Joe public might not like us grumbling, but they will like it even less when we have relocated.
Fair enough, Doc. You state the problem very eloquently but what is the answer? Is it that we should triple GP's salaries?
Exactly, hard to feel too bad about people working 9-5 Mon-Fri for 3-4 times the average wage..
9-5 is a myth. Read my previous post. 8-7 is lucky, with further work from home and a huge amount of clinical risk. But force us out if you wish, then you get stories like the mirror where they pay 100k for weekend cover as they refuse to pay perminant staff decent salaries and so we leave.
@DPJHodges: Burnham camp hit back at Cooper for not stepping down. "She knows she can't win. She's running for 2nd. Just wants to lead the resistance".
Cooper hits back: He knows he can't win. He's running for 2nd. Just wants a high price for his principles.
More! More!
And yet Corbyn is *still* hovering at 1.4 on Betfair.
The big speeches and interventions have come and gone. The two challengers are fighting like ferrets in a sack. Voting started today, and what possible gamechangers are left?
You are correct that the liberal, Europhile centre-left won't go UKIP, but there could certainly be an element of the working class that gets the message that Labour are even more the party of Muslims and benefits by Corbyn being leader. They will also continue to benefit from the Calais crisis and the EU referendum. If Corbyn gets it, I could see the next election being:
Con: 38% Lab: 25% UKIP: 18% Lib Dem: 6%
I don't see UKIP going that high - and tbh I think on PB a lot of people even this time round ended up over-predicting UKIP. While UKIP will appeal to many on the issue of immigration, that in itself - as seen in 2015 - is not enough to get tons of working-class Labour supporters to vote Purple enough to swing seats. Given that, UKIP will most likely need a leader that is far more credible than Farage to appeal to Labour voters, and also far better campaigning and organisational ability than in 2015.
I also don't see how the EU referendum benefits UKIP. If anything, it shoots UKIP's fox. UKIP's rasion-detre, is getting out of the EU. By having a referendum, that issue is solved either way. Many will mention the SNP, but at that point they had been in government, and proved themselves as viable, credible figures to the Scottish electorate. All the other alternatives were also either incompetent or unpopular by comparison, and had a single, powerful message of Scottish identity that was enough to draw votes from many different places. By contrast not all of the alternatives may be as discredited for working class Labour voters come 2020 - although Corbyn, Osborne and Farron are unlikely to appeal - and UKIP have yet to produce a powerful message either way that is enough to draw huge swathes of voters towards to them, to swing seats.
The Calais crisis is an issue now, but whether it will be by 2020 remains to be seen.
Fair enough, Doc. You state the problem very eloquently but what is the answer? Is it that we should triple GP's salaries?
Thank you. There is no easy solution. I do not think a tripling of salaries would actually help too much. It may help retention of young possible emigrates, but it would not prevent the burnout or workload issues that there are.
If the workload and working day was the same as it was 5-10 years ago, I don't think there would be this high level of angst or panic in the system. People would work more sessions and it would exponentially solve the problem quicker.
The issue is the tipping point has been passed. More and shrinking hours or leaving due to the work pressures leaving more on those that are left, and making it less attractive. It is a vicious circle.
Put it this way - a tripling of salary alone would not make me want to stay here over emigrate with the way the working day is at the moment. That statement alone should resonate how unworkable the current system is.
Thank you for an honest answer.
It would seem from what you say that actually charging people a modest but reasonable fee (say £20) to see their GP and for visits to A & E, might make a huge difference. Put in appropriate safeguards and exemptions and it should work. There will be lots of screaming but we had that when prescription charges were introduced and at divers times since - anyone remember how the nation was going to go blind when opticians were allowed to charge? People are used to paying for an optician's time and for dentists' they will get used to paying for a physicians'.
And before anyone gets on their high horse, I am retired and have a chronic illness plus serious eyesight problems, which means I probably spend more time in doctor's waiting rooms than the vast majority. I am also reasonably comfortably off and I would no objection to coughing up a twenty quid each time I see my GP. Of course I might also start demanding he keeps the appointment times and can tell me more than I can find out from Google, but that is another issue.
I tend to agree. If the issue is workload and the bureaucracy which goes with it, then some way of squeezing unnecessary demand out of the system will be necessary. If people can pay - and quite handsomely - for their pets, then it is not too great an ask to expect people to pay something towards their health, with appropriate safeguards.
We also need to do something about health tourism - we cannot provide a free health service to people from abroad who do not contribute to our taxes. I find it ironic that doctors are so against any such measures despite the burdens this places on doctors.
Speaking to shadow ministers over the weekend, it appears a majority are moving towards the Maquis model. “The key lesson we learnt in the 1980s is you never voluntarily concede ground to the Left,” one said to me. They also pointed out that there are number of practical and constitutional reasons why it was important not relinquish control of the shadow cabinet. Each shadow cabinet position comes with significant financial resources for research and media work. The shadow cabinet also has control over a number of positions on Labour’s ruling NEC. “We haven’t had to check all this stuff for decades," one shadow minister said, “but when you look at the small print of the party rule book the Shadow Cabinet actually has a lot of influence over the party machinery."
All of which means that the left would be well advised to bring back elections to the shadow cabinet.
MG No chip on my shoulder...I just think that it is possible to be a financial success in this country and make a success of life without doing down any others..Most lefties, yourself included seem to think that successful people must be some sort of crook..
LOL, me a leftie , do you ever read posts on here, Thatcher was a communist compared to me.
@DPJHodges: Burnham camp hit back at Cooper for not stepping down. "She knows she can't win. She's running for 2nd. Just wants to lead the resistance".
@DPJHodges: Burnham camp hit back at Cooper for not stepping down. "She knows she can't win. She's running for 2nd. Just wants to lead the resistance".
Cooper hits back: He knows he can't win. He's running for 2nd. Just wants a high price for his principles.
You can bet on leader at next election. I think it is with Ladbrokes. I'd go for Jarvis myself but don't like putting money in for such a long time.
Chump? – Why, what would Ed achieve by it - and who would bother listening to him anyway.
At the very least he should hold up his hand and take responsibility for the ongoing cluster
Indeed, but that’s another matter entirely imho – Ed’s best policy for now is the keep his mouth shut, he can add nothing to the LL debate that Blair, Brown, Mandelson and Hattersley have not already said.
Also, I’d not be surprised in the slightest if Ed’s reluctance was based on a certain admiration for Corbyn and a desire for a place in his shadow cabinet.
In 2004, nearly 60% of 25- to 34-year-olds were owner-occupiers; now it’s only just over a third.
That's a shocking statistic. Major planning reform is needed if it's to be addressed though, along with incentives for people to downsize.
The most serious threat to Conservative hegemony IMHO.
The further property ownership levels drop, the more likely the country is to shift to the Left.
All the polling data certainly backs up your fear.
I think we probably need to do something drastic now to reverse this problem - perhaps a system where planning permission is needed to convert a house from an owner occupier to a rented or to build an apartment block where the flats will be for rent.
Also we need to be building far more high rise apartment blocks since they take up little room but allow plenty of accommodation. Any US or Canadian city has plenty of these but the UK is really poor in this regard.
Joe public might not like us grumbling, but they will like it even less when we have relocated.
Fair enough, Doc. You state the problem very eloquently but what is the answer? Is it that we should triple GP's salaries?
Exactly, hard to feel too bad about people working 9-5 Mon-Fri for 3-4 times the average wage..
I agree in principle... until they start walking in droves and we can't get a doctor when we need one. The "average wage" thing is a red herring, its a globally marketable skill, people will go where the package is best. Its like being an airline pilot, they get very well paid for essentially driving a bus, because if we paid them any less they would go and work in another country at no cost to themselves.
Very true. The brain drain is real. I'm on the VTS (GP training scheme) currently there is about a 1/3 of us who are actively planning to leave on completion. Even if we all stayed there are not enough to match those who are retiring.
When health boards take over the places they pay locums who provide a very basic cover daily at rates that partners could never hope to earn with no management responsibilities, so apart from the sense of service there is very little drive to stay currently.
Ms. Apocalypse, depends on the polls. But even if a lower chance, the prospect would be more horrendous.
Yeah, but if some people's doomsday predictions come true and Labour are polling 20% then tbh there is no prospect of PM Corbyn.
If Labour are polling 20% one imagines quite a few kipper seats north of the Watford Gap. People who don't like Corbyn aren't going to be defecting to the Green's after all.
I doubt it tbh. They'll simply not vote. The Kipper share may rise, but I think they'll still be on 1 MP come 2020. Although people who don't like Corbyn may still be socially liberal, and centre-left - but want a moderate alternative (like me).
That will suit Farage almost as well. If the Labour voters sit on their hands in seats like Rother Valley it will fall in his lap quite nicely.
Is the UKIP share that big? I don't recall that it is, although they got quite a few second places in 2015, after only getting 1 MP out of 4m votes, UKIP could suffer from the 'wasted vote syndrome' that affects the Greens/other small parties, and used to affect the LDs.
I know that UKIP got quite a few second place results last year but still - it's very rare, that parties that receive a decent vote share but do poorly in seat total can suddenly replace the second party in British politics. UKIP also need to develop their message more - they mentioned immigration a million times over the last 4-3 years or so, that in itself will not swing seats. They also face the shooting of the fox - the EU - in the EU ref, which then puts them in a quandary as to what direction they go afterwards. As for resources - after the dismal 2015 campaign, I doubt it.
The two most recent opinion polls have both put combined support for the Conservatives and UKIP at 53% compared to 50.6% at the general election. No sign there of any great potential for a Corbyn-led Labour Party. Quite the opposite.
In 2004, nearly 60% of 25- to 34-year-olds were owner-occupiers; now it’s only just over a third.
That's a shocking statistic. Major planning reform is needed if it's to be addressed though, along with incentives for people to downsize.
The most serious threat to Conservative hegemony IMHO.
The further property ownership levels drop, the more likely the country is to shift to the Left.
All the polling data certainly backs up your fear.
I think we probably need to do something drastic now to reverse this problem - perhaps a system where planning permission is needed to convert a house from an owner occupier to a rented or to build an apartment block where the flats will be for rent.
Also we need to be building far more high rise apartment blocks since they take up little room but allow plenty of accommodation. Any US or Canadian city has plenty of these but the UK is really poor in this regard.
Mr. D., we did tower blocks in the sixties. They were not a great success. To build more without understanding why the last lot were such a disaster would be the height of folly.
Joe public might not like us grumbling, but they will like it even less when we have relocated.
Fair enough, Doc. You state the problem very eloquently but what is the answer? Is it that we should triple GP's salaries?
Exactly, hard to feel too bad about people working 9-5 Mon-Fri for 3-4 times the average wage..
I agree in principle... until they start walking in droves and we can't get a doctor when we need one. The "average wage" thing is a red herring, its a globally marketable skill, people will go where the package is best. Its like being an airline pilot, they get very well paid for essentially driving a bus, because if we paid them any less they would go and work in another country at no cost to themselves.
Very true. The brain drain is real. I'm on the VTS (GP training scheme) currently there is about a 1/3 of us who are actively planning to leave on completion. Even if we all stayed there are not enough to match those who are retiring.
When health boards take over the places they pay locums who provide a very basic cover daily at rates that partners could never hope to earn with no management responsibilities, so apart from the sense of service there is very little drive to stay currently.
Australia is lovely, NZ too!
UK medicine is screwed, no future here. Only us old timers ticking off the days will be left soon.
@DPJHodges: Burnham camp hit back at Cooper for not stepping down. "She knows she can't win. She's running for 2nd. Just wants to lead the resistance".
Fair enough, Doc. You state the problem very eloquently but what is the answer? Is it that we should triple GP's salaries?
I would say it is very hard to weedle out health tourism, and if you get it wrong and don't see, or if they came to the GP and it was serious and you refuse to see you are looking at a huge legal case, possibility of loosing a licence etc. Then if they were entitled and you refused then you get done for being racist (different accent no treatment?!) it's a minefield...
Please current guidance is to offer primary care treatment to all temporary patients who need it. No leg to stand on if refused. No way to combat it.
I would be completely for it if we were safeguarded against it, but never gonna happen. Medicolegally a nightmare.
Copay is awkward to implement - what about a paramedic visit? Those who are brought back for routine issues? Stopping those could be a false economy. You would need to charge for both otherwise you would shift demand. But it could be done.
I would say it is very hard to weedle out health tourism, and if you get it wrong and don't see, or if they came to the GP and it was serious and you refuse to see you are looking at a huge legal case, possibility of loosing a licence etc. Then if they were entitled and you refused then you get done for being racist (different accent no treatment?!) it's a minefield...
Please current guidance is to offer primary care treatment to all temporary patients who need it. No leg to stand on if refused. No way to combat it.
I would be completely for it if we were safeguarded against it, but never gonna happen. Medicolegally a nightmare.
Copay is awkward to implement - what about a paramedic visit? Those who are brought back for routine issues? Stopping those could be a false economy. You would need to charge for both otherwise you would shift demand. But it could be done.
Ms. Apocalypse, depends on the polls. But even if a lower chance, the prospect would be more horrendous.
Yeah, but if some people's doomsday predictions come true and Labour are polling 20% then tbh there is no prospect of PM Corbyn.
If Labour are polling 20% one imagines quite a few kipper seats north of the Watford Gap. People who don't like Corbyn aren't going to be defecting to the Green's after all.
I doubt it tbh. They'll simply not vote. The Kipper share may rise, but I think they'll still be on 1 MP come 2020. Although people who don't like Corbyn may still be socially liberal, and centre-left - but want a moderate alternative (like me).
That will suit Farage almost as well. If the Labour voters sit on their hands in seats like Rother Valley it will fall in his lap quite nicely.
Is the UKIP share that big? I don't recall that it is, although they got quite a few second places in 2015, after only getting 1 MP out of 4m votes, UKIP could suffer from the 'wasted vote syndrome' that affects the Greens/other small parties, and used to affect the LDs.
I know that UKIP got quite a few second place results last year but still - it's very rare, that parties that receive a decent vote share but do poorly in seat total can suddenly replace the second party in British politics. UKIP also need to develop their message more - they mentioned immigration a million times over the last 4-3 years or so, that in itself will not swing seats. They also face the shooting of the fox - the EU - in the EU ref, which then puts them in a quandary as to what direction they go afterwards. As for resources - after the dismal 2015 campaign, I doubt it.
Miss, whether the EU referendum shoots UKIp's fox rather depends on the terms of the renegotiation. If Cameron, or more realistically Osborne, has an attack of the clevers and tries to foist a faux renegotiation on the UK public then the fox will remain firmly unshot.
Joe public might not like us grumbling, but they will like it even less when we have relocated.
Fair enough, Doc. You state the problem very eloquently but what is the answer? Is it that we should triple GP's salaries?
Exactly, hard to feel too bad about people working 9-5 Mon-Fri for 3-4 times the average wage..
I agree in principle... until they start walking in droves and we can't get a doctor when we need one. The "average wage" thing is a red herring, its a globally marketable skill, people will go where the package is best. Its like being an airline pilot, they get very well paid for essentially driving a bus, because if we paid them any less they would go and work in another country at no cost to themselves.
Very true. The brain drain is real. I'm on the VTS (GP training scheme) currently there is about a 1/3 of us who are actively planning to leave on completion. Even if we all stayed there are not enough to match those who are retiring.
When health boards take over the places they pay locums who provide a very basic cover daily at rates that partners could never hope to earn with no management responsibilities, so apart from the sense of service there is very little drive to stay currently.
Australia is lovely, NZ too!
UK medicine is screwed, no future here. Only us old timers ticking off the days will be left soon.
In 2004, nearly 60% of 25- to 34-year-olds were owner-occupiers; now it’s only just over a third.
That's a shocking statistic. Major planning reform is needed if it's to be addressed though, along with incentives for people to downsize.
The most serious threat to Conservative hegemony IMHO.
The further property ownership levels drop, the more likely the country is to shift to the Left.
It doesn't have to be so. Most European countries have a much higher rental sector where people don't expect to own property, if at all, until much later in life.
But we do need much more housing, good quality long-term rental properties for families, a speeded up planning system, flats above shops in the centre of cities, roof terraces to provide more green spaces etc and if the Tories don't take this seriously they will - deservedly - pay the price.
Joe public might not like us grumbling, but they will like it even less when we have relocated.
Fair enough, Doc. You state the problem very eloquently but what is the answer? Is it that we should triple GP's salaries?
Exactly, hard to feel too bad about people working 9-5 Mon-Fri for 3-4 times the average wage..
I agree in principle... until they start walking in droves and we can't get a doctor when we need one. The "average wage" thing is a red herring, its a globally marketable skill, people will go where the package is best. Its like being an airline pilot, they get very well paid for essentially driving a bus, because if we paid them any less they would go and work in another country at no cost to themselves.
Very true. The brain drain is real. I'm on the VTS (GP training scheme) currently there is about a 1/3 of us who are actively planning to leave on completion. Even if we all stayed there are not enough to match those who are retiring.
When health boards take over the places they pay locums who provide a very basic cover daily at rates that partners could never hope to earn with no management responsibilities, so apart from the sense of service there is very little drive to stay currently.
Australia is lovely, NZ too!
UK medicine is screwed, no future here. Only us old timers ticking off the days will be left soon.
Ah, The good Dr. Sox, arrives! I rather hoped you would be able to join in the conversation with Dr. Muffin. OK, Uk medicine is screwed unless something or somethings change. So from your perspective as a hospital doc what should we do?
Joe public might not like us grumbling, but they will like it even less when we have relocated.
Fair enough, Doc. You state the problem very eloquently but what is the answer? Is it that we should triple GP's salaries?
Exactly, hard to feel too bad about people working 9-5 Mon-Fri for 3-4 times the average wage..
I agree in principle... until they start walking in droves and we can't get a doctor when we need one. The "average wage" thing is a red herring, its a globally marketable skill, people will go where the package is best. Its like being an airline pilot, they get very well paid for essentially driving a bus, because if we paid them any less they would go and work in another country at no cost to themselves.
Very true. The brain drain is real. I'm on the VTS (GP training scheme) currently there is about a 1/3 of us who are actively planning to leave on completion. Even if we all stayed there are not enough to match those who are retiring.
When health boards take over the places they pay locums who provide a very basic cover daily at rates that partners could never hope to earn with no management responsibilities, so apart from the sense of service there is very little drive to stay currently.
Australia is lovely, NZ too!
UK medicine is screwed, no future here. Only us old timers ticking off the days will be left soon.
The culture of 'Me, me, me!' has infected British healthcare too.
I'm guessing most current GPs took full advantage of the free university education, that us taxpayers coughed up for. What an ungrateful bunch.
Perhaps it's time for the GMC closed shop to be opened up to allow a few more from overseas to enter the job market.
Joe public might not like us grumbling, but they will like it even less when we have relocated.
Threatening to walk off makes you sound like the white collar equivalent of a Tube driver.
Perhaps amongst the many Syrians and Libyans heading north across the Med, there are some medical professionals willing and able to pick up the slack? Assuming the GMC lets them play ball of course.
In the past they came from India and probably Pakistan. there is no reason why they could not come from say Germany Italy etc... Pay is one thing but the demands of the system, driven by the public and their votes, is another. If we do not attract more recruits then the demands will rise and so will GP discontent. Alternatively we should understand the limits of the system and make fewer demands. Will we? The NHS is making great efforts to be more efficient, where should those savings go?
You are correct that the liberal, Europhile centre-left won't go UKIP, but there could certainly be an element of the working class that gets the message that Labour are even more the party of Muslims and benefits by Corbyn being leader. They will also continue to benefit from the Calais crisis and the EU referendum. If Corbyn gets it, I could see the next election being:
Con: 38% Lab: 25% UKIP: 18% Lib Dem: 6%
I don't see UKIP going that high - and tbh I think on PB a lot of people even this time round ended up over-predicting UKIP. While UKIP will appeal to many on the issue of immigration, that in itself - as seen in 2015 - is not enough to get tons of working-class Labour supporters to vote Purple enough to swing seats. Given that, UKIP will most likely need a leader that is far more credible than Farage to appeal to Labour voters, and also far better campaigning and organisational ability than in 2015.
I also don't see how the EU referendum benefits UKIP. If anything, it shoots UKIP's fox. UKIP's rasion-detre, is getting out of the EU. By having a referendum, that issue is solved either way. Many will mention the SNP, but at that point they had been in government, and proved themselves as viable, credible figures to the Scottish electorate. All the other alternatives were also either incompetent or unpopular by comparison, and had a single, powerful message of Scottish identity that was enough to draw votes from many different places. By contrast not all of the alternatives may be as discredited for working class Labour voters come 2020 - although Corbyn, Osborne and Farron are unlikely to appeal - and UKIP have yet to produce a powerful message either way that is enough to draw huge swathes of voters towards to them, to swing seats.
The Calais crisis is an issue now, but whether it will be by 2020 remains to be seen.
Daft. If UKIP can replace Farage the way Sturgeon replaced Salmond they could do very well in 2020.
If Labour elect Corbyn then UKIP probably have a once in a generation opportunity to attract large numbers of the WWC vote.
They will need more depth than just Farage to do that though, and most importantly Farage will need to understand that and let other people speak for the party. If he has any sense (!) he will resign after the referendum and let a new leader run up to the 2020 election.
You are correct that the liberal, Europhile centre-left won't go UKIP, but there could certainly be an element of the working class that gets the message that Labour are even more the party of Muslims and benefits by Corbyn being leader. They will also continue to benefit from the Calais crisis and the EU referendum. If Corbyn gets it, I could see the next election being:
Con: 38% Lab: 25% UKIP: 18% Lib Dem: 6%
I don't see UKIP going that high - and tbh I think on PB a lot of people even this time round ended up over-predicting UKIP. While UKIP will appeal to many on the issue of immigration, that in itself - as seen in 2015 - is not enough to get tons of working-class Labour supporters to vote Purple enough to swing seats. Given that, UKIP will most likely need a leader that is far more credible than Farage to appeal to Labour voters, and also far better campaigning and organisational ability than in 2015.
I also don't see how the EU referendum benefits UKIP. If anything, it shoots UKIP's fox. UKIP's rasion-detre, is getting out of the EU. By having a referendum, that issue is solved either way. Many will mention the SNP, but at that point they had been in government, and proved themselves as viable, credible figures to the Scottish electorate. All the other alternatives were also either incompetent or unpopular by comparison, and had a single, powerful message of Scottish identity that was enough to draw votes from many different places. By contrast not all of the alternatives may be as discredited for working class Labour voters come 2020 - although Corbyn, Osborne and Farron are unlikely to appeal - and UKIP have yet to produce a powerful message either way that is enough to draw huge swathes of voters towards to them, to swing seats.
The Calais crisis is an issue now, but whether it will be by 2020 remains to be seen.
Daft. If UKIP can replace Farage the way Sturgeon replaced Salmond they could do very well in 2020.
In 2004, nearly 60% of 25- to 34-year-olds were owner-occupiers; now it’s only just over a third.
That's a shocking statistic. Major planning reform is needed if it's to be addressed though, along with incentives for people to downsize.
The most serious threat to Conservative hegemony IMHO.
The further property ownership levels drop, the more likely the country is to shift to the Left.
All the polling data certainly backs up your fear.
I think we probably need to do something drastic now to reverse this problem - perhaps a system where planning permission is needed to convert a house from an owner occupier to a rented or to build an apartment block where the flats will be for rent.
Also we need to be building far more high rise apartment blocks since they take up little room but allow plenty of accommodation. Any US or Canadian city has plenty of these but the UK is really poor in this regard.
The English want detached family homes with a garden. We got this right from c.1920-c.1985.
Newbuilds now are shite. Tiny, dense, cramped, awfully designed and mixed together all to comply with pointless bureaucracy and crass eco-socio-engineering policy tinkering - yet just as expensive as older, larger homes.
We need the mass release of land for housing. The government should do this like HS2. Build up whopping great landbanks in consultation with the private sector, rush through the legals and approvals and then let the developers build, build and build. Bunk existing homeowners who are inconvenienced a monkey.
@DPJHodges: Burnham camp hit back at Cooper for not stepping down. "She knows she can't win. She's running for 2nd. Just wants to lead the resistance".
The Yvette Cong.
So Burham accepts he can't win?
No. But he's looking to appeal to people who might support Corbyn as a more electable alternative who still shares their values.
Meanwhile Cooper targets the Anyone But Corbyn crowd by joining in with the attacks on Corbyn and his supporters, which might help her to 2nd place but kills her chances of winning the final round as a large chunk of Burnham's leftwing support joins Corbyn.
Of course in practice Corbyn will probably win in the first round and make this all pretty academic
@DPJHodges: Burnham camp hit back at Cooper for not stepping down. "She knows she can't win. She's running for 2nd. Just wants to lead the resistance".
Fair enough, Doc. You state the problem very eloquently but what is the answer? Is it that we should triple GP's salaries?
I would say it is very hard to weedle out health tourism, and if you get it wrong and don't see, or if they came to the GP and it was serious and you refuse to see you are looking at a huge legal case, possibility of loosing a licence etc. Then if they were entitled and you refused then you get done for being racist (different accent no treatment?!) it's a minefield...
Please current guidance is to offer primary care treatment to all temporary patients who need it. No leg to stand on if refused. No way to combat it.
I would be completely for it if we were safeguarded against it, but never gonna happen. Medicolegally a nightmare.
Copay is awkward to implement - what about a paramedic visit? Those who are brought back for routine issues? Stopping those could be a false economy. You would need to charge for both otherwise you would shift demand. But it could be done.
I would say it is very hard to weedle out health tourism, and if you get it wrong and don't see, or if they came to the GP and it was serious and you refuse to see you are looking at a huge legal case, possibility of loosing a licence etc. Then if they were entitled and you refused then you get done for being racist (different accent no treatment?!) it's a minefield...
Please current guidance is to offer primary care treatment to all temporary patients who need it. No leg to stand on if refused. No way to combat it.
I would be completely for it if we were safeguarded against it, but never gonna happen. Medicolegally a nightmare.
Copay is awkward to implement - what about a paramedic visit? Those who are brought back for routine issues? Stopping those could be a false economy. You would need to charge for both otherwise you would shift demand. But it could be done.
Other European countries manage both. It's not beyond us to deal with these issues and other problems. But not if the reaction to even the idea of doing something is to claim, hysterically, (not that I'm accusing you of this) that this will lead to deaths in the street etc.
I think I am with Ms Apocalypse on this one. My guess is that peak Kipper turned out to be 2 MPs and I expect them to do less well in terms of votes in 2020 (or whenever) than they did in 2015.
Of course if Labour did have a meltdown things might change but my guess is that even under Corbyn Labour will not do much worse than they did under Brown and Ed in terms of votes, although they may have fewer seats.
You're describing the sense of entitlement hypertrophy that is common now.
I've always thought that GPs deserve their money. Bothered continually by a bewildering range of hypochondriacs, whingers and genuine cases. And expected to be there at convenient times to diagnose/prescribe on demand whatever is either correct or wanted.
The population is aging fast so you need to be a gerontologist as well as a geriatrician and paediatrician.
Your only recompense is that you are trusted but that increases the responsibility.
Best of luck.
Thank you. It is very rewarding, and there is a part of me that wants to serve the local community and see those people through from birth to the end.
However there is also realism, and family who I want to give the best for but more importantly be around to see grow up. That really isn't going to happen in the UK...
You're describing the sense of entitlement hypertrophy that is common now.
I've always thought that GPs deserve their money. Bothered continually by a bewildering range of hypochondriacs, whingers and genuine cases. And expected to be there at convenient times to diagnose/prescribe on demand whatever is either correct or wanted.
The population is aging fast so you need to be a gerontologist as well as a geriatrician and paediatrician.
Your only recompense is that you are trusted but that increases the responsibility.
Best of luck.
Thank you. It is very rewarding, and there is a part of me that wants to serve the local community and see those people through from birth to the end.
However there is also realism, and family who I want to give the best for but more importantly be around to see grow up. That really isn't going to happen in the UK...
@DPJHodges: Burnham camp hit back at Cooper for not stepping down. "She knows she can't win. She's running for 2nd. Just wants to lead the resistance".
Cooper hits back: He knows he can't win. He's running for 2nd. Just wants a high price for his principles.
More! More!
And yet Corbyn is *still* hovering at 1.4 on Betfair.
The big speeches and interventions have come and gone. The two challengers are fighting like ferrets in a sack. Voting started today, and what possible gamechangers are left?
This price is an absolute gift.
Miliband's refusal to back Anyone But Corbyn is very telling. He thinks the Jezmonster is going to win. They ALL think El Corbo is going to win. No one wants to be totally out in the cold just in case the new leader is bizarrely popular. They are all bewildered and frightened.
What total larks.
And they will end up fulfilling their own prophecy: why should anyone undecided vote for the also rans when they themselves admit they will lose and are fighting for 2nd?
"There has been a large explosion close to a shrine in the centre of the Thai capital, Bangkok. Local TV has initially reported five dead and 20 injured and quoted police as saying it was caused by a bomb."
On the concept of trading bets vs letting bets run to maturity, another factor is your confidence and comfort at absorbing potential losses.
If you eg were willing to wager a tenner and willing to lose it, backing Corbyn at 100/1 then you could lay that now at nearly a grand profit whether Corbyn wins or loses. If you didn't have any bet in this market would you be prepared to enter it now risking a thousand pounds at Corbyn's current odds? If so then let the bet ride, if you wouldn't dream of wagering a grand now at these odds then hedge and take some of your profits.
My answer remains much the same as this year. In a Labour-Conservative marginal (other than Thurrock) I'd vote Conservative.
Joe public might not like us grumbling, but they will like it even less when we have relocated.
Fair enough, Doc. You state the problem very eloquently but what is the answer? Is it that we should triple GP's salaries?
Thank you. There is no easy solution. I do not think a tripling of salaries would actually help too much. It may help retention of young possible emigrates, but it would not prevent the burnout or workload issues that there are.
If the workload and working day was the same as it was 5-10 years ago, I don't think there would be this high level of angst or panic in the system. People would work more sessions and it would exponentially solve the problem quicker.
The issue is the tipping point has been passed. More and shrinking hours or leaving due to the work pressures leaving more on those that are left, and making it less attractive. It is a vicious circle.
Put it this way - a tripling of salary alone would not make me want to stay here over emigrate with the way the working day is at the moment. That statement alone should resonate how unworkable the current system is.
Thank you for an honest answer.
It would seem from what you say that actually charging people a modest but reasonable fee (say £20) to see their GP and for visits to A & E, might make a huge difference. Put in appropriate safeguards and exemptions and it should work. There will be lots of screaming but we had that when prescription charges were introduced and at divers times since - anyone remember how the nation was going to go blind when opticians were allowed to charge? People are used to paying for an optician's time and for dentists' they will get used to paying for a physicians'.
And before anyone gets on their high horse, I am retired and have a chronic illness plus serious eyesight problems, which means I probably spend more time in doctor's waiting rooms than the vast majority. I am also reasonably comfortably off and I would no objection to coughing up a twenty quid each time I see my GP. Of course I might also start demanding he keeps the appointment times and can tell me more than I can find out from Google, but that is another issue.
I agree with you on charging to see a GP or attend A&E (with appropriate exemptions). It makes sense and I'm sure it will come in time but it is a hard one politically.
CIF - You should be able to express doubt about Corbyn without risking vitriol.
The bile directed towards Tony Blair and the never-elected Alastair Campbell is entirely understandable. They signify so much that is wrong. When Peter Mandelson sweeps in, swirling his pantomime villain cloak, with a plot he has clearly lost, support for Corbyn solidifies. All we need now is Ed Miliband on the virtue of carving a load of old tosh on a tombstone, for the circle to be complete.
But I was disturbed by the vitriol poured out against Gordon Brown this weekend, even while I’m aware of his flaws. As leader, he was arrogant, stubborn, compelled by power but unable to exercise it, he sanctioned nasty briefings against loyal colleagues, he was too cautious to call the only election he could have won in 2007. He did not have the charisma that leadership appears to demand, which the Corbynites may note. But what he said in his speech was hard-won, and moving.
In 2004, nearly 60% of 25- to 34-year-olds were owner-occupiers; now it’s only just over a third.
That's a shocking statistic. Major planning reform is needed if it's to be addressed though, along with incentives for people to downsize.
The most serious threat to Conservative hegemony IMHO.
The further property ownership levels drop, the more likely the country is to shift to the Left.
All the polling data certainly backs up your fear.
I think we probably need to do something drastic now to reverse this problem - perhaps a system where planning permission is needed to convert a house from an owner occupier to a rented or to build an apartment block where the flats will be for rent.
Also we need to be building far more high rise apartment blocks since they take up little room but allow plenty of accommodation. Any US or Canadian city has plenty of these but the UK is really poor in this regard.
The English want detached family homes with a garden. We got this right from c.1920-c.1985.
Newbuilds now are shite. Tiny, dense, cramped, awfully designed and mixed together all to comply with pointless bureaucracy and crass eco-socio-engineering policy tinkering - yet just as expensive as older, larger homes.
We need the mass release of land for housing. The government should do this like HS2. Build up whopping great landbanks in consultation with the private sector, rush through the legals and approvals and then let the developers build, build and build. Bunk existing homeowners who are inconvenienced a monkey.
And get a serious grip on immigration too. Natch.
Agree entirely. Planning reform is way overdue, as is probably another Milton Keynes sized new town with associated services. Permission is too hard to get, and comes with too many strings attached.
There's also plenty of MoD land around that could be freed up for development if the will was there to do something about housing. The main issue is that those opposed are very vocal about it - professional NIMBYs are a real nuisance as we see with HS2 and LHR expansion, both projects that need to start yesterday.
Joe public might not like us grumbling, but they will like it even less when we have relocated.
Fair enough, Doc. You state the problem very eloquently but what is the answer? Is it that we should triple GP's salaries?
Thank you. There is no easy solution. I do not think a tripling of salaries would actually help too much. It may help retention of young possible emigrates, but it would not prevent the burnout or workload issues that there are.
If the workload and working day was the same as it was 5-10 years ago, I don't think there would be this high level of angst or panic in the system. People would work more sessions and it would exponentially solve the problem quicker.
The issue is the tipping point has been passed. More and shrinking hours or leaving due to the work pressures leaving more on those that are left, and making it less attractive. It is a vicious circle.
Put it this way - a tripling of salary alone would not make me want to stay here over emigrate with the way the working day is at the moment. That statement alone should resonate how unworkable the current system is.
Thank you for an honest answer.
It would seem from what you say that actually charging people a modest but reasonable fee (say £20) to see their GP and for visits to A & E, might make a huge difference. Put in appropriate safeguards and exemptions and it should work. There will be lots of screaming but we had that when prescription charges were introduced and at divers times since - anyone remember how the nation was going to go blind when opticians were allowed to charge? People are used to paying for an optician's time and for dentists' they will get used to paying for a physicians'.
And before anyone gets on their high horse, I am retired and have a chronic illness plus serious eyesight problems, which means I probably spend more time in doctor's waiting rooms than the vast majority. I am also reasonably comfortably off and I would no objection to coughing up a twenty quid each time I see my GP. Of course I might also start demanding he keeps the appointment times and can tell me more than I can find out from Google, but that is another issue.
I agree with you on charging to see a GP or attend A&E (with appropriate exemptions). It makes sense and I'm sure it will come in time but it is a hard one politically.
Yes. Another one for the too-difficult list unfortunately. I can see the protests now talking about how many babies the evil Tories are killing in order to privatise the NHS.
Posts filled are at record lows. But all parties talk about record numbers of more GPs. Labour 8k. Tories 5k. I have no idea where these will come from. No one wants to be trained, and a lot of those who are being trained are fleeing the ship!
I agree with you on charging to see a GP or attend A&E (with appropriate exemptions). It makes sense and I'm sure it will come in time but it is a hard one politically.
It is a hard one politically, Mr. Barnesian, but it will not get any easier with time and, as the posts of our medical friends on her show, the problem is set to get worse.
As per Lady Mac, if it is done when 'tis done then 'twere well it were done quickly. No doubt there would have to be a commission or enquiry that would need to be set up to recommend what needs to be done, so Cameron could get on with that now (he won't of course because, big jessie as he is, he ducks everything he can).
@Cyclefree - I don't think it will lead to deaths on the street. But if you get it right, IE not entitled but there is an adverse outcome bye bye licence. If you get it wrong and they are entitled then you are racist xist etc. BYe bye licence. Also there is government guidence saying all should be treated. We cannot win...
@Cyclefree - I don't think it will lead to deaths on the street. But if you get it right, IE not entitled but there is an adverse outcome bye bye licence. If you get it wrong and they are entitled then you are racist xist etc. BYe bye licence. Also there is government guidence saying all should be treated. We cannot win...
Agreed: the government needs to change the rules and stop imposing more and more requirements on doctors. Both the incentives and downsides are perverse.
Ms. Apocalypse, depends on the polls. But even if a lower chance, the prospect would be more horrendous.
Yeah, but if some people's doomsday predictions come true and Labour are polling 20% then tbh there is no prospect of PM Corbyn.
If Labour are polling 20% one imagines quite a few kipper seats north of the Watford Gap. People who don't like Corbyn aren't going to be defecting to the Green's after all.
I doubt it tbh. They'll simply not vote. The Kipper share may rise, but I think they'll still be on 1 MP come 2020. Although people who don't like Corbyn may still be socially liberal, and centre-left - but want a moderate alternative (like me).
That will suit Farage almost as well. If the Labour voters sit on their hands in seats like Rother Valley it will fall in his lap quite nicely.
Is the UKIP share that big? I don't recall that it is, although they got quite a few second places in 2015, after only getting 1 MP out of 4m votes, UKIP could suffer from the 'wasted vote syndrome' that affects the Greens/other small parties, and used to affect the LDs.
I know that UKIP got quite a few second place results last year but still - it's very rare, that parties that receive a decent vote share but do poorly in seat total can suddenly replace the second party in British politics. UKIP also need to develop their message more - they mentioned immigration a million times over the last 4-3 years or so, that in itself will not swing seats. They also face the shooting of the fox - the EU - in the EU ref, which then puts them in a quandary as to what direction they go afterwards. As for resources - after the dismal 2015 campaign, I doubt it.
3% to 13% in five years... amazing what a dismal campaign can do
Those forecasting the demise of UKIP following the EU referendum are, I think, mistaken. The right wing in the UK has split between the metropolitan, socially liberal, internationalist, Tories (TSE, for example), and the more socially conservative, who are concerned with the impact on British society of various external forces (of which the EU is only one).
This schism on the right will not be easily healed. (Although a Corbyn Labour Party surging the polls might pull them back together, temporarily at least.) It is a breakdown in the traditional alliance that makes up the Conservative Party - between Capital and Country.
Posts filled are at record lows. But all parties talk about record numbers of more GPs. Labour 8k. Tories 5k. I have no idea where these will come from. No one wants to be trained, and a lot of those who are being trained are fleeing the ship!
I agree with the problem - and not so long ago it was being solved with higher salaries and less out of hours working. The press the voters were self servingly enraged. As were the usual PB suspects. Tories themselves were as bad as were labour especially once in opposition. Sadly the way Brown strayed money at an unreformed NHS was a disaster. The left and LDs and all manner of allied self serving groups have stuck their oar into the Tory reforms.
Daft. If UKIP can replace Farage the way Sturgeon replaced Salmond they could do very well in 2020.
Given that UKIP is practically Farage's pet-project that seems incredibly unlikely. In any given case, all my previous points stand. Sturgeon could easily step into Salmond's shoes, not only because she had been his deputy for many years (and therefore developed a political profile in Scotland) but also because she had been a part of a governing administration, too. In proving her credentials in managing government and power, she was credible to the Scottish electorate. Fundamentally, the SNP's message, and Sturgeon's own demeanour wasn't divisive (I stress, this applies to Scotland - obviously throughout the UK as a whole the message was divisive).
No one within UKIP can really lay claim to that kind of thing. Indeed, the only viable person I can think of for the leadership would be Suzanne Evans - and it appears that anyone who falls out with Farage, suddenly sees their career prospects within UKIP dry up.
You're describing the sense of entitlement hypertrophy that is common now.
I've always thought that GPs deserve their money. Bothered continually by a bewildering range of hypochondriacs, whingers and genuine cases. And expected to be there at convenient times to diagnose/prescribe on demand whatever is either correct or wanted.
The population is aging fast so you need to be a gerontologist as well as a geriatrician and paediatrician.
Your only recompense is that you are trusted but that increases the responsibility.
Best of luck.
Thank you. It is very rewarding, and there is a part of me that wants to serve the local community and see those people through from birth to the end.
However there is also realism, and family who I want to give the best for but more importantly be around to see grow up. That really isn't going to happen in the UK...
Advances in automation and AI will spell the end of GP's as we know them. Likely in my lifetime, certainly in that of my children.
Ms. Apocalypse, depends on the polls. But even if a lower chance, the prospect would be more horrendous.
Yeah, but if some people's doomsday predictions come true and Labour are polling 20% then tbh there is no prospect of PM Corbyn.
The Labour party is unlikely to poll under 27/8% even under Corbyn - if it goes as low as 20% for a sustained period it's finished and a new progressive left version takes over.
In a general election, a Corbyn-led Labour could easily poll well under 27% and probably below 20%. That's not to say it would (or will) but that there's a reasonable chance.
Under Foot, Labour only polled 27% and that was without the SNP knocking off 3% off their GB share, and without the Greens or UKIP as significant forces. Against that, there was a much stronger centre force in the Alliance as against the Lib Dems (but then the Conservatives are currently aiming for the centre in a way that Thatcher's 1983 Conservatives weren't).
Alternatively, both Brown and Miliband scored within a point of 30% so to drop a three or four from there is no big deal, particularly when most of their support (as with other parties, though to a lesser extent) only turns out once every five years anyway).
The apocalyptic scenario for Labour is a party riven by internal division over the next five years but which proves incapable of removing Corbyn (or removes him only for the same electorate to put him back), where the economy doesn't suffer a serious setback and where the budget is back near balance come 2020 with the spending taps beginning to be turned back on, where a Farron-led Lib Dems is chipping away at Labour's right wing while the SNP and UKIP keep other elements of their one-time coalition tied down elsewhere.
I don't expect that to happen. Too many opportunities for 'events' to intervene (the EU referendum being one obvious known unknown), and there's a good chance the global economy will hit the buffers at some point in the next five years (China?). Furthermore, despite Labour's historic inability to mount successful coups, surely something would be done in such dire circumstances. For that matter, Corbyn may jump if it looked as if he was about to destroy his own party. As a potential leader, he's unusual in that he's not in it for himself.
But having said all that, we're in a period of exceptional change and Labour should be aware that they're betting the house on Red.
Miss, whether the EU referendum shoots UKIp's fox rather depends on the terms of the renegotiation. If Cameron, or more realistically Osborne, has an attack of the clevers and tries to foist a faux renegotiation on the UK public then the fox will remain firmly unshot.
I don't agree. There wasn't even a massive clamour among the public as a whole for an EU referendum in the first place - the EU as an issue rarely scores highly among IPSOS MORI's Index. Someone will now point to the fact that polls said, when asked most people said 'yes' to a referendum - but that's the case with nearly any referendum question, it doesn't mean it factors in most people's everyday radars. In large part, a lot of the reason why there was even a referendum in the first place, was because Cameron and Osborne had brought into the narrative that UKIP was a threat to the Conservative vote, and in order to consolidate their base - while reaching out to floating voters - they promised a referendum. Where a close result could impact, is on the internal harmony of the Conservative party. A large part of the issue is that while the public as a whole remain sceptical of the EU, they don't trust Farage (or indeed any party leader) to give a truthful narrative on the EU. I think MORI did a poll on this, and it showed that Cameron was the most trusted on this issue.
I also don't see why it would realistically be Osborne - it would be Cameron and Osborne involved in negotiations, yes - but Cameron would most likely be doing the campaigning, and selling of the YES side to the public. He most likely won't go before 2017.
Speaking to shadow ministers over the weekend, it appears a majority are moving towards the Maquis model. “The key lesson we learnt in the 1980s is you never voluntarily concede ground to the Left,” one said to me. They also pointed out that there are number of practical and constitutional reasons why it was important not relinquish control of the shadow cabinet. Each shadow cabinet position comes with significant financial resources for research and media work. The shadow cabinet also has control over a number of positions on Labour’s ruling NEC. “We haven’t had to check all this stuff for decades," one shadow minister said, “but when you look at the small print of the party rule book the Shadow Cabinet actually has a lot of influence over the party machinery."
All of which means that the left would be well advised to bring back elections to the shadow cabinet. I had thought that was indeed Corbyn's intent?
In 2004, nearly 60% of 25- to 34-year-olds were owner-occupiers; now it’s only just over a third.
That's a shocking statistic. Major planning reform is needed if it's to be addressed though, along with incentives for people to downsize.
The most serious threat to Conservative hegemony IMHO.
The further property ownership levels drop, the more likely the country is to shift to the Left.
All the polling data certainly backs up your fear.
The English want detached family homes with a garden. We got this right from c.1920-c.1985.
And get a serious grip on immigration too. Natch.
Agree entirely. Planning reform is way overdue, as is probably another Milton Keynes sized new town with associated services. Permission is too hard to get, and comes with too many strings attached.
Sounds about right. It's at the point where we need some majorly sized builds, not merely relaxing of laws to enable a few dozen here, a few hundred there. And the speed at which it's needed requires some people will have to get hard done by sadly, I'd hate to be one of them, but it really is a, apologies, greater good situation.
You're describing the sense of entitlement hypertrophy that is common now.
I've always thought that GPs deserve their money. Bothered continually by a bewildering range of hypochondriacs, whingers and genuine cases. And expected to be there at convenient times to diagnose/prescribe on demand whatever is either correct or wanted.
The population is aging fast so you need to be a gerontologist as well as a geriatrician and paediatrician.
Your only recompense is that you are trusted but that increases the responsibility.
Best of luck.
Thank you. It is very rewarding, and there is a part of me that wants to serve the local community and see those people through from birth to the end.
However there is also realism, and family who I want to give the best for but more importantly be around to see grow up. That really isn't going to happen in the UK...
Advances in automation and AI will spell the end of GP's as we know them. Likely in my lifetime, certainly in that of my children.
And like many other things that have been automated the results will improve.
@DPJHodges: Burnham camp hit back at Cooper for not stepping down. "She knows she can't win. She's running for 2nd. Just wants to lead the resistance".
3% to 13% in five years... amazing what a dismal campaign can do
25 MPs - 5 MPs forecasts, to only actual 1 MP = plus losing a seat, plus your party leader failing to win a seat for the nth time. That's a dismal campaign. Unfortunately in FPTP, vote-share, unless accompanied by considerable seat total, doesn't mean much.
3% to 13% in five years... amazing what a dismal campaign can do
25 MPs - 5 MPs forecasts, to only actual 1 MP = plus losing a seat, plus your party leader failing to win a seat for the nth time. That's a dismal campaign. Unfortunately in FPTP, vote-share, unless accompanied by considerable seat total, doesn't mean much.
Maybe they will go from 13% to 23% over the next five years. 23% is incidentally the current share of the vote in the opinion polls for the Swedish Democrats, who are actually quite a long way to the populist right of UKIP.
Those forecasting the demise of UKIP following the EU referendum are, I think, mistaken. The right wing in the UK has split between the metropolitan, socially liberal, internationalist, Tories (TSE, for example), and the more socially conservative, who are concerned with the impact on British society of various external forces (of which the EU is only one).
This schism on the right will not be easily healed. (Although a Corbyn Labour Party surging the polls might pull them back together, temporarily at least.) It is a breakdown in the traditional alliance that makes up the Conservative Party - between Capital and Country.
That's true, but you appear to be referring to the splitting of the right-wing vote - something which many PBers, I think would consider unlikely.
There's also plenty of MoD land around that could be freed up for development if the will was there to do something about housing. The main issue is that those opposed are very vocal about it - professional NIMBYs are a real nuisance as we see with HS2 and LHR expansion, both projects that need to start yesterday.
As I have said before these sort of "hero" projects needs to be authorised explicitly by primary legislation as essential to the national interest, hedged around with appropriate clause to explicitly block judicial reviews and other time-wasting measures. Then the NIMBY's can get lost and building can go ahead
3% to 13% in five years... amazing what a dismal campaign can do
25 MPs - 5 MPs forecasts, to only actual 1 MP = plus losing a seat, plus your party leader failing to win a seat for the nth time. That's a dismal campaign. Unfortunately in FPTP, vote-share, unless accompanied by considerable seat total, doesn't mean much.
Maybe they will go from 13% to 23% over the next five years. 23% is incidentally the current share of the vote in the opinion polls for the Swedish Democrats, who are actually quite a long way to the populist right of UKIP.
Sweden I think has a PR system, though. If you have PR, the opportunities for smaller parties to grow, and challenge is endless. FPTP generally consolidates the positions of the big two.
In 2004, nearly 60% of 25- to 34-year-olds were owner-occupiers; now it’s only just over a third.
That's a shocking statistic. Major planning reform is needed if it's to be addressed though, along with incentives for people to downsize.
The most serious threat to Conservative hegemony IMHO.
The further property ownership levels drop, the more likely the country is to shift to the Left.
All the polling data certainly backs up your fear.
I think we probably need to do something drastic now to reverse this problem - perhaps a system where planning permission is needed to convert a house from an owner occupier to a rented or to build an apartment block where the flats will be for rent.
Also we need to be building far more high rise apartment blocks since they take up little room but allow plenty of accommodation. Any US or Canadian city has plenty of these but the UK is really poor in this regard.
The English want detached family homes with a garden. We got this right from c.1920-c.1985.
Newbuilds now are shite. Tiny, dense, cramped, awfully designed and mixed together all to comply with pointless bureaucracy and crass eco-socio-engineering policy tinkering - yet just as expensive as older, larger homes.
We need the mass release of land for housing. The government should do this like HS2. Build up whopping great landbanks in consultation with the private sector, rush through the legals and approvals and then let the developers build, build and build. Bunk existing homeowners who are inconvenienced a monkey.
And get a serious grip on immigration too. Natch.
Agree entirely. Planning reform is way overdue, as is probably another Milton Keynes sized new town with associated services. Permission is too hard to get, and comes with too many strings attached.
There's also plenty of MoD land around that could be freed up for development if the will was there to do something about housing. The main issue is that those opposed are very vocal about it - professional NIMBYs are a real nuisance as we see with HS2 and LHR expansion, both projects that need to start yesterday.
It's so disappointing to see the kind of houses and apartments being built now. I'm an (almost) empty nester, and cannot see where on earth I'm going to move to once the nest is actually empty. The new builds are horrible, particularly the flats - tiny, cramped affairs with no storage.
3% to 13% in five years... amazing what a dismal campaign can do
25 MPs - 5 MPs forecasts, to only actual 1 MP = plus losing a seat, plus your party leader failing to win a seat for the nth time. That's a dismal campaign. Unfortunately in FPTP, vote-share, unless accompanied by considerable seat total, doesn't mean much.
Maybe they will go from 13% to 23% over the next five years. 23% is incidentally the current share of the vote in the opinion polls for the Swedish Democrats, who are actually quite a long way to the populist right of UKIP.
Sweden I think has a PR system, though. If you have PR, the opportunities for smaller parties to grow, and challenge is endless. FPTP generally consolidates the positions of the big two.
To a point, yet votes for parties outside the big two have gone from 1 in 50 in the 1950s to about 1 in 3 last time. And the UK is not immune from breaks from the big two: the SNP in Scotland and the rise of the Labour party are two cases, if rare ones. UKIP could do it if either big party takes its core vote too much for granted for too long.
The biggest health problem this country faces is the incoming type II diabetes epidemic
amazing on radio today they said it was up 60% in last 10 years in Scotland, nearly unbelievable till you go out and see the amount of obese people around.
The biggest health problem this country faces is the incoming type II diabetes epidemic
amazing on radio today they said it was up 60% in last 10 years in Scotland, nearly unbelievable till you go out and see the amount of obese people around.
Only 60% may be an improvement over expectation !
Anecdotally, when I was diagnosed Type I in 2000 I was quoted a rule of thumb as D Type 2 doubling every decade, D type 1 doubling every generation. We also have a significant increase of BME population segments with historically very high rates of D Type II - all sorts of demographic and cultural factors involved.
Comments
The big speeches and interventions have come and gone. The two challengers are fighting like ferrets in a sack. Voting started today, and what possible gamechangers are left?
This price is an absolute gift.
I also don't see how the EU referendum benefits UKIP. If anything, it shoots UKIP's fox. UKIP's rasion-detre, is getting out of the EU. By having a referendum, that issue is solved either way. Many will mention the SNP, but at that point they had been in government, and proved themselves as viable, credible figures to the Scottish electorate. All the other alternatives were also either incompetent or unpopular by comparison, and had a single, powerful message of Scottish identity that was enough to draw votes from many different places. By contrast not all of the alternatives may be as discredited for working class Labour voters come 2020 - although Corbyn, Osborne and Farron are unlikely to appeal - and UKIP have yet to produce a powerful message either way that is enough to draw huge swathes of voters towards to them, to swing seats.
The Calais crisis is an issue now, but whether it will be by 2020 remains to be seen.
We also need to do something about health tourism - we cannot provide a free health service to people from abroad who do not contribute to our taxes. I find it ironic that doctors are so against any such measures despite the burdens this places on doctors.
Also, I’d not be surprised in the slightest if Ed’s reluctance was based on a certain admiration for Corbyn and a desire for a place in his shadow cabinet.
All the polling data certainly backs up your fear.
I think we probably need to do something drastic now to reverse this problem - perhaps a system where planning permission is needed to convert a house from an owner occupier to a rented or to build an apartment block where the flats will be for rent.
Also we need to be building far more high rise apartment blocks since they take up little room but allow plenty of accommodation. Any US or Canadian city has plenty of these but the UK is really poor in this regard.
When health boards take over the places they pay locums who provide a very basic cover daily at rates that partners could never hope to earn with no management responsibilities, so apart from the sense of service there is very little drive to stay currently.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#2015
UK medicine is screwed, no future here. Only us old timers ticking off the days will be left soon.
But we do need much more housing, good quality long-term rental properties for families, a speeded up planning system, flats above shops in the centre of cities, roof terraces to provide more green spaces etc and if the Tories don't take this seriously they will - deservedly - pay the price.
@Labourpaul: To defeat Corbyn, you must become Corbyn.
I'm guessing most current GPs took full advantage of the free university education, that us taxpayers coughed up for. What an ungrateful bunch.
Perhaps it's time for the GMC closed shop to be opened up to allow a few more from overseas to enter the job market.
Pay is one thing but the demands of the system, driven by the public and their votes, is another. If we do not attract more recruits then the demands will rise and so will GP discontent. Alternatively we should understand the limits of the system and make fewer demands.
Will we? The NHS is making great efforts to be more efficient, where should those savings go?
They will need more depth than just Farage to do that though, and most importantly Farage will need to understand that and let other people speak for the party. If he has any sense (!) he will resign after the referendum and let a new leader run up to the 2020 election.
Newbuilds now are shite. Tiny, dense, cramped, awfully designed and mixed together all to comply with pointless bureaucracy and crass eco-socio-engineering policy tinkering - yet just as expensive as older, larger homes.
We need the mass release of land for housing. The government should do this like HS2. Build up whopping great landbanks in consultation with the private sector, rush through the legals and approvals and then let the developers build, build and build. Bunk existing homeowners who are inconvenienced a monkey.
And get a serious grip on immigration too. Natch.
Meanwhile Cooper targets the Anyone But Corbyn crowd by joining in with the attacks on Corbyn and his supporters, which might help her to 2nd place but kills her chances of winning the final round as a large chunk of Burnham's leftwing support joins Corbyn.
Of course in practice Corbyn will probably win in the first round and make this all pretty academic
Of course if Labour did have a meltdown things might change but my guess is that even under Corbyn Labour will not do much worse than they did under Brown and Ed in terms of votes, although they may have fewer seats.
However there is also realism, and family who I want to give the best for but more importantly be around to see grow up. That really isn't going to happen in the UK...
Local TV has initially reported five dead and 20 injured and quoted police as saying it was caused by a bomb."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-33963280
The bile directed towards Tony Blair and the never-elected Alastair Campbell is entirely understandable. They signify so much that is wrong. When Peter Mandelson sweeps in, swirling his pantomime villain cloak, with a plot he has clearly lost, support for Corbyn solidifies. All we need now is Ed Miliband on the virtue of carving a load of old tosh on a tombstone, for the circle to be complete.
But I was disturbed by the vitriol poured out against Gordon Brown this weekend, even while I’m aware of his flaws. As leader, he was arrogant, stubborn, compelled by power but unable to exercise it, he sanctioned nasty briefings against loyal colleagues, he was too cautious to call the only election he could have won in 2007. He did not have the charisma that leadership appears to demand, which the Corbynites may note. But what he said in his speech was hard-won, and moving.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/17/labour-leadership-vitriol-jeremy-corbyn-gordon-brown?CMP=share_btn_tw#comments
Left on Left vitriolic abuse is bad – unless it’s directed at Blair, in which case it’s OK...!
There's also plenty of MoD land around that could be freed up for development if the will was there to do something about housing. The main issue is that those opposed are very vocal about it - professional NIMBYs are a real nuisance as we see with HS2 and LHR expansion, both projects that need to start yesterday.
http://gprecruitment.hee.nhs.uk/Recruitment/Competition-Ratios
Note these are ALL applicants, not successful applicants only or those who apply to a few different specialties.
http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/your-practice/practice-topics/education/outlook-bleak-as-trainee-applications-hit-new-low/20009381.article#.VdHXFvlViko
They have added in a new intake this February to try and combat things as they are.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11517019/One-in-3-trainee-GP-posts-are-empty-amid-warnings-of-crisis-shortage.html
Posts filled are at record lows. But all parties talk about record numbers of more GPs. Labour 8k. Tories 5k. I have no idea where these will come from. No one wants to be trained, and a lot of those who are being trained are fleeing the ship!
As per Lady Mac, if it is done when 'tis done then 'twere well it were done quickly. No doubt there would have to be a commission or enquiry that would need to be set up to recommend what needs to be done, so Cameron could get on with that now (he won't of course because, big jessie as he is, he ducks everything he can).
This asks readers to consider voting online, which suggests that a lot of ballots will have already been submitted.
Those forecasting the demise of UKIP following the EU referendum are, I think, mistaken. The right wing in the UK has split between the metropolitan, socially liberal, internationalist, Tories (TSE, for example), and the more socially conservative, who are concerned with the impact on British society of various external forces (of which the EU is only one).
This schism on the right will not be easily healed. (Although a Corbyn Labour Party surging the polls might pull them back together, temporarily at least.) It is a breakdown in the traditional alliance that makes up the Conservative Party - between Capital and Country.
Sadly the way Brown strayed money at an unreformed NHS was a disaster. The left and LDs and all manner of allied self serving groups have stuck their oar into the Tory reforms.
No one within UKIP can really lay claim to that kind of thing. Indeed, the only viable person I can think of for the leadership would be Suzanne Evans - and it appears that anyone who falls out with Farage, suddenly sees their career prospects within UKIP dry up.
EDIT - Ah, now I see you do mention just the British mainland. I misread it as 'GE'.
New Thread
I also don't see why it would realistically be Osborne - it would be Cameron and Osborne involved in negotiations, yes - but Cameron would most likely be doing the campaigning, and selling of the YES side to the public. He most likely won't go before 2017.
I had thought that was indeed Corbyn's intent? Sounds about right. It's at the point where we need some majorly sized builds, not merely relaxing of laws to enable a few dozen here, a few hundred there. And the speed at which it's needed requires some people will have to get hard done by sadly, I'd hate to be one of them, but it really is a, apologies, greater good situation.
Anecdotally, when I was diagnosed Type I in 2000 I was quoted a rule of thumb as D Type 2 doubling every decade, D type 1 doubling every generation. We also have a significant increase of BME population segments with historically very high rates of D Type II - all sorts of demographic and cultural factors involved.
Perhaps the obesity trend is changing: