It's hard to believe that after Shapp's resignation on such a big story, that most newspapers chose to lead on Labour's woes.
In fairness, one is a spectacularly nasty (if true) story among a tiny group of people, while the other is about someone who would be PM and cant take his party with him in a matter of war.....
If the Prime Minister could rely on his own party, it would not need Labour votes to pass.
Taking military action is not about party politics it's about trying to achieve a consesnus across the house. DC has gone to great lengths to achieve this - take the blinkers off.
Well put. When previous Tory rebel Dr Sarah Wollaston is voting for action on Syria this time, I'm pretty sure Cameron has the votes in the bag. It's about sending a message to ISIS that we have the resolve to take them on. The bigger the vote, the greater our resolve.
The people playing party politics are those in Labour, desperate not to offend their core Muslim vote - meaning even the most base medieval psychopaths have to be handled with kid gloves.
I listened to the whole debate - it was clear how Cameron had come to listen and persuade - and how Corbyn was unpersuadable - his 13 questions - most of which Cameron had already answered - were designed to simply result in nothing happening. He wills the end - but lacks the moral courage to propose the means.....
And you would be quite happy to commit yourself and your family to go and fight Da'esh? Or would you trust our elected politicians to do the right thing? Erm! Let me see now. Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya all worked out rather well, don't you think?
Afghanistan has worked out fine, and is the closest analogy to the present situation. Take the counterfactual for Afghanistan, Al Qaeda acting with total impunity there, training more terrorists for more 9-11s and 7-7s.
Can anyone actually tell me why it's so absurd not to be bombing Syria as opposed to doing more in Iraq and correspondly others doing more in Syria?
I answered this when you asked it the other day. The main reason being we have capabilities that would be useful, and which cannot necessarily be easily replicated by the other forces.
The other factor is that our planes are based in Cyprus. It takes several hours and refuelling to attack a target in Iraq. Mobile targets have often moved by that point. We would be more effective bombing Syria than Iraq, crowded airspace permitting!
I would stick to doctoring.
Doing a "rooftop hop" they could be in downtown Bagdad or Mosul in little under an hour. Less if they go supersonic. No refuelling required. Faster on the way back as they would be lighter of course
By-election in Oldham is going to be exciting for all us watchers this week.A few weeks, I trawled a few political sites to get the low down on vote shares. Putting together apples and oranges (gossip), it seems a Labour hold. The reds think they simply will not fall below 39% of votes. Their Postal votes are quite organised and a good ethnic voter base will get them over the line. UKIP are saying that they don't have the resources nor old gallivanting reputation like pre-GE.
The Tories are quietly confident of a small up tick. I guess:
Labour - 39% UKIP - 34% Tories - 14%
Win for Labour
However, for the major opposition party to get a swing against it in a by-election spells disaster for them.
The only chance for UKIP is if Labour voters stay at home. Possible.
We Tories need Corbyn to last long enough to destroy Labour. He's got at least 2 years to go, hopefully.
Foot and Brown managed 45% in Oldham (27% and 29% nationally)
If Labour go below 40% in Oldham, they're on for 25% nationally, irrespective of the current opinion polls.
Oddly enough, their NW seats (excl Cumbria) have been their better results in local by elections in the last couple of months.
It's hard to believe that after Shapp's resignation on such a big story, that most newspapers chose to lead on Labour's woes.
In fairness, one is a spectacularly nasty (if true) story among a tiny group of people, while the other is about someone who would be PM and cant take his party with him in a matter of war.....
If the Prime Minister could rely on his own party, it would not need Labour votes to pass.
Corbyn wouldn't advocate bombing Syria in any circumstance, but other opinions are also divided.
A number of Con, UKIP, LD and SNP people are also very sceptical of the proposed bombing. To many of us it is an unplanned foreign entanglement without clear goals, without well defined military objectives and without a post bombing plan.
That may be so although I demur from your analysis.
However to my mind another significant issue must also be factored in. Terrorists need to be aware that murdering British citizens is not a risk free option and that the UK has the will and ability to strike back in full measure.
The alternative is that we sit back and accept the very significant human, economic and political damage to our nation and allow the cancer to spread and weaken us further.
No liberal democracy can allow that disease to take hold.
It was several years before Gove was moved from Education, and it may well be the same with Health.
Hunt was chosen to replace Lansley because of his rather more smooth style and also his very good friends in the media in general and the Murdoch press in particular.
Hunt has been very poor at his handling of the Junior Doctors dispute, alternately bullying and then making new information public in press releases rather than to the BMA. He was brought in to spin rather than to fix anything. To unite 98% of juniors in a strike requires a very poor negotiator (the other 2% were mostly for industrial action short of strike).
Incidentally, Mr Hunt has never been in a hospital at a weekend himself to see what the issues really are or to talk to the coalface workers:
Ah NHS staff commenting on the Junior doctors' dispute. All about the producers, forget the clients.
The simple answer, of course, is to abolish the NHS PDQ.
Or have I missed something?
Yeah, cos private healthcare companies are never led by producer interests. They are famous for their altruism and public spiritedness.
They are led by shareholder interests, regulated by contract and intangible concerns such as reputation. In general, though, they want to give the required minimum service at the lowest possible cost (although there are certainly some that position themselves as a higher quality of care/higher price service offering).
The NHS is not perfect - but too often the BMA and the unions come over as opposed to any change rather than thinking about what is in the best interests of patients. Of course, as individual actors, they are just doing what they are supposed to do, but when they have effective control of the future of the organisation this is - by definition - producter capture
Corbyn 'Has not been a terrible few weeks for Labour at all, party membership has gone up, the government has retreated on tax credits and police cuts. I am enjoying every moment'. Asked whether we were looking at the next PM 'I hope you are'
On topic, I'd prefer to back the 2/7 than the 5/2. David Cameron has changed his cabinet minimally since becoming Prime Minister and shows loyalty to friends (he stuck by Jeremy Corbyn over the row about Sky, so we can infer that he's a friend). Michael Gove was moved as a prelude to the general election and one isn't due for years yet.
The risk is that a home might need to be found for Boris Johnson after May. As part of a wider reshuffle for that purpose Jeremy Hunt might be moved.
So, no bet.
I think that Cameron stuck by Hunt rather than Corbyn over BSkyB!
Bojo would be good as party chair. Tubthumping speeches and no policies to trip over. Not so sure that the fillies would be completely safe though!
On topic, I'd prefer to back the 2/7 than the 5/2. David Cameron has changed his cabinet minimally since becoming Prime Minister and shows loyalty to friends (he stuck by Jeremy Corbyn over the row about Sky, so we can infer that he's a friend). Michael Gove was moved as a prelude to the general election and one isn't due for years yet.
The risk is that a home might need to be found for Boris Johnson after May. As part of a wider reshuffle for that purpose Jeremy Hunt might be moved.
So, no bet.
I think that Cameron stuck by Hunt rather than Corbyn over BSkyB!
Bojo would be good as party chair. Tubthumping speeches and no policies to trip over. Not so sure that the fillies would be completely safe though!
Corbyn 'Has not been a terrible few weeks for Labour at all, party membership has gone up, the government has retreated on tax credits and police cuts'
It's hard to believe that after Shapp's resignation on such a big story, that most newspapers chose to lead on Labour's woes.
In fairness, one is a spectacularly nasty (if true) story among a tiny group of people, while the other is about someone who would be PM and cant take his party with him in a matter of war.....
If the Prime Minister could rely on his own party, it would not need Labour votes to pass.
Corbyn wouldn't advocate bombing Syria in any circumstance, but other opinions are also divided.
A number of Con, UKIP, LD and SNP people are also very sceptical of the proposed bombing. To many of us it is an unplanned foreign entanglement without clear goals, without well defined military objectives and without a post bombing plan.
JC wouldn't advocate action against Da'esh in Iraq, either, but we're already doing that - and that being the case, it's absurd to not also act against them in Syria. Not least because Da'esh don't recognise the border.
I would agree with that. It seems that Syria is the only country that we are not permitted to bomb.
It would be worth discussing what we aim to achieve though. What are the objectives of bombing? Are they achievable without troops on the ground localising targets? Who are our allies and who are our enemies? Is it just IS or also other Islamist groups or even the Assad government? What does victory look like and can it last without a permanent military presence? Are we in for the long haul, with all the financial and human costs that come with it? Finally, wouldn't it be better to concentrate on the IS moles and sympathisers in our own country before tackling those in another?
One of the major aims is standing by an ally who has asked us for our help.
Otherwise, the next time we need their support, they won't be there.
The primary objective is to degrade Daesh's military capabilities, to make them less attractive to new combatants and to provide support for the local troops on the group. Long term the solution for Syria needs to be political rather than military but we need to keep Daesh off balance in the interim.
Of course you need to concentrate on the moles and sympathisers in our own country, but it's not an either or case. You can't cure a vector borne infection without draining the swamp as part of the process.
That performance might have extended his tenure, depending on how many people saw it. Maybe it's enough that the political commentators will have all watched it. Now we painfully wait to see how he will whip it.
In fairness, one is a spectacularly nasty (if true) story among a tiny group of people, while the other is about someone who would be PM and cant take his party with him in a matter of war.....
If the Prime Minister could rely on his own party, it would not need Labour votes to pass.
Taking military action is not about party politics it's about trying to achieve a consesnus across the house. DC has gone to great lengths to achieve this - take the blinkers off.
Well put. When previous Tory rebel Dr Sarah Wollaston is voting for action on Syria this time, I'm pretty sure Cameron has the votes in the bag. It's about sending a message to ISIS that we have the resolve to take them on. The bigger the vote, the greater our resolve.
The people playing party politics are those in Labour, desperate not to offend their core Muslim vote - meaning even the most base medieval psychopaths have to be handled with kid gloves.
I listened to the whole debate - it was clear how Cameron had come to listen and persuade - and how Corbyn was unpersuadable - his 13 questions - most of which Cameron had already answered - were designed to simply result in nothing happening. He wills the end - but lacks the moral courage to propose the means.....
But they, like ISIL now, thrive in failed states. You are completely right to imply that not resolving those failed states cannot produce a permanent solution to the threat from Islamist terrorism. Where I disagree is in the inference that because we've not done that in the past, we shouldn't even get involved at all now. On the contrary: what's needed is a twin-track approach, not a zero-track one.
Libya wasn't actually a war...at the start anyway. I understood Daffy threatened to wipe out a city and entire population of that city forcing the French and British to act quickly in defence. The argument to take action was based on lack of action in the Kosovo ethnic cleansing. In fairness there was little time to consider a "post war" post defence situation. It is only the left that describes Libya as a war and that purely to attempt to align it with Blairs monumental follies in the Middle East. TBF to the coalition 2010-15 and now the Tories they have tried to extract ground troops at earliest possible time.
By-election in Oldham is going to be exciting for all us watchers this week.A few weeks, I trawled a few political sites to get the low down on vote shares. Putting together apples and oranges (gossip), it seems a Labour hold. The reds think they simply will not fall below 39% of votes. Their Postal votes are quite organised and a good ethnic voter base will get them over the line. UKIP are saying that they don't have the resources nor old gallivanting reputation like pre-GE.
The Tories are quietly confident of a small up tick. I guess:
Labour - 39% UKIP - 34% Tories - 14%
Win for Labour
However, for the major opposition party to get a swing against it in a by-election spells disaster for them.
The only chance for UKIP is if Labour voters stay at home. Possible.
We Tories need Corbyn to last long enough to destroy Labour. He's got at least 2 years to go, hopefully.
Foot and Brown managed 45% in Oldham (27% and 29% nationally)
If Labour go below 40% in Oldham, they're on for 25% nationally, irrespective of the current opinion polls.
Oddly enough, their NW seats (excl Cumbria) have been their better results in local by elections in the last couple of months.
The latest Comres has Labour on 27% anyway so not far off and the same as Foot (although by-elections tend to exaggerate the thread, eg the Tories even lost Christchurch in 1993 but won it back in 1997 and Romsey in 2000 and while they failed to win it back in 2001 they did not lose other seats with a similar majority)
It was several years before Gove was moved from Education, and it may well be the same with Health.
Hunt was chosen to replace Lansley because of his rather more smooth style and also his very good friends in the media in general and the Murdoch press in particular.
Hunt has been very poor at his handling of the Junior Doctors dispute, alternately bullying and then making new information public in press releases rather than to the BMA. He was brought in to spin rather than to fix anything. To unite 98% of juniors in a strike requires a very poor negotiator (the other 2% were mostly for industrial action short of strike).
Incidentally, Mr Hunt has never been in a hospital at a weekend himself to see what the issues really are or to talk to the coalface workers:
Ah NHS staff commenting on the Junior doctors' dispute. All about the producers, forget the clients.
The simple answer, of course, is to abolish the NHS PDQ.
Or have I missed something?
Certainly they should privatise homoeopathy PDQ.
It is wrong to try to twist the docs' arms because they follow Hippocratic principles. They have followed a long & challenging course of study, theoretical & practical, far longer that most of us. They are saving lives and promoting health. What are most of us doing?
Seven days a week full coverage is a great goal. But don't try to achieve it by blackmail. If the resources exist then do it, but not necessarily by demanding unreasonable sacrifices. Expand the resources if necessary, if you can.
Fundamentally - AIUI - the doctors have, on average been offered a decent pay rise in order to work a shift pattern including weekends rather than on a Monday-Friday basis. At the same time, in order to make it affordable (and also because it doesn't make any sense in a 7-day shift pattern) additional payments for weekend/evening work are being removed. Clearly this will negatively impact the earnings of some doctors whose work is heavily weighted towards weekend/evening slots.
Asking people to work a 7-day week shift pattern in return for a pay rise is not "demanding unreasonable sacrifices". Normal people doing it all the time. Some idiots (like me) work weekends without any pay increase despite the fact that my contract says 9-6 Monday to Friday.
It's hard to believe that after Shapp's resignation on such a big story, that most newspapers chose to lead on Labour's woes.
In fairness, one is a spectacularly nasty (if true) story among a tiny group of people, while the other is about someone who would be PM and cant take his party with him in a matter of war.....
If the Prime Minister could rely on his own party, it would not need Labour votes to pass.
Taking military action is not about party politics it's about trying to achieve a consesnus across the house. DC has gone to great lengths to achieve this - take the blinkers off.
Well put. When previous Tory rebel Dr Sarah Wollaston is voting for action on Syria this time, I'm pretty sure Cameron has the votes in the bag. It's about sending a message to ISIS that we have the resolve to take them on. The bigger the vote, the greater our resolve.
The people playing party politics are those in Labour, desperate not to offend their core Muslim vote - meaning even the most base medieval psychopaths have to be handled with kid gloves.
I listened to the whole debate - it was clear how Cameron had come to listen and persuade - and how Corbyn was unpersuadable - his 13 questions - most of which Cameron had already answered - were designed to simply result in nothing happening. He wills the end - but lacks the moral courage to propose the means.....
And you would be quite happy to commit yourself and your family to go and fight Da'esh? Or would you trust our elected politicians to do the right thing? Erm! Let me see now. Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya all worked out rather well, don't you think?
Afghanistan has worked out fine, and is the closest analogy to the present situation. Take the counterfactual for Afghanistan, Al Qaeda acting with total impunity there, training more terrorists for more 9-11s and 7-7s.
Er! Now that Pakistani intelligence is being brought under control and their Taliban restricted then it has become quieter in Afghanistan. Now that we have "left", there is less reason for trouble. Although, using dubious technology with out briefed troops on the ground is allowing the US to continue crimes against humanity by bombing hospitals and wedding parties.
So which is the more dangerous? Getting bombed by the US and UK drones and fighter bombers or getting shot up and bombed by drones and fighters from Da'esh (One man's freedom fighter is another's terroist)
Apparently ISIS refer to Iran and its fighters as 'Crusaders'. It is really a Sunni versus Shia battle, with the 'wrong' sort of Sunnis (i.e. ones who do not buy into ISIS) being apostates, and almost everyone else fighting them 'Crusaders'.
I guess, since they are fighting the Kurds, that would make Salah al-Din a "crusader" then!
It's hard to believe that after Shapp's resignation on such a big story, that most newspapers chose to lead on Labour's woes.
In fairness, one is a spectacularly nasty (if true) story among a tiny group of people, while the other is about someone who would be PM and cant take his party with him in a matter of war.....
If the Prime Minister could rely on his own party, it would not need Labour votes to pass.
Corbyn wouldn't advocate bombing Syria in any circumstance, but other opinions are also divided.
A number of Con, UKIP, LD and SNP people are also very sceptical of the proposed bombing. To many of us it is an unplanned foreign entanglement without clear goals, without well defined military objectives and without a post bombing plan.
JC wouldn't advocate action against Da'esh in Iraq, either, but we're already doing that - and that being the case, it's absurd to not also act against them in Syria. Not least because Da'esh don't recognise the border.
I would agree with that. It seems that Syria is the only country that we are not permitted to bomb.
It would be worth discussing what we aim to achieve though. What are the objectives of bombing?
One of the major aims is standing by an ally who has asked us for our help.
Otherwise, the next time we need their support, they won't be there.
The primary objective is to degrade Daesh's military capabilities, to make them less attractive to new combatants and to provide support for the local troops on the group. Long term the solution for Syria needs to be political rather than military but we need to keep Daesh off balance in the interim.
Of course you need to concentrate on the moles and sympathisers in our own country, but it's not an either or case. You can't cure a vector borne infection without draining the swamp as part of the process.
The 7/7 bombers, and the Paris bombers were all home grown. The swamp that needs draining is mostly at home.
I am not opposed to bombing Raqqa, and I would be quite explicit that civilian casualties are to be expected if the bombing is to be effective. Any action in Syria though is likely to be a distraction from the counter-insurgency required at home.
Looks like Labour will have a "free" vote on Syria.
No one believes more firmly than Comrade Corbyn that all MPs are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?
JC wouldn't advocate action against Da'esh in Iraq, either, but we're already doing that - and that being the case, it's absurd to not also act against them in Syria. Not least because Da'esh don't recognise the border.
A major difference is that in Iraq we are operating at the request of the Government, while in Syria we'd be operating against the wish of the Government and with a secondary declared objective of bringing the Government down. And, what's more, we don't have a clear alternative leadership to point to - we just want to unseat the Government and then those 70000 militiamen in up to 100 different factions will somehow sort it out.
We've been here before. I supported it then. And it doesn't work out well. We should learn from experience.
It was several years before Gove was moved from Education, and it may well be the same with Health.
Hunt was chosen to replace Lansley because of his rather more smooth style and also his very good friends in the media in general and the Murdoch press in particular.
Ah NHS staff commenting on the Junior doctors' dispute. All about the producers, forget the clients.
The simple answer, of course, is to abolish the NHS PDQ.
Or have I missed something?
Certainly they should privatise homoeopathy PDQ.
It is wrong to try to twist the docs' arms because they follow Hippocratic principles. They have followed a long & challenging course of study, theoretical & practical, far longer that most of us. They are saving lives and promoting health. What are most of us doing?
Seven days a week full coverage is a great goal. But don't try to achieve it by blackmail. If the resources exist then do it, but not necessarily by demanding unreasonable sacrifices. Expand the resources if necessary, if you can.
Of course diluting the homeopathy budget would vastly expand its efficacy!
The governments "seven day NHS" plans are very ambiguous. They constantly muddle up emergency services and elective services. Every doctor that I know wants to improve the former, but the latter is quite a different beast.
Politicians (and voters) are also very ambiguous about what is nessecary to deliver high quality 7 day emergency services. For example in order to run and staff seven day stroke services with instant access to MRI imaging and interventional radiology these services need to be organised on the basis of populations of well over a million. The same goes for many similar services, but means the closure or downgrading to minor injury units of many smaller casualty units. Try suggesting to the people of Northampton or Kettering that their hospitals should no longer take acute admissions and that their ambulances should go to Oxford or Leicester. That is before you get into geographical places like Cornwall or Isle of Wight, where arguably the right level of services are just not possible. 7 day services of nationally high quality have a lot of implications, including hospital closures and consolidation.
Alliance Medical would be absolutely delighted to run a 7 day a week MRI service.
Those trusts who, for political reasons, decide to run everything in house rather than look for the most efficient provider of ancillary services may be less keen.
Can anyone actually tell me why it's so absurd not to be bombing Syria as opposed to doing more in Iraq and correspondly others doing more in Syria?
In practice you may well end up doing that, but you should have the freedom to use the most appropriate capabilities across the entire field of conflict
Corbyn 'Has not been a terrible few weeks for Labour at all, party membership has gone up, the government has retreated on tax credits and police cuts'
In the past on here I've expressed reservations about why 'defeating' ISIS in Syria and Iraq will not cure the problem. Islamic groups anywhere around the world can affiliate themselves with ISIS or al Qaeda, but in the case of the former they have a strict set of conditions to meet, and have to give a pledge of allegiance, before they can join. Yet many are.
I've found this Economist article that shows the countries where groups have pledged to ISIS. Whilst some of these groups might be small, one of the aims of a defeat of ISIS in Syria and Iraq should be to stop fighters and weapons just slipping out of those countries to (further) destabilise others.
At the end of the day, perhaps the best way of securing long-term peace is increased economic prosperity in these countries, including small-scale and large-scale bribery.
It's hard to believe that after Shapp's resignation on such a big story, that most newspapers chose to lead on Labour's woes.
In fairness, one is a spectacularly nasty (if true) story among a tiny group of people, while the other is about someone who would be PM and cant take his party with him in a matter of war.....
If the Prime Minister could rely on his own party, it would not need Labour votes to pass.
Shouldn't this be above Party politics - deciding "the right thing to do"?
There is nothing in Corbyn's history to suggest he's persuadable - which is fine and principled, but a little complicated if you are the leader of a party...
If you want it to remain above party politics, don't read the last several threads.
Or the one on Wednesday as that nice Mr Cameron unaccountably wants the debate the day before the by-election.
You think the government should delay the vote - while our allies are asking for our help - to spare the blushes of a dis functional Labour leadership?
A couple of days will make such a difference , how will they manage without our two planes.
Looks like Labour will have a "free" vote on Syria.
No one believes more firmly than Comrade Corbyn that all MPs are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?
I don't think that's Jeremy Corbyn's preference. He sees the party as paramount and his job is to embody it. If the party's will is to oppose action in Syria, MPs should fall into line. The party, of course, comprises the membership.
It was several years before Gove was moved from Education, and it may well be the same with Health.
Hunt was chosen to replace Lansley because of his rather more smooth style and also his very good friends in the media in general and the Murdoch press in particular.
Hunt has been very poor at his handling of the Junior Doctors dispute, alternately bullying and then making new information public in press releases rather than to the BMA. He was brought in to spin rather than to fix anything. To unite 98% of juniors in a strike requires a very poor negotiator (the other 2% were mostly for industrial action short of strike).
Incidentally, Mr Hunt has never been in a hospital at a weekend himself to see what the issues really are or to talk to the coalface workers:
Ah NHS staff commenting on the Junior doctors' dispute. All about the producers, forget the clients.
The simple answer, of course, is to abolish the NHS PDQ.
Or have I missed something?
Yeah, cos private healthcare companies are never led by producer interests. They are famous for their altruism and public spiritedness.
They are led by shareholder interests, regulated by contract and intangible concerns such as reputation. In general, though, they want to give the required minimum service at the lowest possible cost (although there are certainly some that position themselves as a higher quality of care/higher price service offering).
The NHS is not perfect - but too often the BMA and the unions come over as opposed to any change rather than thinking about what is in the best interests of patients. Of course, as individual actors, they are just doing what they are supposed to do, but when they have effective control of the future of the organisation this is - by definition - producter capture
Depends who the private healthcare company is and what service they provide. WPA for example are not for profit, so are several others.
It was several years before Gove was moved from Education, and it may well be the same with Health.
Hunt was chosen to replace Lansley because of his rather more smooth style and also his very good friends in the media in general and the Murdoch press in particular.
Hunt has been very poor at his handling of the Junior Doctors dispute, alternately bullying and then making new information public in press releases rather than to the BMA. He was brought in to spin rather than to fix anything. To unite 98% of juniors in a strike requires a very poor negotiator (the other 2% were mostly for industrial action short of strike).
Incidentally, Mr Hunt has never been in a hospital at a weekend himself to see what the issues really are or to talk to the coalface workers:
Ah NHS staff commenting on the Junior doctors' dispute. All about the producers, forget the clients.
The simple answer, of course, is to abolish the NHS PDQ.
Or have I missed something?
Certainly they should privatise homoeopathy PDQ.
It is wrong to try to twist the docs' arms because they follow Hippocratic principles. They have followed a long & challenging course of study, theoretical & practical, far longer that most of us. They are saving lives and promoting health. What are most of us doing?
Seven days a week full coverage is a great goal. But don't try to achieve it by blackmail. If the resources exist then do it, but not necessarily by demanding unreasonable sacrifices. Expand the resources if necessary, if you can.
Fundamentally - AIUI - the doctors have, on average been offered a decent pay rise in order to work a shift pattern including weekends rather than on a Monday-Friday basis. At the same time, in order to make it affordable (and also because it doesn't make any sense in a 7-day shift pattern) additional payments for weekend/evening work are being removed. Clearly this will negatively impact the earnings of some doctors whose work is heavily weighted towards weekend/evening slots.
Asking people to work a 7-day week shift pattern in return for a pay rise is not "demanding unreasonable sacrifices". Normal people doing it all the time. Some idiots (like me) work weekends without any pay increase despite the fact that my contract says 9-6 Monday to Friday.
Thanks Charles. I think many/most people might disagree about working 7 day patterns. I would very much like to read the docs' stated detailed views. I too am an idiot. Somewhat older than you, I still plug away, but I am wholly in charge of my focuses. Money has always been unimportant.
It was several years before Gove was moved from Education, and it may well be the same with Health.
Hunt was chosen to replace Lansley because of his rather more smooth style and also his very good friends in the media in general and the Murdoch press in particular.
Hunt has been very poor at his handling of the Junior Doctors dispute, alternately bullying and then making new information public in press releases rather than to the BMA. He was brought in to spin rather than to fix anything. To unite 98% of juniors in a strike requires a very poor negotiator (the other 2% were mostly for industrial action short of strike).
Incidentally, Mr Hunt has never been in a hospital at a weekend himself to see what the issues really are or to talk to the coalface workers:
Ah NHS staff commenting on the Junior doctors' dispute. All about the producers, forget the clients.
The simple answer, of course, is to abolish the NHS PDQ.
Or have I missed something?
Certainly they should privatise homoeopathy PDQ.
Fundamentally - AIUI - the doctors have, on average been offered a decent pay rise in order to work a shift pattern including weekends rather than on a Monday-Friday basis. At the same time, in order to make it affordable (and also because it doesn't make any sense in a 7-day shift pattern) additional payments for weekend/evening work are being removed. Clearly this will negatively impact the earnings of some doctors whose work is heavily weighted towards weekend/evening slots.
Asking people to work a 7-day week shift pattern in return for a pay rise is not "demanding unreasonable sacrifices". Normal people doing it all the time. Some idiots (like me) work weekends without any pay increase despite the fact that my contract says 9-6 Monday to Friday.
The perversity of the new contract is that the ones with the biggest paycut (and it is a paycut of 20% for many) are those that work weekends in hardpressed areas like obstetrics, Emergency depts and paediatrics while those working office hours in pathology or dermatology get a pay rise!
But there are many other issues, including lack of protection of training time (these are junior doctors working towards postgraduate qualifications) and removal of monitoring of working hours.
It's hard to believe that after Shapp's resignation on such a big story, that most newspapers chose to lead on Labour's woes.
In fairness, one is a spectacularly nasty (if true) story among a tiny group of people, while the other is about someone who would be PM and cant take his party with him in a matter of war.....
Almost as good as the PM who can't take his party with him in a matter of War, but has to rely on opposition for support.
I would be very disappointed in any MP who voted on a decision to go to war based on party political considerations
The 7/7 bombers, and the Paris bombers were all home grown. The swamp that needs draining is mostly at home.
I am not opposed to bombing Raqqa, and I would be quite explicit that civilian casualties are to be expected if the bombing is to be effective. Any action in Syria though is likely to be a distraction from the counter-insurgency required at home.
That swamp is being swampified by literature and materials from AlQ/ISIS that are readily obtained off the Internet. You do not need to go to a mosque to be 'converted' to IS's view. Harming their operations might have the effect of harming their insidious PR campaign to convert disaffected Muslims and others.
People love a success. ISIS fleeing Iraq / Syria will not necessarily destroy them, but it will hurt their PR.
Best we do nowt about owt...safer that way...until the next plane,train,bus,disintegrates...along with all the passengers...then we can all have a hand wringing fest....
It's hard to believe that after Shapp's resignation on such a big story, that most newspapers chose to lead on Labour's woes.
In fairness, one is a spectacularly nasty (if true) story among a tiny group of people, while the other is about someone who would be PM and cant take his party with him in a matter of war.....
If the Prime Minister could rely on his own party, it would not need Labour votes to pass.
Taking military action is not about party politics it's about trying to achieve a consesnus across the house. DC has gone to great lengths to achieve this - take the blinkers off.
Well put. When previous Tory rebel Dr Sarah Wollaston is voting for action on Syria this time, I'm pretty sure Cameron has the votes in the bag. It's about sending a message to ISIS that we have the resolve to take them on. The bigger the vote, the greater our resolve.
The people playing party politics are those in Labour, desperate not to offend their core Muslim vote - meaning even the most base medieval psychopaths have to be handled with kid gloves.
I listened to the whole debate - it was clear how Cameron had come to listen and persuade - and how Corbyn was unpersuadable - his 13 questions - most of which Cameron had already answered - were designed to simply result in nothing happening. He wills the end - but lacks the moral courage to propose the means.....
And you would be quite happy to commit yourself and your family to go and fight Da'esh? Or would you trust our elected politicians to do the right thing? Erm! Let me see now. Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya all worked out rather well, don't you think?
I guess you'd have argued that the carnage of 1914 was a good reason to do nothing in 1939?
LOL, are you that barking you can compare sending two planes to Syria with the Great War
Labour offer a free vote, which Cameron wins. Labour squeak Oldham No member of the shadow cabinet resigns Corbyn remains in post, and those members of the PLP not deselected by Momentum get hammered by the voters
Cameron will be a bit disappointed at that. It is very unusual for Britain to commit its forces to combat without cross party support. In fact I can't recall the last time it happened. I think that Cameron is very conscious of that.
It is not just about winning the vote (which he will, easily), its about giving the message to our forces and our enemies that we stand united. Unfortunately, we don't.
It's hard to believe that after Shapp's resignation on such a big story, that most newspapers chose to lead on Labour's woes.
In fairness, one is a spectacularly nasty (if true) story among a tiny group of people, while the other is about someone who would be PM and cant take his party with him in a matter of war.....
If the Prime Minister could rely on his own party, it would not need Labour votes to pass.
Taking military action is not about party politics it's about trying to achieve a consesnus across the house. DC has gone to great lengths to achieve this - take the blinkers off.
Well put. When previous Tory rebel Dr Sarah Wollaston is voting for action on Syria this time, I'm pretty sure Cameron has the votes in the bag. It's about sending a message to ISIS that we have the resolve to take them on. The bigger the vote, the greater our resolve.
The people playing party politics are those in Labour, desperate not to offend their core Muslim vote - meaning even the most base medieval psychopaths have to be handled with kid gloves.
I listened to the whole debate - it was clear how Cameron had come to listen and persuade - and how Corbyn was unpersuadable - his 13 questions - most of which Cameron had already answered - were designed to simply result in nothing happening. He wills the end - but lacks the moral courage to propose the means.....
And you would be quite happy to commit yourself and your family to go and fight Da'esh? Or would you trust our elected politicians to do the right thing? Erm! Let me see now. Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya all worked out rather well, don't you think?
Don't be silly, it is all Tory armchair warriors we see on here, they would not fight their way out of a paper poke. They want others to do it for them.
It's hard to believe that after Shapp's resignation on such a big story, that most newspapers chose to lead on Labour's woes.
In fairness, one is a spectacularly nasty (if true) story among a tiny group of people, while the other is about someone who would be PM and cant take his party with him in a matter of war.....
If the Prime Minister could rely on his own party, it would not need Labour votes to pass.
Corbyn wouldn't advocate bombing Syria in any circumstance, but other opinions are also divided.
A number of Con, UKIP, LD and SNP people are also very sceptical of the proposed bombing. To many of us it is an unplanned foreign entanglement without clear goals, without well defined military objectives and without a post bombing plan.
JC wouldn't advocate action against Da'esh in Iraq, either, but we're already doing that - and that being the case, it's absurd to not also act against them in Syria. Not least because Da'esh don't recognise the border.
I would agree with that. It seems that Syria is the only country that we are not permitted to bomb.
It would be worth discussing what we aim to achieve though. What are the objectives of bombing?
One of the major aims is standing by an ally who has asked us for our help.
Otherwise, the next time we need their support, they won't be there.
The primary objective is to degrade Daesh's military capabilities, to make them less attractive to new combatants and to provide support for the local troops on the group. Long term the solution for Syria needs to be political rather than military but we need to keep Daesh off balance in the interim.
Of course you need to concentrate on the moles and sympathisers in our own country, but it's not an either or case. You can't cure a vector borne infection without draining the swamp as part of the process.
The 7/7 bombers, and the Paris bombers were all home grown. The swamp that needs draining is mostly at home.
I am not opposed to bombing Raqqa, and I would be quite explicit that civilian casualties are to be expected if the bombing is to be effective. Any action in Syria though is likely to be a distraction from the counter-insurgency required at home.
MG .. Best if it didn't happen at all...low frequency is still not acceptable..but fear not.. Ayrshire is way down the ISIS hit list..meanwhile the London Underground and its millions of daily passengers is still a high priority target...see what I mean.
That implies that DC doesn't need Labour votes. If the NI unionists are on board that's a notional majority of 37 so 19 Tory rebels needed to swing it.
It was several years before Gove was moved from Education, and it may well be the same with Health.
Hunt was chosen to replace Lansley because of his rather more smooth style and also his very good friends in the media in general and the Murdoch press in particular.
Ah NHS staff commenting on the Junior doctors' dispute. All about the producers, forget the clients.
The simple answer, of course, is to abolish the NHS PDQ.
Or have I missed something?
Certainly they should privatise homoeopathy PDQ.
It is wrong to try to twist the docs' arms because they follow Hippocratic principles. They have followed a long & challenging course of study, theoretical & practical, far longer that most of us. They are saving lives and promoting health. What are most of us doing?
Seven days a week full coverage is a great goal. But don't try to achieve it by blackmail. If the resources exist then do it, but not necessarily by demanding unreasonable sacrifices. Expand the resources if necessary, if you can.
Of course diluting the homeopathy budget would vastly expand its efficacy!
The governments "seven day NHS" plans are very ambiguous. They constantly muddle up emergency services and elective services. Every doctor that I know wants to improve the former, but the latter is quite a different beast.
Politicians (and voters) are also very ambiguous about what is nessecary to deliver high quality 7 day emergency services. For example in order to run and staff seven day stroke services with instant access to MRI imaging
Alliance Medical would be absolutely delighted to run a 7 day a week MRI service.
Those trusts who, for political reasons, decide to run everything in house rather than look for the most efficient provider of ancillary services may be less keen.
Would they run a 7 day 24 hour service not just taking pictures but providing Consultant Interventional Radiologist support including ITU beds as needed? Simply taking a few snaps is not enough. Any such system needs to be properly supported. Or are you expecting the GP to interpret the image, cannulate the middle cerebral artery and inject thrombolytics in his surgery?
*Alliance have some good lobbyists. They were recently awarded a NHS contract to operate a scanner bought by charitable donations, despite the NHS Trust saying they could do it in house £ 7 million cheaper
It was several years before Gove was moved from Education, and it may well be the same with Health.
Hunt was chosen to replace Lansley because of his rather more smooth style and also his very good friends in the media in general and the Murdoch press in particular.
Hunt has been very poor at his handling of the Junior Doctors dispute, alternately bullying and then making new information public in press releases rather than to the BMA. He was brought in to spin rather than to fix anything. To unite 98% of juniors in a strike requires a very poor negotiator (the other 2% were mostly for industrial action short of strike).
Incidentally, Mr Hunt has never been in a hospital at a weekend himself to see what the issues really are or to talk to the coalface workers:
Ah NHS staff commenting on the Junior doctors' dispute. All about the producers, forget the clients.
The simple answer, of course, is to abolish the NHS PDQ.
Or have I missed something?
Certainly they should privatise homoeopathy PDQ.
It is wrong to try to twist the docs' arms because they follow Hippocratic principles. They have followed a long & challenging course of study, theoretical & practical, far longer that most of us. They are saving lives and promoting health. What are most of us doing?
Fundamentally - AIUI - the doctors have, on average been offered a decent pay rise in order to work a shift pattern including weekends rather than on a Monday-Friday basis. At the same time, in order to make it affordable (and also because it doesn't make any sense in a 7-day shift pattern) additional payments for weekend/evening work are being removed. Clearly this will negatively impact the earnings of some doctors whose work is heavily weighted towards weekend/evening slots.
Thanks Charles. I think many/most people might disagree about working 7 day patterns. I would very much like to read the docs' stated detailed views. I too am an idiot. Somewhat older than you, I still plug away, but I am wholly in charge of my focuses. Money has always been unimportant.
As far as I understand it they just get a shift pattern which includes weekends, which presumably means they could get some time off in the week if they are required to work at a weekend. They also get a pay rise, if you work weekends beyond your contracted hours you also normally get overtime pay
Corbyn's problem is that if you spend 30 years sharing platforms with apologists for terrorism and murder, and you surround yourself with them as leader, then you are never going to get a hearing, even when you may have a point.
Can anyone actually tell me why it's so absurd not to be bombing Syria as opposed to doing more in Iraq and correspondly others doing more in Syria?
I answered this when you asked it the other day. The main reason being we have capabilities that would be useful, and which cannot necessarily be easily replicated by the other forces.
The other factor is that our planes are based in Cyprus. It takes several hours and refuelling to attack a target in Iraq. Mobile targets have often moved by that point. We would be more effective bombing Syria than Iraq, crowded airspace permitting!
I would stick to doctoring.
Doing a "rooftop hop" they could be in downtown Bagdad or Mosul in little under an hour. Less if they go supersonic. No refuelling required. Faster on the way back as they would be lighter of course
Smug smartarse, hopefully Fox gets you in his operating theatre some day and expains military tactics to you
It was several years before Gove was moved from Education, and it may well be the same with Health.
Hunt was chosen to replace Lansley because of his rather more smooth style and also his very good friends in the media in general and the Murdoch press in particular.
Hunt has been very poor at his handling of the Junior Doctors dispute, alternately bullying and then making new information public in press releases rather than to the BMA. He was brought in to spin rather than to fix anything. To unite 98% of juniors in a strike requires a very poor negotiator (the other 2% were mostly for industrial action short of strike).
Incidentally, Mr Hunt has never been in a hospital at a weekend himself to see what the issues really are or to talk to the coalface workers:
Ah NHS staff commenting on the Junior doctors' dispute. All about the producers, forget the clients.
The simple answer, of course, is to abolish the NHS PDQ.
Or have I missed something?
Certainly they should privatise homoeopathy PDQ.
It is wrong to try to twist the docs' arms because they follow Hippocratic principles. They have followed a long & challenging course of study, theoretical & practical, far longer that most of us. They are saving lives and promoting health. What are most of us doing?
Seven days a week full coverage is a great goal. But don't try to achieve it by blackmail. If the resources exist then do it, but not necessarily by demanding unreasonable sacrifices. Expand the resources if necessary, if you can.
Fundamentally - AIUI - the doctors have, on average been offered a decent pay rise in order to work a shift pattern including weekends rather than on a Monday-Friday basis. At the same time, in order to make it affordable (and also because it doesn't make any sense in a 7-day shift pattern) additional payments for weekend/evening work are being removed. Clearly this will negatively impact the earnings of some doctors whose work is heavily weighted towards weekend/evening slots.
Asking people to work a 7-day week shift pattern in return for a pay rise is not "demanding unreasonable sacrifices". Normal people doing it all the time. Some idiots (like me) work weekends without any pay increase despite the fact that my contract says 9-6 Monday to Friday.
I work beyond my contracted hours, but I have a stake in the business.
Corbyn's problem is that if you spend 30 years sharing platforms with apologists for terrorism and murder, and you surround yourself with them as leader, then you are never going to get a hearing, even when you may have a point.
It's not just that he has the same overall low trust ratings as Vladimir Putin in his decision-making on this subject. Fully 50% of the population have no trust at all in him on this subject, including 27% of 2015 Labour voters.
It was several years before Gove was moved from Education, and it may well be the same with Health.
Hunt was chosen to replace Lansley because of his rather more smooth style and also his very good friends in the media in general and the Murdoch press in particular.
Hunt has been very poor at his handling of the Junior Doctors dispute, alternately bullying and then making new information public in press releases rather than to the BMA. He was brought in to spin rather than to fix anything. To unite 98% of juniors in a strike requires a very poor negotiator (the other 2% were mostly for industrial action short of strike).
Incidentally, Mr Hunt has never been in a hospital at a weekend himself to see what the issues really are or to talk to the coalface workers:
Ah NHS staff commenting on the Junior doctors' dispute. All about the producers, forget the clients.
The simple answer, of course, is to abolish the NHS PDQ.
Or have I missed something?
Certainly they should privatise homoeopathy PDQ.
It is wrong to try to twist the docs' arms because they follow Hippocratic principles. They have followed a long & challenging course of study, theoretical & practical, far longer that most of us. They are saving lives and promoting health. What are most of us doing?
Seven days a week full coverage is a great goal. But don't try to achieve it by blackmail. If the resources exist then do it, but not necessarily by demanding unreasonable sacrifices. Expand the resources if necessary, if you can.
Fundamentally - AIUI - the doctors have, on average been offered a decent pay rise in order to work a shift pattern including weekends rather than on a Monday-Friday basis. At the same time, in order to make it affordable (and also because it doesn't make any sense in a 7-day shift pattern) additional payments for weekend/evening work are being removed. Clearly this will negatively impact the earnings of some doctors whose work is heavily weighted towards weekend/evening slots.
Asking people to work a 7-day week shift pattern in return for a pay rise is not "demanding unreasonable sacrifices". Normal people doing it all the time. Some idiots (like me) work weekends without any pay increase despite the fact that my contract says 9-6 Monday to Friday.
Yes and without the choice or the pay rise, doctors have backed a loser here. Pampered Prima Donna's who obviously have no reality of life outside their bubble.
Corbyn's problem is that if you spend 30 years sharing platforms with apologists for terrorism and murder, and you surround yourself with them as leader, then you are never going to get a hearing, even when you may have a point.
Yes I agree. However he was very good on Marr this morning.
If I was Corbyn , I would whip the vote on Syria, show some leadership.
The shadow cabinet members that do not support him resign and go back to the backbenches like Robin Cook did.
A completley new shadow cabinet will be formed from MP`s that did support his view over Syria.
Agree, time he sorted out these whingers, otherwise he might as well give up now. get an ultimatim out and sack the next one that goes against him in public. He is there to lead and if they don't support him then sack them.
It's hard to believe that after Shapp's resignation on such a big story, that most newspapers chose to lead on Labour's woes.
In fairness, one is a spectacularly nasty (if true) story among a tiny group of people, while the other is about someone who would be PM and cant take his party with him in a matter of war.....
If the Prime Minister could rely on his own party, it would not need Labour votes to pass.
Shouldn't this be above Party politics - deciding "the right thing to do"?
There is nothing in Corbyn's history to suggest he's persuadable - which is fine and principled, but a little complicated if you are the leader of a party...
If you want it to remain above party politics, don't read the last several threads.
Or the one on Wednesday as that nice Mr Cameron unaccountably wants the debate the day before the by-election.
You think the government should delay the vote - while our allies are asking for our help - to spare the blushes of a dis functional Labour leadership?
A couple of days will make such a difference , how will they manage without our two planes.
Never saw you as a Labour fanboy!
That you consider your expertise superior to the French Defence Minister comes as no surprise.
MG .. Best if it didn't happen at all...low frequency is still not acceptable..but fear not.. Ayrshire is way down the ISIS hit list..meanwhile the London Underground and its millions of daily passengers is still a high priority target...see what I mean.
Very true but I am not convinced our politicians do anything to help, they seem to make matters worse with their poor decisions. The knee jerk every time , never a decent long term plan.
It's hard to believe that after Shapp's resignation on such a big story, that most newspapers chose to lead on Labour's woes.
In fairness, one is a spectacularly nasty (if true) story among a tiny group of people, while the other is about someone who would be PM and cant take his party with him in a matter of war.....
If the Prime Minister could rely on his own party, it would not need Labour votes to pass.
Taking military action is not about party politics it's about trying to achieve a consesnus across the house. DC has gone to great lengths to achieve this - take the blinkers off.
Well put. When previous Tory rebel Dr Sarah Wollaston is voting for action on Syria this time, I'm pretty sure Cameron has the votes in the bag. It's about sending a message to ISIS that we have the resolve to take them on. The bigger the vote, the greater our resolve.
The people playing party politics are those in Labour, desperate not to offend their core Muslim vote - meaning even the most base medieval psychopaths have to be handled with kid gloves.
I listened to the whole debate - it was clear how Cameron had come to listen and persuade - and how Corbyn was unpersuadable - his 13 questions - most of which Cameron had already answered - were designed to simply result in nothing happening. He wills the end - but lacks the moral courage to propose the means.....
And you would be quite happy to commit yourself and your family to go and fight Da'esh? Or would you trust our elected politicians to do the right thing? Erm! Let me see now. Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya all worked out rather well, don't you think?
Don't be silly, it is all Tory armchair warriors we see on here, they would not fight their way out of a paper poke. They want others to do it for them.
They're just Cameronites. It Cameron was for staying out, so would they be.
It's hard to believe that after Shapp's resignation on such a big story, that most newspapers chose to lead on Labour's woes.
In fairness, one is a spectacularly nasty (if true) story among a tiny group of people, while the other is about someone who would be PM and cant take his party with him in a matter of war.....
If the Prime Minister could rely on his own party, it would not need Labour votes to pass.
Corbyn wouldn't advocate bombing Syria in any circumstance, but other opinions are also divided.
A number of Con, UKIP, LD and SNP people are also very sceptical of the proposed bombing. To many of us it is an unplanned foreign entanglement without clear goals, without well defined military objectives and without a post bombing plan.
JC wouldn't advocate action against Da'esh in Iraq, either, but we're already doing that - and that being the case, it's absurd to not also act against them in Syria. Not least because Da'esh don't recognise the border.
I would agree with that. It seems that Syria is the only country that we are not permitted to bomb.
It would be worth discussing what we aim to achieve though. What are the objectives of bombing?
One of the major aims is standing by an ally who has asked us for our help.
Otherwise, the next time we need their support, they won't be there.
The primary objective is to degrade Daesh's military capabilities, to make them less attractive to new combatants and to provide support for the local troops on the group. Long term the solution for Syria needs to be political rather than military but we need to keep Daesh off balance in the interim.
Of course you need to concentrate on the moles and sympathisers in our own country, but it's not an either or case. You can't cure a vector borne infection without draining the swamp as part of the process.
The 7/7 bombers, and the Paris bombers were all home grown. The swamp that needs draining is mostly at home.
I am not opposed to bombing Raqqa, and I would be quite explicit that civilian casualties are to be expected if the bombing is to be effective. Any action in Syria though is likely to be a distraction from the counter-insurgency required at home.
They draw their inspiration from abroad.
Which is mostly from Saudi and the Gulf states...but those are our allies...murky waters indeed.
There is nothing wrong with Corbyn offering a free vote to backbenchers. But the Shadow Cabinet should be expected to put forward a common position. One has to know where a Government and/or Government in waiting stand on key issues.
It's hard to believe that after Shapp's resignation on such a big story, that most newspapers chose to lead on Labour's woes.
In fairness, one is a spectacularly nasty (if true) story among a tiny group of people, while the other is about someone who would be PM and cant take his party with him in a matter of war.....
If the Prime Minister could rely on his own party, it would not need Labour votes to pass.
Shouldn't this be above Party politics - deciding "the right thing to do"?
There is nothing in Corbyn's history to suggest he's persuadable - which is fine and principled, but a little complicated if you are the leader of a party...
If you want it to remain above party politics, don't read the last several threads.
Or the one on Wednesday as that nice Mr Cameron unaccountably wants the debate the day before the by-election.
You think the government should delay the vote - while our allies are asking for our help - to spare the blushes of a dis functional Labour leadership?
A couple of days will make such a difference , how will they manage without our two planes.
Never saw you as a Labour fanboy!
That you consider your expertise superior to the French Defence Minister comes as no surprise.
I have no time for Labour but equally have no time for Cameron. The French Defence Minister is a complete failure , he has defended nothing and amazing the halfwit is still in place, along with his equivalents in security services , anti -terror etc. Following Cameron's half witted intervention so he can get a few photo opportunities is not a good idea. If they come up with a real plan then I am prepared to listen, but given the moonshine he came out with on Wednesday, no-one would buy a used car from this snake oil salesman.
Ah NHS staff commenting on the Junior doctors' dispute. All about the producers, forget the clients.
The simple answer, of course, is to abolish the NHS PDQ.
Or have I missed something?
Certainly they should privatise homoeopathy PDQ.
It is wrong to try to twist the docs' arms because they follow Hippocratic principles. They have followed a long & challenging course of study, theoretical & practical, far longer that most of us. They are saving lives and promoting health. What are most of us doing?
Seven days a week full coverage is a great goal. But don't try to achieve it by blackmail. If the resources exist then do it, but not necessarily by demanding unreasonable sacrifices. Expand the resources if necessary, if you can.
Of course diluting the homeopathy budget would vastly expand its efficacy!
The governments "seven day NHS" plans are very ambiguous. They constantly muddle up emergency services and elective services. Every doctor that I know wants to improve the former, but the latter is quite a different beast.
Politicians (and voters) are also very ambiguous about what is nessecary to deliver high quality 7 day emergency services. For example in order to run and staff seven day stroke services with instant access to MRI imaging
Alliance Medical would be absolutely delighted to run a 7 day a week MRI service.
Those trusts who, for political reasons, decide to run everything in house rather than look for the most efficient provider of ancillary services may be less keen.
Would they run a 7 day 24 hour service not just taking pictures but providing Consultant Interventional Radiologist support including ITU beds as needed? Simply taking a few snaps is not enough. Any such system needs to be properly supported. Or are you expecting the GP to interpret the image, cannulate the middle cerebral artery and inject thrombolytics in his surgery?
*Alliance have some good lobbyists. They were recently awarded a NHS contract to operate a scanner bought by charitable donations, despite the NHS Trust saying they could do it in house £ 7 million cheaper
The two wards with by far the highest turnout in each year were the heavily Asian Coldhurst and Wernath - postal votes are so convenient for 'Community Leaders' and Labour.
There is nothing wrong with Corbyn offering a free vote to backbenchers. But the Shadow Cabinet should be expected to put forward a common position. One has to know where a Government and/or Government in waiting stand on key issues.
In any meaningful sense, the shadow cabinet is not a government in waiting.
There is nothing wrong with Corbyn offering a free vote to backbenchers. But the Shadow Cabinet should be expected to put forward a common position. One has to know where a Government and/or Government in waiting stand on key issues.
There is some merit in what you say, which of course would make Hilary Benn’s position untenable. – Personally however, I think the vote on Syria, as with abortion IMO, should be based on an individual MP’s conscience and not whipped on party lines and on this occasion at least, should be extended to front bench MPs.
One of the major differences with Iraq is that this time we have a clear, unambiguous and unanimous UN security resolution supporting the action. My understanding is that the Assad regime was supportive of the resolution.
We have 2 problems.
One is the legacy of Blair and the lies he told the HoC about Iraq. Before Blair no one would have contemplated a PM lying about something so important. Now, everything Cameron says, about our near misses of a Paris scenario for example, is clouded with suspicion and doubt. I for one will never forgive Blair for what he did.
The second problem is that we have seen in Iraq, Afghanistan and, to an extent, Libya is that attacking those who hate and want to attack us is no guarantee that they will be replaced by people who feel more kindly towards us, almost the reverse in fact. This has led to a defeatism and war weariness that makes commitment difficult and feeds the Blairite suspicions.
Despite this I think we need to act. Firstly, because a close ally has been attacked and asked us to help. Secondly, because we need to show our enemies we still can. Thirdly, because the message must be given, as it was to Al Qaeda after 9/11 that attacks on the west like Paris carry a terrible price. Fourthly, because there will be no peace in Syria or Iraq whilst Daesh remain. There may not be peace when they are defeated either but there will at least be a chance of peace. If the refugees are ever to go home we must work for that chance.
I could go on but if I was in the Commons I would support this with a heavy heart, a sense of realism about what can be achieved and a grim determination to strike at those who would strike at us and our friends.
@ foxinsoxuk "Would they run a 7 day 24 hour service not just taking pictures but providing Consultant Interventional Radiologist support including ITU beds as needed? Simply taking a few snaps is not enough. Any such system needs to be properly supported. Or are you expecting the GP to interpret the image, cannulate the middle cerebral artery and inject thrombolytics in his surgery?
*Alliance have some good lobbyists. They were recently awarded a NHS contract to operate a scanner bought by charitable donations, despite the NHS Trust saying they could do it in house £ 7 million cheaper
It's hard to believe that after Shapp's resignation on such a big story, that most newspapers chose to lead on Labour's woes.
In fairness, one is a spectacularly nasty (if true) story among a tiny group of people, while the other is about someone who would be PM and cant take his party with him in a matter of war.....
If the Prime Minister could rely on his own party, it would not need Labour votes to pass.
Taking military action is not about party politics it's about trying to achieve a consesnus across the house. DC has gone to great lengths to achieve this - take the blinkers off.
Well put. When previous Tory rebel Dr Sarah Wollaston is voting for action on Syria this time, I'm pretty sure Cameron has the votes in the bag. It's about sending a message to ISIS that we have the resolve to take them on. The bigger the vote, the greater our resolve.
The people playing party politics are those in Labour, desperate not to offend their core Muslim vote - meaning even the most base medieval psychopaths have to be handled with kid gloves.
I listened to the whole debate - it was clear how Cameron had come to listen and persuade - and how Corbyn was unpersuadable - his 13 questions - most of which Cameron had already answered - were designed to simply result in nothing happening. He wills the end - but lacks the moral courage to propose the means.....
And you would be quite happy to commit yourself and your family to go and fight Da'esh? Or would you trust our elected politicians to do the right thing? Erm! Let me see now. Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya all worked out rather well, don't you think?
I guess you'd have argued that the carnage of 1914 was a good reason to do nothing in 1939?
LOL, are you that barking you can compare sending two planes to Syria with the Great War
Good Morning, Mr. G., actually a fair number of good and honourable men who had the best interests of the UK at heart thought that the carnage of 1914-18 war was a very good reason for not joining in in 1939. I am still not sure they were wrong.
Comments
The giveaway is jacket gape, and unsuitable shoes.
Doing a "rooftop hop" they could be in downtown Bagdad or Mosul in little under an hour. Less if they go supersonic. No refuelling required. Faster on the way back as they would be lighter of course
If Labour go below 40% in Oldham, they're on for 25% nationally, irrespective of the current opinion polls.
Oddly enough, their NW seats (excl Cumbria) have been their better results in local by elections in the last couple of months.
The NHS is not perfect - but too often the BMA and the unions come over as opposed to any change rather than thinking about what is in the best interests of patients. Of course, as individual actors, they are just doing what they are supposed to do, but when they have effective control of the future of the organisation this is - by definition - producter capture
Bojo would be good as party chair. Tubthumping speeches and no policies to trip over. Not so sure that the fillies would be completely safe though!
"I'm not going anywhere."
I'm enjoying every moment of it.
#marr
Take note everyone thinking he might resign.
Members > PLP careerists.
Otherwise, the next time we need their support, they won't be there.
The primary objective is to degrade Daesh's military capabilities, to make them less attractive to new combatants and to provide support for the local troops on the group. Long term the solution for Syria needs to be political rather than military but we need to keep Daesh off balance in the interim.
Of course you need to concentrate on the moles and sympathisers in our own country, but it's not an either or case. You can't cure a vector borne infection without draining the swamp as part of the process.
Asking people to work a 7-day week shift pattern in return for a pay rise is not "demanding unreasonable sacrifices". Normal people doing it all the time. Some idiots (like me) work weekends without any pay increase despite the fact that my contract says 9-6 Monday to Friday.
So which is the more dangerous? Getting bombed by the US and UK drones and fighter bombers or getting shot up and bombed by drones and fighters from Da'esh (One man's freedom fighter is another's terroist)
I am not opposed to bombing Raqqa, and I would be quite explicit that civilian casualties are to be expected if the bombing is to be effective. Any action in Syria though is likely to be a distraction from the counter-insurgency required at home.
On topic.......Can I get NHS support for popcorn addiction?
No one believes more firmly than Comrade Corbyn that all MPs are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?
We've been here before. I supported it then. And it doesn't work out well. We should learn from experience.
Those trusts who, for political reasons, decide to run everything in house rather than look for the most efficient provider of ancillary services may be less keen.
In the past on here I've expressed reservations about why 'defeating' ISIS in Syria and Iraq will not cure the problem. Islamic groups anywhere around the world can affiliate themselves with ISIS or al Qaeda, but in the case of the former they have a strict set of conditions to meet, and have to give a pledge of allegiance, before they can join. Yet many are.
I've found this Economist article that shows the countries where groups have pledged to ISIS. Whilst some of these groups might be small, one of the aims of a defeat of ISIS in Syria and Iraq should be to stop fighters and weapons just slipping out of those countries to (further) destabilise others.
At the end of the day, perhaps the best way of securing long-term peace is increased economic prosperity in these countries, including small-scale and large-scale bribery.
http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21656690-islamic-state-making-itself-felt-ever-more-countries-how-much-influence
I think many/most people might disagree about working 7 day patterns. I would very much like to read the docs' stated detailed views.
I too am an idiot. Somewhat older than you, I still plug away, but I am wholly in charge of my focuses. Money has always been unimportant.
But there are many other issues, including lack of protection of training time (these are junior doctors working towards postgraduate qualifications) and removal of monitoring of working hours.
http://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/1.688856
~إن حزب الله هم الغالبون
The shadow cabinet members that do not support him resign and go back to the backbenches like Robin Cook did.
A completley new shadow cabinet will be formed from MP`s that did support his view over Syria.
People love a success. ISIS fleeing Iraq / Syria will not necessarily destroy them, but it will hurt their PR.
Labour offer a free vote, which Cameron wins.
Labour squeak Oldham
No member of the shadow cabinet resigns
Corbyn remains in post, and those members of the PLP not deselected by Momentum get hammered by the voters
EDIT: Can't wait to see how Ed votes
It is not just about winning the vote (which he will, easily), its about giving the message to our forces and our enemies that we stand united. Unfortunately, we don't.
*Alliance have some good lobbyists. They were recently awarded a NHS contract to operate a scanner bought by charitable donations, despite the NHS Trust saying they could do it in house £ 7 million cheaper
http://m.stokesentinel.co.uk/Stoke-NHS-hospital-scanning-contract-won-private/story-25444112-detail/story.html
That implies there are plenty of tory waverers.
The labour implosion has masked what has been an extremely bad couple of weeks for the current tory leadership.
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/lkwxs2wst7/InternalResults_151124_Syria_w.pdf
It's not just that he has the same overall low trust ratings as Vladimir Putin in his decision-making on this subject. Fully 50% of the population have no trust at all in him on this subject, including 27% of 2015 Labour voters.
Should see more of him on our tv screens.
However he was very good on Marr this morning.
That you consider your expertise superior to the French Defence Minister comes as no surprise.
Off now for a bit..
Any old Corbynite will do since the members/Ken etc make all the decision that he wants them to.
Following Cameron's half witted intervention so he can get a few photo opportunities is not a good idea.
If they come up with a real plan then I am prepared to listen, but given the moonshine he came out with on Wednesday, no-one would buy a used car from this snake oil salesman.
It is bullshine that a significant minority of conservative back benchers apparently agree with.
It wasn't supposed to be an asset which others milk a profit from.
No, but I read a quote of Fallon saying the government did not have the votes yet.
2008 - when Conservatives led Labour 20% nationally:
Lab 11466 41%
LD 8127 29%
Con 6221 22%
Oth 1995 7%
2012 - the seats which will be up for election next May:
Lab 16422 66%
Con 3829 15%
LD 3307 13%
Oth 1431 6%
The two wards with by far the highest turnout in each year were the heavily Asian Coldhurst and Wernath - postal votes are so convenient for 'Community Leaders' and Labour.
There were no UKIP candidates in either year.
We have 2 problems.
One is the legacy of Blair and the lies he told the HoC about Iraq. Before Blair no one would have contemplated a PM lying about something so important. Now, everything Cameron says, about our near misses of a Paris scenario for example, is clouded with suspicion and doubt. I for one will never forgive Blair for what he did.
The second problem is that we have seen in Iraq, Afghanistan and, to an extent, Libya is that attacking those who hate and want to attack us is no guarantee that they will be replaced by people who feel more kindly towards us, almost the reverse in fact. This has led to a defeatism and war weariness that makes commitment difficult and feeds the Blairite suspicions.
Despite this I think we need to act. Firstly, because a close ally has been attacked and asked us to help. Secondly, because we need to show our enemies we still can. Thirdly, because the message must be given, as it was to Al Qaeda after 9/11 that attacks on the west like Paris carry a terrible price. Fourthly, because there will be no peace in Syria or Iraq whilst Daesh remain. There may not be peace when they are defeated either but there will at least be a chance of peace. If the refugees are ever to go home we must work for that chance.
I could go on but if I was in the Commons I would support this with a heavy heart, a sense of realism about what can be achieved and a grim determination to strike at those who would strike at us and our friends.
"Would they run a 7 day 24 hour service not just taking pictures but providing Consultant Interventional Radiologist support including ITU beds as needed? Simply taking a few snaps is not enough. Any such system needs to be properly supported. Or are you expecting the GP to interpret the image, cannulate the middle cerebral artery and inject thrombolytics in his surgery?
*Alliance have some good lobbyists. They were recently awarded a NHS contract to operate a scanner bought by charitable donations, despite the NHS Trust saying they could do it in house £ 7 million cheaper
http://m.stokesentinel.co.uk/Stoke-NHS-hospital-scanning-contract-won-private/story-25444112-detail/story.html "
"Ask the fellows who cut the hay"
and maybe not bureaucrats, who often quite like putting simple numbers to things they don't understand.
Sorry but I do not understand the cross party support argument. The tories have a majority and they have the unionists.
It is surely therefore irrelevant what labour do to a resolution passing. If labour don;t want to support, that is their affair.
Let the voters draw their own conclusions.
Unless of course, Cameron is suspicious of his own MPs.