Discussion
Breadvan72 said:
The main disaster here is Brexit. Only the most stubborn are failing to see that. I suspect that the penny has dropped for many Leavers, but people are stubborn, hate to admit that they were wrong, and especially hate to admit that they were conned by some of the biggest charlatans in recent political history.
Damn right we were conned. Where exactly is that recession, emergency budget and 500,000 job losses we were promised on a vote to leave?Sorry, couldn't resist.
The main disaster here is a lack of strong government and strong opposition, coupled with career politicians who only care about the next 5 years. While Brexit is not straightforward it should be achievable by even a half-decent government.
KTF said:
PurpleMoonlight said:
She tried that a year ago and failed dismally.
Even if it is supposedly for the NHS, a mandate of increasing taxation is never going to win votes.
You would have to be insane to campaign on a 'vote for me and I will increase tax' ticket. Even if it is supposedly for the NHS, a mandate of increasing taxation is never going to win votes.
p1stonhead said:
Mrr T said:
Breadvan72 said:
The main disaster here is Brexit. Only the most stubborn are failing to see that. I suspect that the penny has dropped for many Leavers, but people are stubborn, hate to admit that they were wrong, and especially hate to admit that they were conned by some of the biggest charlatans in recent political history.
I disagree the disaster of brexit is the government plan, or rather lack of coherent plan. The idea that the UK could move from 40 years of the EU and move outside its institution including the SM and CU, in 2 years (or even 4 years) was crazy. The EFTA/EEA and CU plan called Flexit, was both coherent and achievable. It was rejected because a) it might still involve some (all) FOML and b) it has been grossly misinterpreted by both remain and leave.
It would have moved us outside the CAP and CFP. We would have regained direct access to the international bodies which set standards. We would be subject to only about 30% of EU regulations, most of which come from the international bodies on which we would now be directly represented.
We might even have saved some money.
There are some disadvantages, for example we would no longer be a member of ESEA so like Norway would have to accept full adherence without membership, but that’s likely better than where we are going now.
Mrr T said:
It’s not cherry picking. The EFTA/EEA is an existing organisation so we would just have to re-join EFTA and remain in the EEA. Staying in the CU would be an extra step but we would remain full members so should not be a problem.
There are some disadvantages, for example we would no longer be a member of ESEA so like Norway would have to accept full adherence without membership, but that’s likely better than where we are going now.
How would the UK join the EFTA?There are some disadvantages, for example we would no longer be a member of ESEA so like Norway would have to accept full adherence without membership, but that’s likely better than where we are going now.
PurpleMoonlight said:
crankedup said:
I feel a G.E. coming along this late Autumn. Government has some major reforms on the way involving personal tax and allowances (NHS funding). Additionally if the remain section of Parliament hinder the Government regarding brexit then May could call a GE to settle that one way or other. Either a large majority to push trough brexit or bust. Taxation issues she will seek a mandate, both huge issues of course.
She tried that a year ago and failed dismally.Even if it is supposedly for the NHS, a mandate of increasing taxation is never going to win votes.
Corbyn mania? leaving voters with a stark choice from the two main Parties.
Perhaps an effective sensible election campaign will see better a stronger Government.
TRICKY ONE.
CAPP0 said:
crankedup said:
I feel a G.E. coming along this late Autumn.
Peston raised the spectre of this possibility yesterday.Soubry led the charge on Thursday that she would put ‘country before party’ if it came down to it. If the gov is unable to prevent the passing of the amendment it will be interesting to see what happens next.
Mrr T said:
I disagree the disaster of brexit is the government plan, or rather lack of coherent plan. The idea that the UK could move from 40 years of the EU and move outside its institution including the SM and CU, in 2 years (or even 4 years) was crazy.
The EFTA/EEA and CU plan called Flexit, was both coherent and achievable. It was rejected because a) it might still involve some (all) FOML and b) it has been grossly misinterpreted by both remain and leave.
It would have moved us outside the CAP and CFP. We would have regained direct access to the international bodies which set standards. We would be subject to only about 30% of EU regulations, most of which come from the international bodies on which we would now be directly represented.
We might even have saved some money.
Remaining inside a customs union leaves us unable to make our own trade deals surely? That goes against the basis of leaving, and is particularly toxic because we'd be abdicating a degree of influence whilst still leaving control of the CU in the hands of the EU.The EFTA/EEA and CU plan called Flexit, was both coherent and achievable. It was rejected because a) it might still involve some (all) FOML and b) it has been grossly misinterpreted by both remain and leave.
It would have moved us outside the CAP and CFP. We would have regained direct access to the international bodies which set standards. We would be subject to only about 30% of EU regulations, most of which come from the international bodies on which we would now be directly represented.
We might even have saved some money.
Regardless of how well it has been represented by both sides, if it's unpalatable, it would be impossible to get through - particularly under Grieve's proposed vote.
PurpleMoonlight said:
Mrr T said:
It’s not cherry picking. The EFTA/EEA is an existing organisation so we would just have to re-join EFTA and remain in the EEA. Staying in the CU would be an extra step but we would remain full members so should not be a problem.
There are some disadvantages, for example we would no longer be a member of ESEA so like Norway would have to accept full adherence without membership, but that’s likely better than where we are going now.
How would the UK join the EFTA?There are some disadvantages, for example we would no longer be a member of ESEA so like Norway would have to accept full adherence without membership, but that’s likely better than where we are going now.
Tuna said:
Mrr T said:
I disagree the disaster of brexit is the government plan, or rather lack of coherent plan. The idea that the UK could move from 40 years of the EU and move outside its institution including the SM and CU, in 2 years (or even 4 years) was crazy.
The EFTA/EEA and CU plan called Flexit, was both coherent and achievable. It was rejected because a) it might still involve some (all) FOML and b) it has been grossly misinterpreted by both remain and leave.
It would have moved us outside the CAP and CFP. We would have regained direct access to the international bodies which set standards. We would be subject to only about 30% of EU regulations, most of which come from the international bodies on which we would now be directly represented.
We might even have saved some money.
Remaining inside a customs union leaves us unable to make our own trade deals surely? That goes against the basis of leaving, and is particularly toxic because we'd be abdicating a degree of influence whilst still leaving control of the CU in the hands of the EU.The EFTA/EEA and CU plan called Flexit, was both coherent and achievable. It was rejected because a) it might still involve some (all) FOML and b) it has been grossly misinterpreted by both remain and leave.
It would have moved us outside the CAP and CFP. We would have regained direct access to the international bodies which set standards. We would be subject to only about 30% of EU regulations, most of which come from the international bodies on which we would now be directly represented.
We might even have saved some money.
Regardless of how well it has been represented by both sides, if it's unpalatable, it would be impossible to get through - particularly under Grieve's proposed vote.
What it does is solve the problem of the channel and Irish borders, which would remain as they are.
Flexit was never considered necessarily an end state. If new trade deals matter then when you have a solution for the channel and Irish borders (much easier if you remain part of the SM) then the UK leaves the CU when its ready.
As some will recall, I was a fairly big advocate of the flexcit approach as a risk mitigating mechanism for an orderly withdrawal (fundamentally - overcoming the f
king ridiculous timescales within the Treaty of Lisbon) prior to the ref.
That changed within a week of the result.
For two reasons:
The general lack of trust amongst the populace that the popular vote would be respected - which hasn't exactly been mitigated since.
The intransigence of the EU's approach to negotiations and agreement. Can't help but think if we asked for Flexcit, we'd have been told 'all or nothing'.
This is one of those scenarios where technically it's clearly the correct approach (although many current proponents argued stridently against it pre-Ref) however politically and pragmatically it's almost certainly the wrong thing to do. Far from a structured, long term process of disentanglement that everyone buys into and supports, every election would be a re-run of the Ref. Remain supporters would never come to acceptance, Leave voters would never trust that the end state would ever be achieved, businesses would never have any certainty, etc.
king ridiculous timescales within the Treaty of Lisbon) prior to the ref.That changed within a week of the result.
For two reasons:
The general lack of trust amongst the populace that the popular vote would be respected - which hasn't exactly been mitigated since.
The intransigence of the EU's approach to negotiations and agreement. Can't help but think if we asked for Flexcit, we'd have been told 'all or nothing'.
This is one of those scenarios where technically it's clearly the correct approach (although many current proponents argued stridently against it pre-Ref) however politically and pragmatically it's almost certainly the wrong thing to do. Far from a structured, long term process of disentanglement that everyone buys into and supports, every election would be a re-run of the Ref. Remain supporters would never come to acceptance, Leave voters would never trust that the end state would ever be achieved, businesses would never have any certainty, etc.
Mrr T said:
While it does stop us making our own trade deals. It also means we will continue to benefit from the many EU agreements which cover about 80% of current UK trade.
I don't think you can brush it under the carpet that easily. We'd presumably have to apply EU tariffs as well, and send them on the the union as per the current plan. Whichever way you dice it, that's a few billion a year we're losing out on - a 'hidden cost' to membership on top of membership fees.It's more than a bit disingenuous to present a customs union as some sort of 'free access to trade'. It isn't - we pay for it.
wiggy001 said:
So it's 9am. The 9am patient hasn't turned up, so they call the 9.10 patient in. Except the 9.10 patient isn't there because they still have 10 minutes until their appointment. What then? Call the 9.20 in (little Doris that likes to chat and will be in there for 15 minutes). The 9am patient then turns up a minute late....
You'd have to be pretty hard of thinking to think this would work!
What is wrong with people sticking to their commitments?
And as for saying there is no cost if people don't turn up... Really?!
Yes, really! If it is true there is a financial cost for a missed appointment please explain what that cost is, who levies it and for what purpose and the sources for that. Other than political dogma and blaggardery by a hostile press that is. Or are we now expected to fund wild guesswork without explanation?You'd have to be pretty hard of thinking to think this would work!
What is wrong with people sticking to their commitments?
And as for saying there is no cost if people don't turn up... Really?!
So it’s 9.00am. The surgery is full. Are they all booked for 9.00am? As I said, for 3 years now every time I’ve been in the surgery it has been full or close to. Your experience is very different to mine!
Halb said:
seems the missed appointments rack up to 1 billion
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jan/02/pa...
1 minute into that link and it’s all about hospitals! I thought we were talking about surgeries? And please, what charges are levied and by whom for missed appointments? In hospitals these mysterious charges must by definition be internal, so it’s budget deficit inflation in fairyland. Again, figures and sources please! https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jan/02/pa...
Tuna said:
Wow jj, your desperation to be right is getting you a little confused.
From the report you linked:
Ok. So you finally figured out that you were talking out of your ass about efficiency. As for the rest of it and your 'conclusion'; do you stop for a second, and think to yourself; "Hang on a sec, this is from the world-class think-tank, from researchers who understand health services much better than your random forum warrior. If they have rated NHS best overall, and they did, even with the 10th place in outcomes that must be more to it that my brain is capable of processing'. From the report you linked:
Report said:
In general, the U.K. achieves superior performance compared to other countries in all areas except Health Care Outcomes, where it ranks 10th despite experiencing the fastest reduction in deaths amenable to health care in the past decade.
So we're really efficient and cheap, so long as you don't want to be well at the end of it No? Ok. Outcomes are influenced by things like obesity, teenage pregnancy, basic hygiene, early detection of cancers and so on. Researchers, understanding health systems, much, much better than you, take all those into account when they do weighted scores. Then again, it's not like that a proof was needed that you don't understand pretty much anything that you post about.
Tuna said:
As it is, Eddie and I both have family members in the NHS, both actually live in this country and both appear to be in broad agreement.
rofl @ bold part. Tuna said:
You can disagree if you like, but try to reign in the spittle - you come across as a little aggressive.
Tuna said:
On the other hand there were twice as many cases where posters claimed the other side was 'angry', 'upset' or 'frustrated' - all of them accusations by Remain supporters.
Still funniest and saddest post in the history of PH at the same time. Tuan said:
I've recently had a family member in emergency care for just short of three months. I wouldn't hear a word against the efforts of the carers and clinicians, but no, the overall care was not well organised, and the resulting outcome meant that the service as a whole spent significantly more to achieve a worse result. Speaking with people on the ward, this was seen as the norm. Anecdotal, for sure, but it's a picture that seems to be repeated many times.
Nice of you to defend the NHS though.
You should join forces with swey, he and buddies can save £30-50Bn a year from NHS budget. With your help, I'd be very disappointed if that figure is not double. Either that or yet another nobody who doesn't have a first clue of what he's on about. Nice of you to defend the NHS though.
Thorodin said:
Halb said:
seems the missed appointments rack up to 1 billion
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jan/02/pa...
1 minute into that link and it’s all about hospitals! I thought we were talking about surgeries? And please, what charges are levied and by whom for missed appointments? In hospitals these mysterious charges must by definition be internal, so it’s budget deficit inflation in fairyland. Again, figures and sources please! https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jan/02/pa...
http://www.fyldeandwyreccg.nhs.uk/missed-gp-appoin...
is it so unreasonable to think missed appointments cost a lot of money across the the board?
Was listening to May today about the increase in NHS funding. So, it'll come from taxation. Does anyone, with more than one O level, is buying 'Brexit dividend' bs?
While I do think that increase in taxation is worthwhile if the money is actually going to be spent on the NHS, trying to dress it up as coming from anything other than the tax increase is just pathetic.
While I do think that increase in taxation is worthwhile if the money is actually going to be spent on the NHS, trying to dress it up as coming from anything other than the tax increase is just pathetic.
Halb said:
I noticed it was that when I read it, but thought it was a good indicator of how missed appointments cost money. It took me less than 1 minute to do another search, and Fylde lost 250k on one month.
http://www.fyldeandwyreccg.nhs.uk/missed-gp-appoin...
is it so unreasonable to think missed appointments cost a lot of money across the the board?
Thanks for the link Halb.http://www.fyldeandwyreccg.nhs.uk/missed-gp-appoin...
is it so unreasonable to think missed appointments cost a lot of money across the the board?
First time I've seen any figures in print. Dan Clough (who he?) says it costs £36 on average for a GP appointment. Is that to make it, or to cancel it? I'm really not trying to be pedantic, but what for? Does it mean there is a loss of money, it is an estimate of practice costs in total that are factorised on a per patient percentage or some other notional guesstimate? On its own, not a prince's ransom but over the whole estate -massive. If the subject is to properly be addressed it has have established meaning surely.
crankedup said:
I’m not so sure, the two major issues mentioned, brexit and NHS, both will have a profound effect upon the Nation. Tories were elected on a tax reduction manifesto, they are now about to propose the opposite therefore renaging on thier recent manifesto. Brexit has Parliament split and they require more say in the negotiations. G.E. will either give the Tories the power to bet on with both issues with a proper mandate or bust. Voters appear to have topped out with
Corbyn mania? leaving voters with a stark choice from the two main Parties.
Perhaps an effective sensible election campaign will see better a stronger Government.
TRICKY ONE.
She tried Corbyn lite in the last GE and it didn’t work. She is a one trick pony who just can’t help herself. Slightly heavier Corbyn lite will fail again. Corbyn mania? leaving voters with a stark choice from the two main Parties.
Perhaps an effective sensible election campaign will see better a stronger Government.
TRICKY ONE.
Thorodin said:
wiggy001 said:
So it's 9am. The 9am patient hasn't turned up, so they call the 9.10 patient in. Except the 9.10 patient isn't there because they still have 10 minutes until their appointment. What then? Call the 9.20 in (little Doris that likes to chat and will be in there for 15 minutes). The 9am patient then turns up a minute late....
You'd have to be pretty hard of thinking to think this would work!
What is wrong with people sticking to their commitments?
And as for saying there is no cost if people don't turn up... Really?!
Yes, really! If it is true there is a financial cost for a missed appointment please explain what that cost is, who levies it and for what purpose and the sources for that. Other than political dogma and blaggardery by a hostile press that is. Or are we now expected to fund wild guesswork without explanation?You'd have to be pretty hard of thinking to think this would work!
What is wrong with people sticking to their commitments?
And as for saying there is no cost if people don't turn up... Really?!
So it’s 9.00am. The surgery is full. Are they all booked for 9.00am? As I said, for 3 years now every time I’ve been in the surgery it has been full or close to. Your experience is very different to mine!
We pay for a system with a capacity of, say, 100,000 appointments a day. Selfish people waste 20,000 appointments.
So we only only needed to pay for a system that handles 80,000 appointments a day.
20,000 were paid for out of the public purse for no good reason.
Or viewed the other way: we paid for 20,000 useful appointments for people who needed them, but some selfish fellow citizens threw them in the bin.
Either way it’s a big waste of time and money, for no good reason.
Do you book time with doctors each week, just in case you might need it? Why not? There’s no cost to the system, apparently?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff