are here legitimately, but it does demonstrate why we should be aiming for net emigration for the next 25 years rather than continuing net immigration.
Ch 4 News gives Ratcliffe a well deserved hammering. He avoided £4 billion in tax in the last 5 years lived as a tax exile in Monaco and claimed we had 21 million immigrants when the figure was 3 million. Presumably they were paying the tax he was avoiding
There's a bit of a side-of-a-bus argument going on here. The left repeatedly making the point that 'only' 3 million immigrants have arrived in the last five years isn't the zinger they think it is.
Though otoh it highlights ‘hard headed businessman’ Ratcliffe is either speaking through his arse or is a dishonest propagandiser. Also that the right despite their opportunistic outrage is mostly responsible for that 3 million.
The reality is that average annual net migration was higher under the Tories than under Labour. And yet somehow this is all the fault of "the left". Lol.
I think you're misunderstanding. Noone's denying that the Tories were terrible at controlling immigration. But also, no-one's voting for the left to keep immigration down because they don't appear to consider it a problem. Saying "it's only 3 million in five years" only reinforces this view. And pushes more voters towards Reform i.e. the party which majors on immigration and wasn't the right wing party in government when immigration surged. And this is bad news for Labour, because the more one right-wing party is clear of the other, the worse Labour do. And Reform is already the one in the lead.
Nobody is saying "it's only three million." They're saying that someone who doesn't know the difference between 3 million and 21 million is perhaps not very well informed on this topic. As for Reform not being in power when immigration surged, they currently contain more of the Johnson cabinet than the Tories do, so I'm not sure that comment is even true. Has it occurred to you that maybe these people keep screaming immigration because they want power and they've figured it's the easiest way to get it?
He didn't get the numbers wrong but the dates. He obviously meant to say that the population was 58 million in 2000 rather than in 2020.
LOL! on today's hot topic I think the good news is that it would be fairly easy for you to script AI to repost MAGA propaganda freeing you up to try and excuse Ratcliffe's racist missteps, probably there'd be enough of a productivity boost to take on Rupert Lowe or even the whole of Reform.
Bluntly, my reaction to Ratcliffe was "ill-informed berk". But Ratcliffe isn't up for election. And my reaction to the backlash, led by SKS, to Jim Ratcliffe was "you lot genuinely don't see the problem with immigration, do you? Occasionally you say you do - but it makes you feel bad to be on that side of the argument: and you're much more comfortable bashing anyone calking for less immigration than you are calling for less immigration yourself". And I'm a comfortable middle class voter in a suburb with nice middle class immigrants. I'm not likely to be pushed to Reform. But voters in, say, Denton, or Gorton, might react differently when reminded about how many immigrants the country has grown by in the last five years. And they're not going to be bashing the Tories there because the Tories are almost completely absent.
Immigration under Starmer’s government has fallen hugely. It’s down 69% from the peak under Johnson and is still falling. Does that not demonstrate that he/they do care about reducing immigration?
It mostly demonstrates that the stuff Sunak did in a panic as the full horror of the Boriswave became apparent is having some effect. I'm not aware of anything significant the Labour government has done to further reduce legal migration.
But also, it's worth remembering that immigration was a massive issue before the Boriswave. What was Brexit about if not immigration (those with longer memories may recall the farce of Cameron's "Emergency Brake" agreement). The reality is that the the British public want zero net migration, and have consistently voted for lower migration at pretty much every plausible opportunity for at least the last 20 years. Don't get me wrong, it's better for it to be at 200k net than 800k net, but any politician trying to claim that current 200k net is OK because it's less that 800k net is likely to get very short shift. It's still at least 200k too high.
Taking a step back, imagine if we could snap our fingers and remove 20% of the population. Leaving aside the morals of what happens to them for a second, just think about how much better it would make the country. House prices would drop spectacularly. Trains wouldn't be nearly as overcrowded. The traffic situation on the roads would improve massively. Etc, etc.
That's what could have happened if we'd just left immigration at more or less zero for the last 25 years. Ratcliffe is essentially right - we've allowed in way too many extra people, and really without any supporting infrastructure.
Far too late to turn the clock back now, and I'm not for a moment advocating chucking people out who are here legitimately, but it does demonstrate why we should be aiming for net emigration for the next 25 years rather than continuing net immigration.
A Farage government should help with the emigration bit.
I had reason to go to hospital today. I've had periodic problems with arrhythmia over the years. In the past I've been with BUPA and the cardiologists have fixed it with a minimum of fuss and the whole thing is sorted relatively quickly.
Today I used the NHS and it was quite different. Everone was very nice but I never got near a cardiologist. I saw more nurses than I appeared in "Mash". Each one doing their own thing well but the highest I got was a Registrar who could only say after a day of tests. "You need to see a cardiologist' In BUPA the Cardiolgists did all the tests there and then. Maybe half an hour then a week later joined by an anaesthetist a few nurses a theatre -job done. £4,000 the lot
All fine and dandy if you won't miss £4k.
My point was that it would have cost the NHS more than that. To use maybe 6 or 7 people where one would do seemed like they were spending their money in the wrong places
If you're right (and it's quite possible you are), isn't the answer for the NHS to just subcontract the job to BUPA?
I must confess, I didn't have you down as an obvious advocate for privatisation and marketisation of NHS functions, although it is wonderful to observe how the combination of a profit motive and the customer having actual choice somehow makes BUPA function way better than the NHS when doing exactly the same thing.
Further update from Down Under. The new Deputy leader of the Liberals is Jane Hume, a Senator who was fired by Ley last year and acknowledged that she was out for revenge.
Meanwhile, Tony Abbott has managed to find a camera and very reluctantly shared his views (shocked, I tell you). He said that Liberals should get behind Angus Taylor as he “wants to protect our way of life”. He also said it’s time that the party pushed for immigration numbers to come down.
This is the same Tony Abbott who wrestled for the leadership of the party with Malcolm Turnbull, who only got behind the party leadership when he had finished stabbing them in the front in order to carry on stabbing them from behind, and who conveniently forgets that he himself is an immigrant.
I had reason to go to hospital today. I've had periodic problems with arrhythmia over the years. In the past I've been with BUPA and the cardiologists have fixed it with a minimum of fuss and the whole thing is sorted relatively quickly.
Today I used the NHS and it was quite different. Everone was very nice but I never got near a cardiologist. I saw more nurses than I appeared in "Mash". Each one doing their own thing well but the highest I got was a Registrar who could only say after a day of tests. "You need to see a cardiologist' In BUPA the Cardiolgists did all the tests there and then. Maybe half an hour then a week later joined by an anaesthetist a few nurses a theatre -job done. £4,000 the lot
All fine and dandy if you won't miss £4k.
My point was that it would have cost the NHS more than that. To use maybe 6 or 7 people where one would do seemed like they were spending their money in the wrong places
Yebbut. The NHS needs extra staffing, because if someone is rushed in with a massive coronary, or there's a terrorist they need crash teams on standby permanently. Not saying it's perfect. Far from it. But it's there for emergencies. And it ain't concerned with anyone's bank balance or insurance status should it occur.
Plus the cardiologists are either doing a day's private work at the BUPA hospital or busy with other NHS patients.
Ch 4 News gives Ratcliffe a well deserved hammering. He avoided £4 billion in tax in the last 5 years lived as a tax exile in Monaco and claimed we had 21 million immigrants when the figure was 3 million. Presumably they were paying the tax he was avoiding
There's a bit of a side-of-a-bus argument going on here. The left repeatedly making the point that 'only' 3 million immigrants have arrived in the last five years isn't the zinger they think it is.
Though otoh it highlights ‘hard headed businessman’ Ratcliffe is either speaking through his arse or is a dishonest propagandiser. Also that the right despite their opportunistic outrage is mostly responsible for that 3 million.
The reality is that average annual net migration was higher under the Tories than under Labour. And yet somehow this is all the fault of "the left". Lol.
I think you're misunderstanding. Noone's denying that the Tories were terrible at controlling immigration. But also, no-one's voting for the left to keep immigration down because they don't appear to consider it a problem. Saying "it's only 3 million in five years" only reinforces this view. And pushes more voters towards Reform i.e. the party which majors on immigration and wasn't the right wing party in government when immigration surged. And this is bad news for Labour, because the more one right-wing party is clear of the other, the worse Labour do. And Reform is already the one in the lead.
Nobody is saying "it's only three million." They're saying that someone who doesn't know the difference between 3 million and 21 million is perhaps not very well informed on this topic. As for Reform not being in power when immigration surged, they currently contain more of the Johnson cabinet than the Tories do, so I'm not sure that comment is even true. Has it occurred to you that maybe these people keep screaming immigration because they want power and they've figured it's the easiest way to get it?
He didn't get the numbers wrong but the dates. He obviously meant to say that the population was 58 million in 2000 rather than in 2020.
LOL! on today's hot topic I think the good news is that it would be fairly easy for you to script AI to repost MAGA propaganda freeing you up to try and excuse Ratcliffe's racist missteps, probably there'd be enough of a productivity boost to take on Rupert Lowe or even the whole of Reform.
Bluntly, my reaction to Ratcliffe was "ill-informed berk". But Ratcliffe isn't up for election. And my reaction to the backlash, led by SKS, to Jim Ratcliffe was "you lot genuinely don't see the problem with immigration, do you? Occasionally you say you do - but it makes you feel bad to be on that side of the argument: and you're much more comfortable bashing anyone calking for less immigration than you are calling for less immigration yourself". And I'm a comfortable middle class voter in a suburb with nice middle class immigrants. I'm not likely to be pushed to Reform. But voters in, say, Denton, or Gorton, might react differently when reminded about how many immigrants the country has grown by in the last five years. And they're not going to be bashing the Tories there because the Tories are almost completely absent.
Immigration under Starmer’s government has fallen hugely. It’s down 69% from the peak under Johnson and is still falling. Does that not demonstrate that he/they do care about reducing immigration?
It mostly demonstrates that the stuff Sunak did in a panic as the full horror of the Boriswave became apparent is having some effect. I'm not aware of anything significant the Labour government has done to further reduce legal migration.
But also, it's worth remembering that immigration was a massive issue before the Boriswave. What was Brexit about if not immigration (those with longer memories may recall the farce of Cameron's "Emergency Brake" agreement). The reality is that the the British public want zero net migration, and have consistently voted for lower migration at pretty much every plausible opportunity for at least the last 20 years. Don't get me wrong, it's better for it to be at 200k net than 800k net, but any politician trying to claim that current 200k net is OK because it's less that 800k net is likely to get very short shift. It's still at least 200k too high.
Taking a step back, imagine if we could snap our fingers and remove 20% of the population. Leaving aside the morals of what happens to them for a second, just think about how much better it would make the country. House prices would drop spectacularly. Trains wouldn't be nearly as overcrowded. The traffic situation on the roads would improve massively. Etc, etc.
That's what could have happened if we'd just left immigration at more or less zero for the last 25 years. Ratcliffe is essentially right - we've allowed in way too many extra people, and really without any supporting infrastructure.
Far too late to turn the clock back now, and I'm not for a moment advocating chucking people out who are here legitimately, but it does demonstrate why we should be aiming for net emigration for the next 25 years rather than continuing net immigration.
So what you are suggesting is 20/50ths of a Thanos? It's...not my first thought, tbh 😀
Do we have a good idea how dangerous second hand vaping is, or is likely to be?
This doesn't feel particularly useful but I may be wrong. It also seems the headline is completely misleading cause this seems to be going for a complete vaping ban everywhere you can smoke? In which case what does the modelling show about smokers not switching to vaping since there's suddenly no point in latter?
Taking a step back, imagine if we could snap our fingers and remove 20% of the population. Leaving aside the morals of what happens to them for a second, just think about how much better it would make the country. House prices would drop spectacularly. Trains wouldn't be nearly as overcrowded. The traffic situation on the roads would improve massively. Etc, etc.
Depends which 20%. But yes, I want legal euthanisa heavily promoted
Comments
The NHS needs extra staffing, because if someone is rushed in with a massive coronary, or there's a terrorist they need crash teams on standby permanently.
Not saying it's perfect. Far from it.
But it's there for emergencies.
And it ain't concerned with anyone's bank balance or insurance status should it occur.
But also, it's worth remembering that immigration was a massive issue before the Boriswave. What was Brexit about if not immigration (those with longer memories may recall the farce of Cameron's "Emergency Brake" agreement). The reality is that the the British public want zero net migration, and have consistently voted for lower migration at pretty much every plausible opportunity for at least the last 20 years. Don't get me wrong, it's better for it to be at 200k net than 800k net, but any politician trying to claim that current 200k net is OK because it's less that 800k net is likely to get very short shift. It's still at least 200k too high.
Taking a step back, imagine if we could snap our fingers and remove 20% of the population. Leaving aside the morals of what happens to them for a second, just think about how much better it would make the country. House prices would drop spectacularly. Trains wouldn't be nearly as overcrowded. The traffic situation on the roads would improve massively. Etc, etc.
That's what could have happened if we'd just left immigration at more or less zero for the last 25 years.
Ratcliffe is essentially right - we've allowed in way too many extra people, and really without any supporting infrastructure.
Far too late to turn the clock back now, and I'm not for a moment advocating chucking people out who are here legitimately, but it does demonstrate why we should be aiming for net emigration for the next 25 years rather than continuing net immigration.
I must confess, I didn't have you down as an obvious advocate for privatisation and marketisation of NHS functions, although it is wonderful to observe how the combination of a profit motive and the customer having actual choice somehow makes BUPA function way better than the NHS when doing exactly the same thing.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/feb/13/sussan-ley-to-quit-politics-byelection-liberal-party-leadership-spill
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy61zlg10vo
This doesn't feel particularly useful but I may be wrong. It also seems the headline is completely misleading cause this seems to be going for a complete vaping ban everywhere you can smoke? In which case what does the modelling show about smokers not switching to vaping since there's suddenly no point in latter?