Balanced Question Time panel tonight - of course not! VOL 2

[williamp]

768 said:

///ajd said:

Did he say in Wakefield? Well it is reasonable to assume he is from the area and 95% are the local stats. So assuming in his area the immigrant levels are 5%, is this likely to be the cause of him not being able to get a doctors appointment?

I haven't seen this yet, but from a straightforward perspective (putting aside budgets, local availability of doctors, etc) that if you had a 5% smaller population he probably would be able to get an appointment, yes I suspect it is likely.

5% more of anything could be very noicable: road at 97% capacity, road flows well. Busy but well. An additioal 5% would mean gridlock.
97% capacity in local hospital: busy but everyone can be seen. An additional 5% and it couldnt cope.
School at 97% capacit,y again busy but fine. The aditional 5% means understaffed, classroom sizes too big etc etc
5% additional in pay packet is more then inflation so you've got a payrise.

So yes, 5% **CAN** make all the difference.

[chrispmartha]

768 said:

///ajd said:

Did he say in Wakefield? Well it is reasonable to assume he is from the area and 95% are the local stats. So assuming in his area the immigrant levels are 5%, is this likely to be the cause of him not being able to get a doctors appointment?

I haven't seen this yet, but from a straightforward perspective (putting aside budgets, local availability of doctors, etc) that if you had a 5% smaller population he probably would be able to get an appointment, yes I suspect it is likely.

Well, possibly, which 5% of wakefield population do you suggest we get rid of?

[Smiler.]

chrispmartha said:

768 said:

///ajd said:

Did he say in Wakefield? Well it is reasonable to assume he is from the area and 95% are the local stats. So assuming in his area the immigrant levels are 5%, is this likely to be the cause of him not being able to get a doctors appointment?

I haven't seen this yet, but from a straightforward perspective (putting aside budgets, local availability of doctors, etc) that if you had a 5% smaller population he probably would be able to get an appointment, yes I suspect it is likely.

Well, possibly, which 5% of wakefield population do you suggest we get rid of?

Typically true to form there.

Not sure where 768 mentioned "getting rid" of anyone.

[chrispmartha]

Smiler. said:

chrispmartha said:

768 said:

///ajd said:

Did he say in Wakefield? Well it is reasonable to assume he is from the area and 95% are the local stats. So assuming in his area the immigrant levels are 5%, is this likely to be the cause of him not being able to get a doctors appointment?

I haven't seen this yet, but from a straightforward perspective (putting aside budgets, local availability of doctors, etc) that if you had a 5% smaller population he probably would be able to get an appointment, yes I suspect it is likely.

Well, possibly, which 5% of wakefield population do you suggest we get rid of?

Typically true to form there.

Not sure where 768 mentioned "getting rid" of anyone.

So what's the point in putting forward the argument that a 5% in population may help if the solution isn't reducing the population by 5%?

why 5%? a 50% reduction in population would mean the roads would be quieter and it would be dead easy to get a doctors appointment.

[MTech535]

chrispmartha said:

So what's the point in putting forward the argument that a 5% in population may help if the solution isn't reducing the population by 5%?

why 5%? a 50% reduction in population would mean the roads would be quieter and it would be dead easy to get a doctors appointment.

Surely it is a good idea to take steps to avoid making the current situation worse.

[s2art]

williamp said:

5% more of anything could be very noicable: road at 97% capacity, road flows well. Busy but well. An additioal 5% would mean gridlock.
97% capacity in local hospital: busy but everyone can be seen. An additional 5% and it couldnt cope.
School at 97% capacit,y again busy but fine. The aditional 5% means understaffed, classroom sizes too big etc etc
5% additional in pay packet is more then inflation so you've got a payrise.

So yes, 5% **CAN** make all the difference.

Never mind 95%. In any system once utilisation rises above approx 70%, queueing goes non-linear. (assuming random/quasi random arrivals). Something might be just coping at 80%, add an additional 5% and the queue will skyrocket. (all this is standard queuing theory)

[The Don of Croy]

I watched the first two questions and though the audience were very good - prepared to put a point across and refreshingly backed by other members too.

I clocked off when LP just got going with her "...because racism..." in her opening remarks.

She needs to read the piece in yesterdays Grauniad by Simon Jenkins - why identity politics has hacked off too many people by backing the wrong horse;

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec...

[Pieman68]

Have to admit that I was pleasantly surprised by the people of Wakefield last night - one of the most reasonable debates that I have seen for a while.

In the main the panel were also respectful of each other and allowed a conversation - the exception being Penny with her "Let me finish, let me finish" attempts to close down debate. The lady who spoke of being sick of being called thick and ignorant, the response being that she was lied to (and the insinuation being that she was thick and ignorant )

I was impressed with the other columnist. Loved his line to Johnson where he said "You know what to do, get rid of Corbyn!" - I think the audience reaction to that line in such a Labour heartland spoke volumes.

Every time I see Ruth Davison, I wish that she could relocate down to England and take a senior role on, as I find her one of the better politicians.

I will admit that I voted remain - however in very much the same vain as the older lady who said that it was not black and white, and that she balanced the two and came up with around 60% remain/40% leave. On balance I voted to remain but that doesn't mean that I have no concerns around uncontrolled immigration etc. - just how do we expect an over-extended NHS/Education sector to deal with an additional 330K people per year?

There are probably some who saw it as a black and white discussion, but many more who saw it in shades of grey and balanced their decision upon what they could glean from the fog of bks spun by both sides - and by screaming "racist" at reasonable people who have concerns, we simply risk widening the divide that currently exists

[superlightr]

B'stard Child said:

I've been close to mental breakdown - I've been on the 27th floor and looked over the edge and it was a very tempting solution to what I couldn't solve - it's a seriously dark place and I don't recommend it

pleased you didn't leave the 27th floor the fast way - enjoy your writing style and comments !

[Welshbeef]

Ruth D is good has credability and very thick skin.


Agreed with above please come down to my constituancy become my MP and then elevate to the Cabinate. However I think she is so proud and principled she is there in Scotland for Scotland and I admire her even more for that.

[chrispmartha]

MTech535 said:

chrispmartha said:

So what's the point in putting forward the argument that a 5% in population may help if the solution isn't reducing the population by 5%?

why 5%? a 50% reduction in population would mean the roads would be quieter and it would be dead easy to get a doctors appointment.

Surely it is a good idea to take steps to avoid making the current situation worse.

Well quite but just sayingits because of immigrants is a far too simplistic answer

[chrispmartha]

What was interesting about last nights show was that the leave people on it all seemed to think immigration was the main reason people voted to leave, i thought the consensus on here that it wasn't?

[Deptford Draylons]

chrispmartha said:

What was interesting about last nights show was that the leave people on it all seemed to think immigration was the main reason people voted to leave, i thought the consensus on here that it wasn't?

We already know it was sovereignty. I'd also suggest it was already long decided for a great many on this issue alone, long before the referendum was even given.

[B'stard Child]

superlightr said:

B'stard Child said:

I've been close to mental breakdown - I've been on the 27th floor and looked over the edge and it was a very tempting solution to what I couldn't solve - it's a seriously dark place and I don't recommend it

pleased you didn't leave the 27th floor the fast way - enjoy your writing style and comments !

Thank you - Funny really looking back it was a combination of a "motoring forum" support, close friends, self recognition that you must change the things that you can change (if they aren't working for you) and accept the all the things you can't. All those elements got me through it without talking about it publicly.

[Camoradi]

chrispmartha said:

Well quite but just saying its because of immigrants is a far too simplistic answer

Of course you are right, it's not simple, but give this some thought.

In the current situation, if a family decide today to travel from another EU country and start a new life in the UK, we get no notice of that and cannot plan for it. Tomorrow they will be here, needing somewhere to live, a doctor to look after their healthcare, school places for the children.

Compare with a child born in the UK today. The NHS will have between 6 and 9 months notice of their birth, 5 years to find them a school place, 16-20 years before they will need a home of their own. Time to plan.

The worst aspect of the current situation in the inability to plan because we have no real knowledge of the numbers, and cannot do anything about them if they are above our expectations. This creates a bad situation for newly arrived immigrants and existing UK residents alike.

[wc98]

chrispmartha said:

So what's the point in putting forward the argument that a 5% in population may help if the solution isn't reducing the population by 5%?

why 5%? a 50% reduction in population would mean the roads would be quieter and it would be dead easy to get a doctors appointment.

i was thinking a 48% reduction . handy number as they self selected at the referendum

[chrispmartha]

Deptford Draylons said:

chrispmartha said:

What was interesting about last nights show was that the leave people on it all seemed to think immigration was the main reason people voted to leave, i thought the consensus on here that it wasn't?

We already know it was sovereignty. I'd also suggest it was already long decided for a great many on this issue alone, long before the referendum was even given.

Do 'we'? That's not what the people on QT thought

[chrispmartha]

wc98 said:

chrispmartha said:

So what's the point in putting forward the argument that a 5% in population may help if the solution isn't reducing the population by 5%?

why 5%? a 50% reduction in population would mean the roads would be quieter and it would be dead easy to get a doctors appointment.

i was thinking a 48% reduction . handy number as they self selected at the referendum

Some on here would have posted that without the wink ;-)

[Pieman68]

wc98 said:

i was thinking a 48% reduction . handy number as they self selected at the referendum

Although the smiley suggests that this is a tongue in cheek comment, this is part of the issue surely. As I said above I voted remain on balance but it was something that I thought long and hard about. I can recognise the arguments on both sides and accept the result of the referendum, whether I agree with them or not.

Those at the extremes need to recognise that we are all in this together and that it wasn't always a case of a yes/no vote. I am sure that there were many more than me that were undecided up to a point. The general public need to put aside the animosity and our elected representatives need to put aside their differences and work in the best interests of the country to bring about the best result possible for the future

[Deptford Draylons]

chrispmartha said:

Deptford Draylons said:

chrispmartha said:

What was interesting about last nights show was that the leave people on it all seemed to think immigration was the main reason people voted to leave, i thought the consensus on here that it wasn't?

We already know it was sovereignty. I'd also suggest it was already long decided for a great many on this issue alone, long before the referendum was even given.

Do 'we'? That's not what the people on QT thought

We do from polling that said this, yes. Its ability to make you change your mind from what you perceived it all to be about though maybe limited.