Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » LAB continues to have double digit lead on the NHS but the gap

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited June 2018 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » LAB continues to have double digit lead on the NHS but the gap is narrowing

A few weeks ago at PMQs Jeremy Corbyn reminded the PM that in the 1947/48 period when the NHS legislation was going through parliament it had been opposed by the Tories. That such a line can still resonate 70 years on is really quite remarkable and highlights the ongoing vulnerability that the Conservatives have on the National Health Service.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069
    Firstt??
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,960
    Secundo
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069
    FPT
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    It is a pretty sad tale of the death of a British High St.

    Not sure why you see it as "Peak Guardian", it seems quite good reportage.
    Agreed. What on earth are we going to do with all this surplus space on the High Street? And what is going to happen to the return on business rates? It is a real problem and local government must stop seeing these stores as cash cows rather than key businesses for local development.
    A lot of the spare building space will inevitably end up as flats especially with the housing shortage
    Maybe. In Dundee city centre we have had retail accomodation that is crying out to be converted into flats sitting empty for 20 years. The Local Authority will not grant change of use somehow believing that the shops (and the associated jobs) will magically return.
    There was a really good Freakonomics the other week about redeveloping New York in the early 2000s and now the Google Labs Sidewalk project in Toronto.
    The irony is that a significant increase in the number of people actually living in the City Centre using local shops is by far the best chance of at least small retail thriving.
    In Leicester the Council has allowed a lot of the old clothing mills convert to flats, so we seem to mostly escape the High St blight. It makes for quite a lively nightime, but Leicester is a young city with only 10% of the population over 65, and 25% under 20 years.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    As the poll suggests the Tories can only narrow the gap not lead on the NHS and they will never beat Labour on a tax and spend Dutch auction of spending ever more money on the NHS.

    Rather than just wearing his NHS badge Hunt should be pushing real reform of the health system in this country, including charges for minor ailments and Australian style levies on high income earners if they do not have private health
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,969
    HYUFD said:

    As the poll suggests the Tories can only narrow the gap not lead on the NHS and they will never beat Labour on a tax and spend Dutch auction of spending ever more money on the NHS.

    Rather than just wearing his NHS badge Hunt should be pushing real reform of the health system in this country, including charges for minor ailments and Australian style levies on high income earners if they do not have private health

    The Tories have led on the NHS under Cameron and May.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLL....

    Oil tanker defending from Germany.

    To be fair the Mexicans have been frightening going forward. I am not sure I would fancy England's defence against this lot.

    This is the best game (bar Portugal-v-Spain of course) that I have seen by a distance.
    I don't fancy England defence against my local U11's team...
    England have only conceded two goals in their last four matches
    Yeah I think that England have good defenders, fast and athletic with a bit of experience.

    The problem I see is the midfield which is not focussed enough to give the defence the support it needs and not creative enough to give the ammunition to the front line. Against weaker teams that may not matter. Against the better teams I think it will be a problem.
    Not sure I agree we have good defenders. We are playing 5 at the back, with Kyle Walker is our best defender but we are having to play him as a make-shift centre back. Jon Stones always looks it is when not if he will make a blunder. Cahill is slow. Maguire inexperienced.

    Wing backs, Alexander Arnold is again inexperienced and makes mistakes or the very dull Trippier and left back, it is either out of form Rose or Ashley Young who isn't a left back
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,401
    The NHS will stop being an issue for the Tories once they've scrapped it.

    You simply can't trust the Tories with the NHS, and the electorate knows it.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited June 2018

    HYUFD said:

    As the poll suggests the Tories can only narrow the gap not lead on the NHS and they will never beat Labour on a tax and spend Dutch auction of spending ever more money on the NHS.

    Rather than just wearing his NHS badge Hunt should be pushing real reform of the health system in this country, including charges for minor ailments and Australian style levies on high income earners if they do not have private health

    The Tories have led on the NHS under Cameron and May.
    Not on any of the above polling which covers the last 12 months and only on the odd occasion at most, the NHS is a Labour issue much as tax and immigration tend to be Tory issues
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,969
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    As the poll suggests the Tories can only narrow the gap not lead on the NHS and they will never beat Labour on a tax and spend Dutch auction of spending ever more money on the NHS.

    Rather than just wearing his NHS badge Hunt should be pushing real reform of the health system in this country, including charges for minor ailments and Australian style levies on high income earners if they do not have private health

    The Tories have led on the NHS under Cameron and May.
    Not on any of the above polling and only on the odd occasion at most, the NHS is a Labour issue much as tax and immigration tend to be Tory issues
    The above polling is limited to polling since the election and YouGov.

    Under the right leader/Health Secretary and policies the Tories can lead on the NHS.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,401

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    As the poll suggests the Tories can only narrow the gap not lead on the NHS and they will never beat Labour on a tax and spend Dutch auction of spending ever more money on the NHS.

    Rather than just wearing his NHS badge Hunt should be pushing real reform of the health system in this country, including charges for minor ailments and Australian style levies on high income earners if they do not have private health

    The Tories have led on the NHS under Cameron and May.
    Not on any of the above polling and only on the odd occasion at most, the NHS is a Labour issue much as tax and immigration tend to be Tory issues
    The above polling is limited to polling since the election and YouGov.

    Under the right leader/Health Secretary and policies the Tories can lead on the NHS.
    PM Esther and Health Sec Priti?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,969
    It is a great weekend if you hold betting slips on Jeremy Hunt or Sajid Javid as Mrs May’s successor.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    Oh jeez Mexican cut the German defence apart again. Neymar must be watching thinking this isn't going to be too hard.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited June 2018

    It is a great weekend if you hold betting slips on Jeremy Hunt or Sajid Javid as Mrs May’s successor.

    It was of course Boris and Gove who actually originally promised the Brexit bonus for the NHS May has now had to deliver, Hunt would have been unlikely to have got it without the Brexit vote
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    The CON figure is remarkably static. More to do with Peak Corbyn? :p
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,520
    Since when has the Health Secretary been 'comma Jeremy Hunt,' ?

    I can think of other c-words people use to describe him. ;)
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    Since when has the Health Secretary been 'comma Jeremy Hunt,' ?

    I can think of other c-words people use to describe him. ;)

    OGH needs a new secretary to transcribe his posts :p
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,520

    The NHS will stop being an issue for the Tories once they've scrapped it.

    You simply can't trust the Tories with the NHS, and the electorate knows it.

    If you're taking that sort of attitude, then Labour care about the NHS, not patients.

    As we saw at Stafford, where that low piece of scum Andy Burnham puts the reputation of the NHS over the welfare of patients.

    The Conservatives will not dismantle the NHS. But Labour's love affair with the ideology, rather than outcomes, means that the NHS may well be safer in Conservative hands.

    Although not if the likes of JRM become leader ...
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    German defence as open as their borders under Merkel.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    German defence as open as their borders under Merkel.

    Mexco built a wall. Germany are paying for it
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,401

    The NHS will stop being an issue for the Tories once they've scrapped it.

    You simply can't trust the Tories with the NHS, and the electorate knows it.

    If you're taking that sort of attitude, then Labour care about the NHS, not patients.

    As we saw at Stafford, where that low piece of scum Andy Burnham puts the reputation of the NHS over the welfare of patients.

    The Conservatives will not dismantle the NHS. But Labour's love affair with the ideology, rather than outcomes, means that the NHS may well be safer in Conservative hands.

    Although not if the likes of JRM become leader ...
    The NHS is a patient centred health service. The alternatives are profit and shareholder centred.

    Parallels with the railways, really.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    Since when has the Health Secretary been 'comma Jeremy Hunt,' ?

    I can think of other c-words people use to describe him. ;)

    Commie?!
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    edited June 2018
    Chope's shamed faced damage limitation exercise is hilarious in its inneptitude.

    Apparently, according to him, he objected because he felt the government was using backbenchers time to sneak in the bill. He actually totally supports the bill.

    What a transparent arsehole. Incidentally all you peeps trying to defend him using the "he thought it was a bad law, he's so experienced how can you doubt his masterly insight into the law" have been hung out to dry.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    So the 3.4% that Mrs May is now talking about will really only enable the NHS to stand still.

    Twas ever thus.

    We need cross party agreement on deeper changes to cope with the decades ahead, but there's too much political loss and gain to be had for that.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,969
    Alistair said:

    Chope's shamed faced damage limitation exercise is hilarious in its inneptitude.

    Apparently, according to him, he objected because he felt the government was using backbenchers time to sneak in the bill. He actually totally supports the bill.

    What a transparent arsehole. Incidentally all you peeps trying to defend him using the "he thought it was a bad law, he's so experienced how can you doubt his integrity" have been hung out to dry.

    Been chuckling at this.

    https://twitter.com/peterwalker99/status/1008329329179332608
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,401
    Boom!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Alistair said:

    Chope's shamed faced damage limitation exercise is hilarious in its inneptitude.

    Apparently, according to him, he objected because he felt the government was using backbenchers time to sneak in the bill. He actually totally supports the bill.

    What a transparent arsehole. Incidentally all you peeps trying to defend him using the "he thought it was a bad law, he's so experienced how can you doubt his integrity" have been hung out to dry.

    How could anyone defend him on the basis that he thought it, the bill specifically, was a bad law? I thought the argument previously being used to defend him was that he didn't even know what the bill was about, he was objecting on a point of principle to the process, which excluded him defending himself on that basis in the first place.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    edited June 2018
    kle4 said:

    Alistair said:

    Chope's shamed faced damage limitation exercise is hilarious in its inneptitude.

    Apparently, according to him, he objected because he felt the government was using backbenchers time to sneak in the bill. He actually totally supports the bill.

    What a transparent arsehole. Incidentally all you peeps trying to defend him using the "he thought it was a bad law, he's so experienced how can you doubt his integrity" have been hung out to dry.

    How could anyone defend him on the basis that he thought it, the bill specifically, was a bad law? I thought the argument previously being used to defend him was that he didn't even know what the bill was about, he was objecting on a point of principle to the process, which excluded him defending himself on that basis in the first place.
    We had a whole line by line reading of the bill and breakdown of its weak points by Chope defenders the other day.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846

    The NHS will stop being an issue for the Tories once they've scrapped it.

    You simply can't trust the Tories with the NHS, and the electorate knows it.

    If you're taking that sort of attitude, then Labour care about the NHS, not patients.

    As we saw at Stafford, where that low piece of scum Andy Burnham puts the reputation of the NHS over the welfare of patients.

    The Conservatives will not dismantle the NHS. But Labour's love affair with the ideology, rather than outcomes, means that the NHS may well be safer in Conservative hands.

    Although not if the likes of JRM become leader ...
    The NHS is a patient centred health service. The alternatives are profit and shareholder centred.

    Parallels with the railways, really.
    Nope. The NHS is an employee centred service. Patient care is secondary unfortunately. This is why they trumpet studies that say they are great at controlling drug usage and paperwork but rubbish at clinical outcomes (making people better or keeping them alive).
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069
    Germans defeated in Russia!

    As Ken would say: Another German who lost in Russia was....
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Alistair said:

    kle4 said:

    Alistair said:

    Chope's shamed faced damage limitation exercise is hilarious in its inneptitude.

    Apparently, according to him, he objected because he felt the government was using backbenchers time to sneak in the bill. He actually totally supports the bill.

    What a transparent arsehole. Incidentally all you peeps trying to defend him using the "he thought it was a bad law, he's so experienced how can you doubt his integrity" have been hung out to dry.

    How could anyone defend him on the basis that he thought it, the bill specifically, was a bad law? I thought the argument previously being used to defend him was that he didn't even know what the bill was about, he was objecting on a point of principle to the process, which excluded him defending himself on that basis in the first place.
    We had a whole line by line reading of the bill and breakdown of its weak points by Chope defenders the other day.
    Perhaps, but the weakness of the bill (or not) was not really a defence of his actions of course, given the arguments about wider principle. If he had stopped bad law it would be by accident.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    Alistair said:

    Chope's shamed faced damage limitation exercise is hilarious in its inneptitude.

    Apparently, according to him, he objected because he felt the government was using backbenchers time to sneak in the bill. He actually totally supports the bill.

    What a transparent arsehole. Incidentally all you peeps trying to defend him using the "he thought it was a bad law, he's so experienced how can you doubt his integrity" have been hung out to dry.

    Been chuckling at this.

    https://twitter.com/peterwalker99/status/1008329329179332608
    Compared his own government to Putin as well for good measure.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,688
    Foxy said:

    Germans defeated in Russia!

    As Ken would say: Another German who lost in Russia was....

    The whole Ken thing is a Fuhrerore about nothing.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    Foxy said:

    Germans defeated in Russia!

    As Ken would say: Another German who lost in Russia was....

    As Trump says...when Mexico send their people, they don't send their best...hence USA not qualifying and Mexico beating Germany.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274

    twitter.com/paul__johnson/status/1008281200715337728

    To be fair, he was only 5.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069
    Alistair said:

    Alistair said:

    Chope's shamed faced damage limitation exercise is hilarious in its inneptitude.

    Apparently, according to him, he objected because he felt the government was using backbenchers time to sneak in the bill. He actually totally supports the bill.

    What a transparent arsehole. Incidentally all you peeps trying to defend him using the "he thought it was a bad law, he's so experienced how can you doubt his integrity" have been hung out to dry.

    Been chuckling at this.

    https://twitter.com/peterwalker99/status/1008329329179332608
    Compared his own government to Putin as well for good measure.
    Though he probablymeant it in a complimentary way about his Strong and Stable leader.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879
    May has told barefaced lies to her MPs and the British people in the space of a week. That used to matter. What days we live in.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315

    Foxy said:

    Germans defeated in Russia!

    As Ken would say: Another German who lost in Russia was....

    As Trump says...when Mexico send their people, they don't send their best...hence USA not qualifying and Mexico beating Germany.
    You mean Mexicans who remain Mexicans and play for Mexico play football better than Mexicans who move to the US and play for the USA?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,520

    The NHS will stop being an issue for the Tories once they've scrapped it.

    You simply can't trust the Tories with the NHS, and the electorate knows it.

    If you're taking that sort of attitude, then Labour care about the NHS, not patients.

    As we saw at Stafford, where that low piece of scum Andy Burnham puts the reputation of the NHS over the welfare of patients.

    The Conservatives will not dismantle the NHS. But Labour's love affair with the ideology, rather than outcomes, means that the NHS may well be safer in Conservative hands.

    Although not if the likes of JRM become leader ...
    The NHS is a patient centred health service. The alternatives are profit and shareholder centred.

    (Snip)
    No. For many on the left, the NHS is a religion. *Any* criticism of the NHS leads to claims that you are evil, trying to privatise it, etc, etc. This is the sort of shitty thinking that led to people trying to draw attention to what was happening at Stafford getting loads of abuse.

    At Stafford, what mattered for some was the NHS, not patients.

    To make it clear: the NHS is there to help people, and the thing that matters is the people. And the people are patients as well as staff, not just the staff.

    For me, the key to the NHS is 'free at the point of delivery'. I don't care a dingo's kidney *how* it is delivered, as long as that key precept is met. As it happens, I don't think a fully privatised NHS would meet it. But a fully nationalised one has issues as well.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,401
    Foxy said:

    Germans defeated in Russia!

    As Ken would say: Another German who lost in Russia was....

    Karl Marx?
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315
    kle4 said:

    Alistair said:

    kle4 said:

    Alistair said:

    Chope's shamed faced damage limitation exercise is hilarious in its inneptitude.

    Apparently, according to him, he objected because he felt the government was using backbenchers time to sneak in the bill. He actually totally supports the bill.

    What a transparent arsehole. Incidentally all you peeps trying to defend him using the "he thought it was a bad law, he's so experienced how can you doubt his integrity" have been hung out to dry.

    How could anyone defend him on the basis that he thought it, the bill specifically, was a bad law? I thought the argument previously being used to defend him was that he didn't even know what the bill was about, he was objecting on a point of principle to the process, which excluded him defending himself on that basis in the first place.
    We had a whole line by line reading of the bill and breakdown of its weak points by Chope defenders the other day.
    Perhaps, but the weakness of the bill (or not) was not really a defence of his actions of course, given the arguments about wider principle. If he had stopped bad law it would be by accident.
    Hasn't Chope by his actions actually ensured the bill is taken up by the government and will become law more quickly - far more effective one might say than a Friday morning private members bill.

    It might well have disappeared into the long grass otherwise.

    He has of course stopped plenty of other bills - including efforts to prevent harm coming to animals. But unless it affects the White liberal middle class women of London the media doesn't tend to make a fuss.
  • peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,875
    edited June 2018
    The really big question is why Mrs May has chosen now to announce this truly startling news on NHS funding, when she could have done so at any time over the past 12 months to relieve the huge pressure she has been under? Three possible answers-
    1. Simply, she has finally become a true Brexiteer and is shouting it from the rooftops.
    2. She is preparing for an early GE and is attempting to outflank Labour on its one huge area of political advantage .... doubtful.
    3. She has finally decided to sock it to those nasty Europeans and is prepared to opt for a "no deal" outcome if necessary, rather than be bullied into submission and the inevitable political political abyss which would follow .... this would be my guess.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,520

    The really big question is why Mrs May has chosen now to announce this startling news on NHS funding, when she could have done so any time over the past 12 months to relieve the huge pressure she has been under? Three possible answers-
    1. Simply, she has finally become a true Brexiteer and is shouting it from the rooftops.
    2. She is planning an early GE and is attempting to outflank Labour on its one huge area of political advantage .... doubtful.
    3. She has finally decided to sock it to those nasty Europeans and is prepared to opt for a "no deal" outcome if necessary, rather than be bullied into submission and political abyss .... this would be my guess.

    4. She is not very good at politics ?
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    Alistair said:

    Chope's shamed faced damage limitation exercise is hilarious in its inneptitude.

    Apparently, according to him, he objected because he felt the government was using backbenchers time to sneak in the bill. He actually totally supports the bill.

    What a transparent arsehole. Incidentally all you peeps trying to defend him using the "he thought it was a bad law, he's so experienced how can you doubt his masterly insight into the law" have been hung out to dry.

    The knighthood given by May , is well deserved.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575
    Alistair said:

    Chope's shamed faced damage limitation exercise is hilarious in its inneptitude.

    Apparently, according to him, he objected because he felt the government was using backbenchers time to sneak in the bill. He actually totally supports the bill.

    What a transparent arsehole. Incidentally all you peeps trying to defend him using the "he thought it was a bad law, he's so experienced how can you doubt his masterly insight into the law" have been hung out to dry.

    Who was defending the wanker ?
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    So we now know that Southgate has already named his team. Can PBers guess it?

    I think he should play Rashford and go with Dier over Henderson.

    My team would be: Pickford, Trippier, Rose, Walker, Stones, Cahill, Dier, Deli, Rashford, Kane, Stirling
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,749
    brendan16 said:

    kle4 said:

    Alistair said:

    kle4 said:

    Alistair said:

    Chope's shamed faced damage limitation exercise is hilarious in its inneptitude.

    Apparently, according to him, he objected because he felt the government was using backbenchers time to sneak in the bill. He actually totally supports the bill.

    What a transparent arsehole. Incidentally all you peeps trying to defend him using the "he thought it was a bad law, he's so experienced how can you doubt his integrity" have been hung out to dry.

    How could anyone defend him on the basis that he thought it, the bill specifically, was a bad law? I thought the argument previously being used to defend him was that he didn't even know what the bill was about, he was objecting on a point of principle to the process, which excluded him defending himself on that basis in the first place.
    We had a whole line by line reading of the bill and breakdown of its weak points by Chope defenders the other day.
    Perhaps, but the weakness of the bill (or not) was not really a defence of his actions of course, given the arguments about wider principle. If he had stopped bad law it would be by accident.
    Hasn't Chope by his actions actually ensured the bill is taken up by the government and will become law more quickly - far more effective one might say than a Friday morning private members bill.

    It might well have disappeared into the long grass otherwise.

    He has of course stopped plenty of other bills - including efforts to prevent harm coming to animals. But unless it affects the White liberal middle class women of London the media doesn't tend to make a fuss.
    There's a difference between the unintended consequences of acting like a prick and forcing an issue by subverting a process. Which category do you think Chope falls into?
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    The really big question is why Mrs May has chosen now to announce this truly startling news on NHS funding, when she could have done so at any time over the past 12 months to relieve the huge pressure she has been under? Three possible answers-
    1. Simply, she has finally become a true Brexiteer and is shouting it from the rooftops.
    2. She is preparing for an early GE and is attempting to outflank Labour on its one huge area of political advantage .... doubtful.
    3. She has finally decided to sock it to those nasty Europeans and is prepared to opt for a "no deal" outcome if necessary, rather than be bullied into submission and the inevitable political political abyss which would follow .... this would be my guess.

    4. She went for a walk. The complete lack of detail, including how it will play with devolution and Barnett, suggests this is the right answer.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879

    The really big question is why Mrs May has chosen now to announce this startling news on NHS funding, when she could have done so any time over the past 12 months to relieve the huge pressure she has been under? Three possible answers-
    1. Simply, she has finally become a true Brexiteer and is shouting it from the rooftops.
    2. She is planning an early GE and is attempting to outflank Labour on its one huge area of political advantage .... doubtful.
    3. She has finally decided to sock it to those nasty Europeans and is prepared to opt for a "no deal" outcome if necessary, rather than be bullied into submission and political abyss .... this would be my guess.

    4. She is not very good at politics ?

    5. She is about to make lots of concessions to the EU and needs to give her Brexiteers something - however bogus - to proclaim as she does so.

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,520

    The really big question is why Mrs May has chosen now to announce this truly startling news on NHS funding, when she could have done so at any time over the past 12 months to relieve the huge pressure she has been under? Three possible answers-
    1. Simply, she has finally become a true Brexiteer and is shouting it from the rooftops.
    2. She is preparing for an early GE and is attempting to outflank Labour on its one huge area of political advantage .... doubtful.
    3. She has finally decided to sock it to those nasty Europeans and is prepared to opt for a "no deal" outcome if necessary, rather than be bullied into submission and the inevitable political political abyss which would follow .... this would be my guess.

    4. She went for a walk. The complete lack of detail, including how it will play with devolution and Barnett, suggests this is the right answer.
    Oi! I do lots if walking (74 miles this week), and I do lots of thinking!

    Mind, I can't guarantee that means I get better answers ... ;)
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    HYUFD said:

    As the poll suggests the Tories can only narrow the gap not lead on the NHS and they will never beat Labour on a tax and spend Dutch auction of spending ever more money on the NHS.

    Rather than just wearing his NHS badge Hunt should be pushing real reform of the health system in this country, including charges for minor ailments and Australian style levies on high income earners if they do not have private health

    Doesn't Australia spend more on health than we do? The NHS is cheap, though magicking up more managers and accountants to charge for sprained ankles will help fix that.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,520

    The really big question is why Mrs May has chosen now to announce this startling news on NHS funding, when she could have done so any time over the past 12 months to relieve the huge pressure she has been under? Three possible answers-
    1. Simply, she has finally become a true Brexiteer and is shouting it from the rooftops.
    2. She is planning an early GE and is attempting to outflank Labour on its one huge area of political advantage .... doubtful.
    3. She has finally decided to sock it to those nasty Europeans and is prepared to opt for a "no deal" outcome if necessary, rather than be bullied into submission and political abyss .... this would be my guess.

    4. She is not very good at politics ?

    5. She is about to make lots of concessions to the EU and needs to give her Brexiteers something - however bogus - to proclaim as she does so.

    Does this have to be a single-choice answer, or can several be true?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    brendan16 said:

    kle4 said:

    Alistair said:

    kle4 said:

    Alistair said:

    Chope's shamed faced damage limitation exercise is hilarious in its inneptitude.

    Apparently, according to him, he objected because he felt the government was using backbenchers time to sneak in the bill. He actually totally supports the bill.

    What a transparent arsehole. Incidentally all you peeps trying to defend him using the "he thought it was a bad law, he's so experienced how can you doubt his integrity" have been hung out to dry.

    How could anyone defend him on the basis that he thought it, the bill specifically, was a bad law? I thought the argument previously being used to defend him was that he didn't even know what the bill was about, he was objecting on a point of principle to the process, which excluded him defending himself on that basis in the first place.
    We had a whole line by line reading of the bill and breakdown of its weak points by Chope defenders the other day.
    Perhaps, but the weakness of the bill (or not) was not really a defence of his actions of course, given the arguments about wider principle. If he had stopped bad law it would be by accident.
    Hasn't Chope by his actions actually ensured the bill is taken up by the government and will become law more quickly - far more effective one might say than a Friday morning private members bill.

    It might well have disappeared into the long grass otherwise.

    He has of course stopped plenty of other bills - including efforts to prevent harm coming to animals. But unless it affects the White liberal middle class women of London the media doesn't tend to make a fuss.
    Chope has only achieved that accidentally and should get zero credit. You might as well credit Japan with defeating Germany in WW2... Pearl Harbor brought the US and thus led to Hitler's defeat but no one lauds them for that.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575

    brendan16 said:

    kle4 said:

    Alistair said:

    kle4 said:

    Alistair said:

    Chope's shamed faced damage limitation exercise is hilarious in its inneptitude.

    Apparently, according to him, he objected because he felt the government was using backbenchers time to sneak in the bill. He actually totally supports the bill.

    What a transparent arsehole. Incidentally all you peeps trying to defend him using the "he thought it was a bad law, he's so experienced how can you doubt his integrity" have been hung out to dry.

    How could anyone defend him on the basis that he thought it, the bill specifically, was a bad law? I thought the argument previously being used to defend him was that he didn't even know what the bill was about, he was objecting on a point of principle to the process, which excluded him defending himself on that basis in the first place.
    We had a whole line by line reading of the bill and breakdown of its weak points by Chope defenders the other day.
    Perhaps, but the weakness of the bill (or not) was not really a defence of his actions of course, given the arguments about wider principle. If he had stopped bad law it would be by accident.
    Hasn't Chope by his actions actually ensured the bill is taken up by the government and will become law more quickly - far more effective one might say than a Friday morning private members bill.

    It might well have disappeared into the long grass otherwise.

    He has of course stopped plenty of other bills - including efforts to prevent harm coming to animals. But unless it affects the White liberal middle class women of London the media doesn't tend to make a fuss.
    There's a difference between the unintended consequences of acting like a prick and forcing an issue by subverting a process. Which category do you think Chope falls into?
    That of elevating his whim above the judgment of 649 other MPs ?
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    Anazina said:

    So we now know that Southgate has already named his team. Can PBers guess it?

    I think he should play Rashford and go with Dier over Henderson.

    My team would be: Pickford, Trippier, Rose, Walker, Stones, Cahill, Dier, Deli, Rashford, Kane, Stirling

    I think Southgate will go :

    Pickford , Trippier , Rose , Walker , Stones , Maquire, Henderson, Alli, Lingard , Stirling , Kane.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    brendan16 said:

    kle4 said:

    Alistair said:

    kle4 said:

    Alistair said:

    Chope's shamed faced damage limitation exercise is hilarious in its inneptitude.

    Apparently, according to him, he objected because he felt the government was using backbenchers time to sneak in the bill. He actually totally supports the bill.

    What a transparent arsehole. Incidentally all you peeps trying to defend him using the "he thought it was a bad law, he's so experienced how can you doubt his integrity" have been hung out to dry.

    How could anyone defend him on the basis that he thought it, the bill specifically, was a bad law? I thought the argument previously being used to defend him was that he didn't even know what the bill was about, he was objecting on a point of principle to the process, which excluded him defending himself on that basis in the first place.
    We had a whole line by line reading of the bill and breakdown of its weak points by Chope defenders the other day.
    Perhaps, but the weakness of the bill (or not) was not really a defence of his actions of course, given the arguments about wider principle. If he had stopped bad law it would be by accident.
    Hasn't Chope by his actions actually ensured the bill is taken up by the government and will become law more quickly - far more effective one might say than a Friday morning private members bill.

    It might well have disappeared into the long grass otherwise.

    He has of course stopped plenty of other bills - including efforts to prevent harm coming to animals. But unless it affects the White liberal middle class women of London the media doesn't tend to make a fuss.
    Chope has only achieved that accidentally and should get zero credit. You might as well credit Japan with defeating Germany in WW2... Pearl Harbor brought the US and thus led to Hitler's defeat but no one lauds them for that.
    Pearl Harbor brought America into the war against Japan but then for no obvious reason, Germany declared war on the United States. I'm almost tempted to believe Ken's thesis that Hitler went a bit mad.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,749
    Nigelb said:

    brendan16 said:

    kle4 said:

    Alistair said:

    kle4 said:

    Alistair said:

    Chope's shamed faced damage limitation exercise is hilarious in its inneptitude.

    Apparently, according to him, he objected because he felt the government was using backbenchers time to sneak in the bill. He actually totally supports the bill.

    What a transparent arsehole. Incidentally all you peeps trying to defend him using the "he thought it was a bad law, he's so experienced how can you doubt his integrity" have been hung out to dry.

    How could anyone defend him on the basis that he thought it, the bill specifically, was a bad law? I thought the argument previously being used to defend him was that he didn't even know what the bill was about, he was objecting on a point of principle to the process, which excluded him defending himself on that basis in the first place.
    We had a whole line by line reading of the bill and breakdown of its weak points by Chope defenders the other day.
    Perhaps, but the weakness of the bill (or not) was not really a defence of his actions of course, given the arguments about wider principle. If he had stopped bad law it would be by accident.
    Hasn't Chope by his actions actually ensured the bill is taken up by the government and will become law more quickly - far more effective one might say than a Friday morning private members bill.

    It might well have disappeared into the long grass otherwise.

    He has of course stopped plenty of other bills - including efforts to prevent harm coming to animals. But unless it affects the White liberal middle class women of London the media doesn't tend to make a fuss.
    There's a difference between the unintended consequences of acting like a prick and forcing an issue by subverting a process. Which category do you think Chope falls into?
    That of elevating his whim above the judgment of 649 other MPs ?
    I feel that's a sub category of 1 tbh.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Yorkcity said:

    Alistair said:

    Chope's shamed faced damage limitation exercise is hilarious in its inneptitude.

    Apparently, according to him, he objected because he felt the government was using backbenchers time to sneak in the bill. He actually totally supports the bill.

    What a transparent arsehole. Incidentally all you peeps trying to defend him using the "he thought it was a bad law, he's so experienced how can you doubt his masterly insight into the law" have been hung out to dry.

    The knighthood given by May , is well deserved.
    I hadn't realized that the Prime Minister had instituted her own Grand Order of the Tory Twat because only the monarch as fount of honour may confer a knighthood.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879
    ‪Of course, if Labour opposed Brexit it could be destroying the Tories on today’s lies. But because it doesn’t it can’t. Once again, Jeremy Corbyn is proving to be the best friend Theresa May has.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    JackW said:

    Yorkcity said:

    Alistair said:

    Chope's shamed faced damage limitation exercise is hilarious in its inneptitude.

    Apparently, according to him, he objected because he felt the government was using backbenchers time to sneak in the bill. He actually totally supports the bill.

    What a transparent arsehole. Incidentally all you peeps trying to defend him using the "he thought it was a bad law, he's so experienced how can you doubt his masterly insight into the law" have been hung out to dry.

    The knighthood given by May , is well deserved.
    I hadn't realized that the Prime Minister had instituted her own Grand Order of the Tory Twat because only the monarch as fount of honour may confer a knighthood.
    The Queen acts on advice of her minister's ?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19407451
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,520

    brendan16 said:

    kle4 said:

    Alistair said:

    kle4 said:

    Alistair said:

    Chope's shamed faced damage limitation exercise is hilarious in its inneptitude.

    Apparently, according to him, he objected because he felt the government was using backbenchers time to sneak in the bill. He actually totally supports the bill.

    What a transparent arsehole. Incidentally all you peeps trying to defend him using the "he thought it was a bad law, he's so experienced how can you doubt his integrity" have been hung out to dry.

    How could anyone defend him on the basis that he thought it, the bill specifically, was a bad law? I thought the argument previously being used to defend him was that he didn't even know what the bill was about, he was objecting on a point of principle to the process, which excluded him defending himself on that basis in the first place.
    We had a whole line by line reading of the bill and breakdown of its weak points by Chope defenders the other day.
    Perhaps, but the weakness of the bill (or not) was not really a defence of his actions of course, given the arguments about wider principle. If he had stopped bad law it would be by accident.
    Hasn't Chope by his actions actually ensured the bill is taken up by the government and will become law more quickly - far more effective one might say than a Friday morning private members bill.

    It might well have disappeared into the long grass otherwise.

    He has of course stopped plenty of other bills - including efforts to prevent harm coming to animals. But unless it affects the White liberal middle class women of London the media doesn't tend to make a fuss.
    Chope has only achieved that accidentally and should get zero credit. You might as well credit Japan with defeating Germany in WW2... Pearl Harbor brought the US and thus led to Hitler's defeat but no one lauds them for that.
    Pearl Harbor brought America into the war against Japan but then for no obvious reason, Germany declared war on the United States. I'm almost tempted to believe Ken's thesis that Hitler went a bit mad.
    AFAIUI that was only peripheral to Ken's thesis.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,092

    ‪Of course, if Labour opposed Brexit it could be destroying the Tories on today’s lies. But because it doesn’t it can’t. Once again, Jeremy Corbyn is proving to be the best friend Theresa May has.

    Jeremy Corbyn is at least consistent in his view of the EEC/EC/EU.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Sainsbury's was empty yesterday and the week before. If this means more than the usual number of childless couples are on holiday before the schools break up, then we might need to be a bit careful interpreting poll shifts.

    Of course, it could just be that all the shoppers headed to Tesco instead, where there is a far greater choice of strawberries on sale.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,688
    geoffw said:

    ‪Of course, if Labour opposed Brexit it could be destroying the Tories on today’s lies. But because it doesn’t it can’t. Once again, Jeremy Corbyn is proving to be the best friend Theresa May has.

    Jeremy Corbyn is at least consistent in his view of the EEC/EC/EU.
    Oppressors of the proletariat, but he'd surrender unconditionally if they wagged a finger at him?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,520

    Sainsbury's was empty yesterday and the week before. If this means more than the usual number of childless couples are on holiday before the schools break up, then we might need to be a bit careful interpreting poll shifts.

    Of course, it could just be that all the shoppers headed to Tesco instead, where there is a far greater choice of strawberries on sale.

    Or it was just a coincidence given the times you were in there? Unless you spend all day in the shop to get a general feel (#shelfstacker) ?
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879
    Didn’t the Tories get a lead on the NHS sometime before the last GE?
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Yorkcity said:

    JackW said:

    Yorkcity said:

    Alistair said:

    Chope's shamed faced damage limitation exercise is hilarious in its inneptitude.

    Apparently, according to him, he objected because he felt the government was using backbenchers time to sneak in the bill. He actually totally supports the bill.

    What a transparent arsehole. Incidentally all you peeps trying to defend him using the "he thought it was a bad law, he's so experienced how can you doubt his masterly insight into the law" have been hung out to dry.

    The knighthood given by May , is well deserved.
    I hadn't realized that the Prime Minister had instituted her own Grand Order of the Tory Twat because only the monarch as fount of honour may confer a knighthood.
    The Queen acts on advice of her minister's ?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19407451
    The Honours Committee vets politicians recommended for an award. It contains no member of the government. As the fount of honour it is the sole discretion of the monarch to approve nominations.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    JackW said:

    Yorkcity said:

    Alistair said:

    Chope's shamed faced damage limitation exercise is hilarious in its inneptitude.

    Apparently, according to him, he objected because he felt the government was using backbenchers time to sneak in the bill. He actually totally supports the bill.

    What a transparent arsehole. Incidentally all you peeps trying to defend him using the "he thought it was a bad law, he's so experienced how can you doubt his masterly insight into the law" have been hung out to dry.

    The knighthood given by May , is well deserved.
    I hadn't realized that the Prime Minister had instituted her own Grand Order of the Tory Twat because only the monarch as fount of honour may confer a knighthood.
    Perhaps Chope awarded himself the knighthood. That seems to be how the honours system works these days.

    The dishonours list: Two top awards went to people sitting on the very committees which hand them out
    Three of awards went to clients of literary agent who sits on honours committee
    Those included the historian Simon Schama and author Jeanette Winterson

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5841591/The-dishonours-list-tainted-honours-dock-again.html

    At least Lloyd George boosted GDP by selling K's. Maybe RCS can do a video on it.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    HYUFD said:

    It is a great weekend if you hold betting slips on Jeremy Hunt or Sajid Javid as Mrs May’s successor.

    It was of course Boris and Gove who actually originally promised the Brexit bonus for the NHS May has now had to deliver, Hunt would have been unlikely to have got it without the Brexit vote
    What rot this is @HYUFD. The NHS needs more money stand still in the face of an increasingly aging and obese population. The Government was always going to have to do something about it. The extra funding will not come from any mythical Brexit dividend, it will come from higher taxes.

    https://twitter.com/PJTheEconomist/status/1008256589051170818
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,520

    JackW said:

    Yorkcity said:

    Alistair said:

    Chope's shamed faced damage limitation exercise is hilarious in its inneptitude.

    Apparently, according to him, he objected because he felt the government was using backbenchers time to sneak in the bill. He actually totally supports the bill.

    What a transparent arsehole. Incidentally all you peeps trying to defend him using the "he thought it was a bad law, he's so experienced how can you doubt his masterly insight into the law" have been hung out to dry.

    The knighthood given by May , is well deserved.
    I hadn't realized that the Prime Minister had instituted her own Grand Order of the Tory Twat because only the monarch as fount of honour may confer a knighthood.
    Perhaps Chope awarded himself the knighthood. That seems to be how the honours system works these days.

    The dishonours list: Two top awards went to people sitting on the very committees which hand them out
    Three of awards went to clients of literary agent who sits on honours committee
    Those included the historian Simon Schama and author Jeanette Winterson

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5841591/The-dishonours-list-tainted-honours-dock-again.html

    At least Lloyd George boosted GDP by selling K's. Maybe RCS can do a video on it.
    Whereas Corbyn 'gives' peerages to people who whitewash inquiries into anti-semitism. :)

    Oh, sorry, that was all a massive coincidence...
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    Yorkcity said:

    Anazina said:

    So we now know that Southgate has already named his team. Can PBers guess it?

    I think he should play Rashford and go with Dier over Henderson.

    My team would be: Pickford, Trippier, Rose, Walker, Stones, Cahill, Dier, Deli, Rashford, Kane, Stirling

    I think Southgate will go :

    Pickford , Trippier , Rose , Walker , Stones , Maquire, Henderson, Alli, Lingard , Stirling , Kane.

    I read the first line of your post and thought, blimey have England already been knocked out?
  • "peter_from_putney Posts: 6,253
    3:24PM
    European countries have so far been involved in 7 contests and remain unbeaten ... that's some feat in a World Cup tournament. (It's actually 8 times unbeaten in as many games if you classify Russia as being European.)"

    I only posted this on the previous thread in order to tempt fate and guess what folks ... it worked ... Germany 0 - 1 Mexico. Haha, haha,haha!
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382

    Yorkcity said:

    Anazina said:

    So we now know that Southgate has already named his team. Can PBers guess it?

    I think he should play Rashford and go with Dier over Henderson.

    My team would be: Pickford, Trippier, Rose, Walker, Stones, Cahill, Dier, Deli, Rashford, Kane, Stirling

    I think Southgate will go :

    Pickford , Trippier , Rose , Walker , Stones , Maquire, Henderson, Alli, Lingard , Stirling , Kane.

    I read the first line of your post and thought, blimey have England already been knocked out?
    Yes , hopefully England will do better than 2014.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281

    brendan16 said:

    kle4 said:

    Alistair said:

    kle4 said:

    Alistair said:

    Chope's shamed faced damage limitation exercise is hilarious in its inneptitude.

    Apparently, according to him, he objected because he felt the government was using backbenchers time to sneak in the bill. He actually totally supports the bill.

    What a transparent arsehole. Incidentally all you peeps trying to defend him using the "he thought it was a bad law, he's so experienced how can you doubt his integrity" have been hung out to dry.

    How could anyone defend him on the basis that he thought it, the bill specifically, was a bad law? I thought the argument previously being used to defend him was that he didn't even know what the bill was about, he was objecting on a point of principle to the process, which excluded him defending himself on that basis in the first place.
    We had a whole line by line reading of the bill and breakdown of its weak points by Chope defenders the other day.
    Perhaps, but the weakness of the bill (or not) was not really a defence of his actions of course, given the arguments about wider principle. If he had stopped bad law it would be by accident.
    Hasn't Chope by his actions actually ensured the bill is taken up by the government and will become law more quickly - far more effective one might say than a Friday morning private members bill.

    It might well have disappeared into the long grass otherwise.

    He has of course stopped plenty of other bills - including efforts to prevent harm coming to animals. But unless it affects the White liberal middle class women of London the media doesn't tend to make a fuss.
    Chope has only achieved that accidentally and should get zero credit. You might as well credit Japan with defeating Germany in WW2... Pearl Harbor brought the US and thus led to Hitler's defeat but no one lauds them for that.
    Pearl Harbor brought America into the war against Japan but then for no obvious reason, Germany declared war on the United States. I'm almost tempted to believe Ken's thesis that Hitler went a bit mad.
    Fair point - I was just fulfilling Godwin's law.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    JackW said:

    Yorkcity said:

    JackW said:

    Yorkcity said:

    Alistair said:

    Chope's shamed faced damage limitation exercise is hilarious in its inneptitude.

    Apparently, according to him, he objected because he felt the government was using backbenchers time to sneak in the bill. He actually totally supports the bill.

    What a transparent arsehole. Incidentally all you peeps trying to defend him using the "he thought it was a bad law, he's so experienced how can you doubt his masterly insight into the law" have been hung out to dry.

    The knighthood given by May , is well deserved.
    I hadn't realized that the Prime Minister had instituted her own Grand Order of the Tory Twat because only the monarch as fount of honour may confer a knighthood.
    The Queen acts on advice of her minister's ?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19407451
    The Honours Committee vets politicians recommended for an award. It contains no member of the government. As the fount of honour it is the sole discretion of the monarch to approve nominations.
    As I said then , well deserved. Even the Queen agrees.

  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    HYUFD said:

    It is a great weekend if you hold betting slips on Jeremy Hunt or Sajid Javid as Mrs May’s successor.

    It was of course Boris and Gove who actually originally promised the Brexit bonus for the NHS May has now had to deliver, Hunt would have been unlikely to have got it without the Brexit vote
    What rot this is @HYUFD. The NHS needs more money stand still in the face of an increasingly aging and obese population. The Government was always going to have to do something about it. The extra funding will not come from any mythical Brexit dividend, it will come from higher taxes.

    https://twitter.com/PJTheEconomist/status/1008256589051170818
    More remainers arguing against money for the NHS. Out of touch and backed into a corner. I'm surprised Theresa had the sense to make it happen.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Putney, if the Germans are knocked out, that helps other bets for the title win :)

    Anyway, time for me to be off.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    edited June 2018
    Yorkcity said:

    Yorkcity said:

    Anazina said:

    So we now know that Southgate has already named his team. Can PBers guess it?

    I think he should play Rashford and go with Dier over Henderson.

    My team would be: Pickford, Trippier, Rose, Walker, Stones, Cahill, Dier, Deli, Rashford, Kane, Stirling

    I think Southgate will go :

    Pickford , Trippier , Rose , Walker , Stones , Maquire, Henderson, Alli, Lingard , Stirling , Kane.

    I read the first line of your post and thought, blimey have England already been knocked out?
    Yes , hopefully England will do better than 2014.
    I really hope so. But they do need to see off Tunisia and Panama - Belgium may be a tough prospect.

    In any event unless I am mistaken, if Germany finish second in their group and Brazil win theirs, it might pay England to come second in our group. (Though such calculations usually go out the window once the forst match doesn't go to plan!)
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    How can any team be taken seriously with a national anthem like that?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,520

    HYUFD said:

    It is a great weekend if you hold betting slips on Jeremy Hunt or Sajid Javid as Mrs May’s successor.

    It was of course Boris and Gove who actually originally promised the Brexit bonus for the NHS May has now had to deliver, Hunt would have been unlikely to have got it without the Brexit vote
    What rot this is @HYUFD. The NHS needs more money stand still in the face of an increasingly aging and obese population. The Government was always going to have to do something about it. The extra funding will not come from any mythical Brexit dividend, it will come from higher taxes.

    https://twitter.com/PJTheEconomist/status/1008256589051170818
    But throwing money at the NHS does not automatically improve outcomes for patients.

    I agree the NHS *could* perform better with more funding, but I'm far from sure there will ever be 'enough' funding. And in that case, what is the correct level?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281

    HYUFD said:

    It is a great weekend if you hold betting slips on Jeremy Hunt or Sajid Javid as Mrs May’s successor.

    It was of course Boris and Gove who actually originally promised the Brexit bonus for the NHS May has now had to deliver, Hunt would have been unlikely to have got it without the Brexit vote
    What rot this is @HYUFD. The NHS needs more money stand still in the face of an increasingly aging and obese population. The Government was always going to have to do something about it. The extra funding will not come from any mythical Brexit dividend, it will come from higher taxes.

    https://twitter.com/PJTheEconomist/status/1008256589051170818
    But throwing money at the NHS does not automatically improve outcomes for patients.

    I agree the NHS *could* perform better with more funding, but I'm far from sure there will ever be 'enough' funding. And in that case, what is the correct level?
    It's a fair point but the same could be said for many areas of public service (e.g. Defence). My point was that to claim this extra NHS money "would have been unlikely... without the Brexit vote" is disingenuous.

    We should continually seek ways to make the health service more efficient.
    We should also do all we can to reduce demands on it (e.g. 'nudge' taxation to reduce obesity).
    But we should also fund it sufficiently so that patients are not waiting unduly for operations, nor struggling to see a GP etc.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Yorkcity said:

    JackW said:

    Yorkcity said:

    JackW said:

    Yorkcity said:

    Alistair said:

    Chope's shamed faced damage limitation exercise is hilarious in its inneptitude.

    Apparently, according to him, he objected because he felt the government was using backbenchers time to sneak in the bill. He actually totally supports the bill.

    What a transparent arsehole. Incidentally all you peeps trying to defend him using the "he thought it was a bad law, he's so experienced how can you doubt his masterly insight into the law" have been hung out to dry.

    The knighthood given by May , is well deserved.
    I hadn't realized that the Prime Minister had instituted her own Grand Order of the Tory Twat because only the monarch as fount of honour may confer a knighthood.
    The Queen acts on advice of her minister's ?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19407451
    The Honours Committee vets politicians recommended for an award. It contains no member of the government. As the fount of honour it is the sole discretion of the monarch to approve nominations.
    As I said then , well deserved. Even the Queen agrees.

    You said the knighthood was "given" by the Prime Minister which is false.

    Neither has the Queen agreed that the award is "well deserved". She has made no such comment and would never make a public announcement about an award to a politician.

  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    It is a great weekend if you hold betting slips on Jeremy Hunt or Sajid Javid as Mrs May’s successor.

    It was of course Boris and Gove who actually originally promised the Brexit bonus for the NHS May has now had to deliver, Hunt would have been unlikely to have got it without the Brexit vote
    What rot this is @HYUFD. The NHS needs more money stand still in the face of an increasingly aging and obese population. The Government was always going to have to do something about it. The extra funding will not come from any mythical Brexit dividend, it will come from higher taxes.

    https://twitter.com/PJTheEconomist/status/1008256589051170818
    More remainers arguing against money for the NHS. Out of touch and backed into a corner. I'm surprised Theresa had the sense to make it happen.
    Who's arguing against it?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,520
    edited June 2018

    HYUFD said:

    It is a great weekend if you hold betting slips on Jeremy Hunt or Sajid Javid as Mrs May’s successor.

    It was of course Boris and Gove who actually originally promised the Brexit bonus for the NHS May has now had to deliver, Hunt would have been unlikely to have got it without the Brexit vote
    What rot this is @HYUFD. The NHS needs more money stand still in the face of an increasingly aging and obese population. The Government was always going to have to do something about it. The extra funding will not come from any mythical Brexit dividend, it will come from higher taxes.

    https://twitter.com/PJTheEconomist/status/1008256589051170818
    But throwing money at the NHS does not automatically improve outcomes for patients.

    I agree the NHS *could* perform better with more funding, but I'm far from sure there will ever be 'enough' funding. And in that case, what is the correct level?
    It's a fair point but the same could be said for many areas of public service (e.g. Defence). My point was that to claim this extra NHS money "would have been unlikely... without the Brexit vote" is disingenuous.

    We should continually seek ways to make the health service more efficient.
    We should also do all we can to reduce demands on it (e.g. 'nudge' taxation to reduce obesity).
    But we should also fund it sufficiently so that patients are not waiting unduly for operations, nor struggling to see a GP etc.
    I think I pretty much agree with that.

    On Friday there was a segment on (?R4?) about how a healthcare worker had looked at the most frequent visitors to A&E and intervened with them, allowing them to phone him up if they needed help. The result was a 90% cut in A&E visits by those people.

    (All from memory). Perhaps there is much that can be done within the existing NHS structure, with a little out-of-the-box thinking and flexibility.

    Edit: https://www.england.nhs.uk/2018/05/paramedics-brainwave-eases-ae-pressures-by-keeping-frequent-callers-away/
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281

    HYUFD said:

    It is a great weekend if you hold betting slips on Jeremy Hunt or Sajid Javid as Mrs May’s successor.

    It was of course Boris and Gove who actually originally promised the Brexit bonus for the NHS May has now had to deliver, Hunt would have been unlikely to have got it without the Brexit vote
    What rot this is @HYUFD. The NHS needs more money stand still in the face of an increasingly aging and obese population. The Government was always going to have to do something about it. The extra funding will not come from any mythical Brexit dividend, it will come from higher taxes.

    https://twitter.com/PJTheEconomist/status/1008256589051170818
    But throwing money at the NHS does not automatically improve outcomes for patients.

    I agree the NHS *could* perform better with more funding, but I'm far from sure there will ever be 'enough' funding. And in that case, what is the correct level?
    It's a fair point but the same could be said for many areas of public service (e.g. Defence). My point was that to claim this extra NHS money "would have been unlikely... without the Brexit vote" is disingenuous.

    We should continually seek ways to make the health service more efficient.
    We should also do all we can to reduce demands on it (e.g. 'nudge' taxation to reduce obesity).
    But we should also fund it sufficiently so that patients are not waiting unduly for operations, nor struggling to see a GP etc.
    I think I pretty much agree with that.

    On Friday there was a segment on (?R4?) about how a healthcare worker had looked at the most frequent visitors to A&E and intervened with them, allowing them to phone him up if they needed help. The result was a 90% cut in A&E visits by those people.

    (All from memory). Perhaps there is much that can be done within the existing NHS structure, with a little out-of-the-box thinking and flexibility.

    Edit: https://www.england.nhs.uk/2018/05/paramedics-brainwave-eases-ae-pressures-by-keeping-frequent-callers-away/
    Sounds like an excellent idea. Recent governments of both persuasions would have been much better encouraging this sort of thinking than wasting time and money on seemingly endless reorganisations, 'internal markets' and the like.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    What. A. Goal. From Coutinho. Arguably best of the WC to date.
  • BromptonautBromptonaut Posts: 1,113

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    It is a great weekend if you hold betting slips on Jeremy Hunt or Sajid Javid as Mrs May’s successor.

    It was of course Boris and Gove who actually originally promised the Brexit bonus for the NHS May has now had to deliver, Hunt would have been unlikely to have got it without the Brexit vote
    What rot this is @HYUFD. The NHS needs more money stand still in the face of an increasingly aging and obese population. The Government was always going to have to do something about it. The extra funding will not come from any mythical Brexit dividend, it will come from higher taxes.

    https://twitter.com/PJTheEconomist/status/1008256589051170818
    More remainers arguing against money for the NHS. Out of touch and backed into a corner. I'm surprised Theresa had the sense to make it happen.
    Who's arguing against it?
    The people who use the phrase “throwing money at” to mean “increase spending on”.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    Some on twitter are comparing the separation of kids/parents currently going on at border in America with divorce:
    https://twitter.com/instapundit/status/1008336784378531841?s=21
    Also some are connecting declining fertility rates with suicide:
    https://twitter.com/jeffgiesea/status/1008345369288282113?s=21
    Wonder what PB thinks....
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772

    Some on twitter are comparing the separation of kids/parents currently going on at border in America with divorce:
    https://twitter.com/instapundit/status/1008336784378531841?s=21
    Also some are connecting declining fertility rates with suicide:
    https://twitter.com/jeffgiesea/status/1008345369288282113?s=21
    Wonder what PB thinks....

    He forgot to mention financial ruin but other than that I agree.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    The really big question is why Mrs May has chosen now to announce this truly startling news on NHS funding, when she could have done so at any time over the past 12 months to relieve the huge pressure she has been under? Three possible answers-
    1. Simply, she has finally become a true Brexiteer and is shouting it from the rooftops.
    2. She is preparing for an early GE and is attempting to outflank Labour on its one huge area of political advantage .... doubtful.
    3. She has finally decided to sock it to those nasty Europeans and is prepared to opt for a "no deal" outcome if necessary, rather than be bullied into submission and the inevitable political political abyss which would follow .... this would be my guess.

    If 3, why has the government dobe exactly nothing to prepare for No Deal Brexit?
  • ralphmalphralphmalph Posts: 2,201

    HYUFD said:

    It is a great weekend if you hold betting slips on Jeremy Hunt or Sajid Javid as Mrs May’s successor.

    It was of course Boris and Gove who actually originally promised the Brexit bonus for the NHS May has now had to deliver, Hunt would have been unlikely to have got it without the Brexit vote
    What rot this is @HYUFD. The NHS needs more money stand still in the face of an increasingly aging and obese population. The Government was always going to have to do something about it. The extra funding will not come from any mythical Brexit dividend, it will come from higher taxes.

    https://twitter.com/PJTheEconomist/status/1008256589051170818
    But throwing money at the NHS does not automatically improve outcomes for patients.

    I agree the NHS *could* perform better with more funding, but I'm far from sure there will ever be 'enough' funding. And in that case, what is the correct level?
    It's a fair point but the same could be said for many areas of public service (e.g. Defence). My point was that to claim this extra NHS money "would have been unlikely... without the Brexit vote" is disingenuous.

    We should continually seek ways to make the health service more efficient.
    We should also do all we can to reduce demands on it (e.g. 'nudge' taxation to reduce obesity).
    But we should also fund it sufficiently so that patients are not waiting unduly for operations, nor struggling to see a GP etc.
    I think I pretty much agree with that.

    On Friday there was a segment on (?R4?) about how a healthcare worker had looked at the most frequent visitors to A&E and intervened with them, allowing them to phone him up if they needed help. The result was a 90% cut in A&E visits by those people.

    (All from memory). Perhaps there is much that can be done within the existing NHS structure, with a little out-of-the-box thinking and flexibility.

    Edit: https://www.england.nhs.uk/2018/05/paramedics-brainwave-eases-ae-pressures-by-keeping-frequent-callers-away/
    My local A&E has a big sign up saying, if you do not have Chest Pains, Breathing problems, severe stomach pains, broken bones, very deep cuts, then you will be turned away.
    They do and they have an out of hours GP practice round the corner.

    They enforce this very strongly. I have been three times in the last 18 months with my father and the place is empty.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    edited June 2018

    Some on twitter are comparing the separation of kids/parents currently going on at border in America with divorce:
    https://twitter.com/instapundit/status/1008336784378531841?s=21
    Also some are connecting declining fertility rates with suicide:
    https://twitter.com/jeffgiesea/status/1008345369288282113?s=21
    Wonder what PB thinks....

    I don't see how the first comparison could reasonably be made even acknowledging that sometimes in bitter divorces in particular children may lose contact with a parent.

    On the second I don't have the data to see if such a connection is valid, but at the risk of angering parents by speaking as a non parent, while kids can be a joy, I don't really see that people have no space for nihilism because they have kids. I know some couples who have chosen not to have kids, and they feel like they are constantly judged for that choice. They are needed for civilization health though and no doubt bring most people a lot of meaning.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143

    Some on twitter are comparing the separation of kids/parents currently going on at border in America with divorce:
    https://twitter.com/instapundit/status/1008336784378531841?s=21
    Also some are connecting declining fertility rates with suicide:
    https://twitter.com/jeffgiesea/status/1008345369288282113?s=21
    Wonder what PB thinks....

    In divorce a child is separated from one parent. This is less than half as bad as what is happening at the border.

    Meaning and purpose is important for life and I know having a child gave me that, but I have a moral issue with creating life for the benefit of the parent. There must be other ways to create a life with meaning and purpose.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    Sainsbury's was empty yesterday and the week before. If this means more than the usual number of childless couples are on holiday before the schools break up, then we might need to be a bit careful interpreting poll shifts.

    Of course, it could just be that all the shoppers headed to Tesco instead, where there is a far greater choice of strawberries on sale.

    Or it was just a coincidence given the times you were in there? Unless you spend all day in the shop to get a general feel (#shelfstacker) ?
    "Beware of extrapolation from small data sets" is what I'd like inscribed on my tomb stone.
  • BromptonautBromptonaut Posts: 1,113

    The really big question is why Mrs May has chosen now to announce this truly startling news on NHS funding, when she could have done so at any time over the past 12 months to relieve the huge pressure she has been under? Three possible answers-
    1. Simply, she has finally become a true Brexiteer and is shouting it from the rooftops.
    2. She is preparing for an early GE and is attempting to outflank Labour on its one huge area of political advantage .... doubtful.
    3. She has finally decided to sock it to those nasty Europeans and is prepared to opt for a "no deal" outcome if necessary, rather than be bullied into submission and the inevitable political political abyss which would follow .... this would be my guess.

    3? How does increasing spending on the NHS “sock it” to the nasty Europeans, as you so quaintly put it?
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    edited June 2018
    DavidL said:

    Some on twitter are comparing the separation of kids/parents currently going on at border in America with divorce:
    https://twitter.com/instapundit/status/1008336784378531841?s=21
    Also some are connecting declining fertility rates with suicide:
    https://twitter.com/jeffgiesea/status/1008345369288282113?s=21
    Wonder what PB thinks....

    He forgot to mention financial ruin but other than that I agree.
    Most of the women among my friendship group don’t want to have kids. Tbh, I think in my family those who have chosen not to have kids seem much less unhappy and stressed than many married, working mums in my family.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    Actually, on kids, the evidence is that having children makes people unhappy. Particularly for mothers who do most of the work. That we still have children at all is remarkable.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,520
    rcs1000 said:

    Sainsbury's was empty yesterday and the week before. If this means more than the usual number of childless couples are on holiday before the schools break up, then we might need to be a bit careful interpreting poll shifts.

    Of course, it could just be that all the shoppers headed to Tesco instead, where there is a far greater choice of strawberries on sale.

    Or it was just a coincidence given the times you were in there? Unless you spend all day in the shop to get a general feel (#shelfstacker) ?
    "Beware of extrapolation from small data sets" is what I'd like inscribed on my tomb stone.
    I'd only believe that if it's on many tombstones ... ;)
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,124
    So a wide range of eminent forecasts say no Brexit bonus. Of course this must be right based on the record since 2016. Yes, for sure.....
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772

    DavidL said:

    Some on twitter are comparing the separation of kids/parents currently going on at border in America with divorce:
    https://twitter.com/instapundit/status/1008336784378531841?s=21
    Also some are connecting declining fertility rates with suicide:
    https://twitter.com/jeffgiesea/status/1008345369288282113?s=21
    Wonder what PB thinks....

    He forgot to mention financial ruin but other than that I agree.
    Most of the women among my friendship group don’t want to have kids. Tbh, I think in my family those who have chosen not to have kids seem much less unhappy and stressed than many married, working mums in my family.
    I find that really surprising. Being a working mum is a hard shift and needs more partner support than is often provided but for me children give a greater purpose to life than anything else. I suspect that those mums would mostly agree if asked.
This discussion has been closed.