• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by ckn

  1. NY Times article on it. “It’s a shorter trip than to California, right?” Yankees Manager Aaron Boone, who has never been to London, said on Monday. “Let’s get the royal family out there. Maybe the queen can make an appearance.” If it's at Stratford though I may make an effort and go along!
  2. The subtitle could do with some work...
  3. On your second quote, didn't see it as I have that nice young chap on "ignore" following your recommendation months ago. On the first two paragraphs though, all I need to do is look at the DUP and their bitter hostility to have a reasonable belief that the "troubles" are only one big excuse away from starting again. The DUP are doing their absolute damnedest to ingrain "them" and "us" into everything.
  4. May I refer you to MANY posts over the last few years where we covered exactly your subject. In summary though: Point 1: Yes, Labour pledged LESS money than the Tories for the NHS in the 2017 election manifestos. Point 2: The Tories intended to continue with the £24bn of cuts from 2017/18 to 2020/21 meaning an effective cut of £16bn before inflationary effects. The net figure works out around £20bn of cuts with inflation. This is cuts to the annual NHS bill, not a one-off £24bn of cuts, it's £24bn of cuts per year. Effectively, this meant there was a net difference of NHS funding between the Tories and Labour of £24bn per year (Tories: net loss of £20bn, Labour: net increase of £4bn, net difference £24bn) Point 3: It emerged that the £8bn promised was the £8bn Cameron/Hunt pledged in 2015 when the £24bn of cuts were first planned. "If you save £24bn then we'll put £8bn of new money in". So, 2017, the Tories promised effectively nothing new meaning that Labour pledged more while also not continuing with the cuts. That then takes the annual real difference to £32bn/year between Labour and the Tories. Point 4: The Tories have decided that their 2017 manifesto wasn't worth the paper it was written on meaning they've backed out of their pledge to give the £8bn of new money. The money that Cameron/Hunt promised in return for the cuts. Point 5: The £24bn of cuts are still going ahead but without the £8bn of "sweeteners". That £8bn/year was written into NHS five year plans and is a core part of funding the changes required to make the £24bn/year of cuts. So, effectively the NHS now has to suck up 50% more cuts of £32bn while funding the infrastructure changes required by the cuts themselves. That then takes the annual difference between what Labour proposed in 2017 and what the Tories are doing now to £36bn/year (£32bn of Tory cuts to the NHS compared to £4bn of new funding from Labour) Point 6: Because of this, a significant number of Trusts are in debt because they've had their money cut while also still getting MORE patients. Don't forget bedblocking to an extent they can't make money because they need beds to do the payment-by-results money generating activities. The cancellation of all elective operations in January effectively meant most acute hospital Trusts have lost 1/12th of their elective income. This means more Trusts are in deficit and need a bail-out to continue operating. Point 7: The government changed the rules last year to "loan" the money to the Trusts to pay their deficit, Trusts are expected to repay from future years' income. THIS year, the government decided to change it again so that the loans are repayable at commercial rates of interest. Point 8: The government's Budget last year confirmed that the 2018/19 NHS budget will go down in real terms as planned. Labour would have had to do one hell of a lot of sabotage to come even slightly close to what the Tories have done to the NHS and plan to do over the next few years. So, can I respectfully suggest that you'd be better doing handstands because it's easier to talk out your bottom that way. Happy to help
  5. I've closed the strike thread as it's now a bit redundant given talks have started again. Hopefully we can start a nice new NHS thread to discuss all the upcoming changes. If the strike stuff starts up again then I may start a new thread. Jeremy Hunt and SImon Stevens (head of NHS England) today defined to the Commons Health Committee what it means by 7 day NHS. It doesn't mean a 7 day NHS, it means a 7 day acute hospital service with these definitions: 1: All emergency admissions must be seen and have a thorough clinical assessment by a suitable consultant as soon as possible but at the latest within 14 hours from the time of arrival at hospital 2: Hospital inpatients must have scheduled seven-day access to diagnostic services such as x-ray, ultrasound, computerised tomography (CT),magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), echocardiography, endoscopy, bronchoscopy and pathology. 3: Hospital inpatients must have timely 24 hour access, seven days a week,to consultant-directed interventions that meet the relevant special. 4: All patients on the Acute Medical Unit, Acute Surgical Assessment Unit, and Intensive Therapy Unit and otherhighdependency areas are seen and reviewed by a consultant twice daily; Once transferred from the acute area of the hospital to a general ward patients should be reviewed during a consultant-delivered ward round at least once every 24 hours, seven days a week. I'm not sure too many people could disagree with that, even in the hardest lines of the militant wing of health unions. The biggest impact will be on consultants rather than junior doctors, junior doctors do all of that anyway and are usually well covered in rotas. What that does mean though is that the junior doctors contract really was all about cutting costs rather than improving the NHS, well, who would ever have guessed that one. Not sure where they're going to get the money to pay for point 2 as the expensive bits of that is outsourced to the private sector in the majority of England. Also, not sure where they're going to get the money to pay all those extra consultant hours. If they think junior doctors are an irritable lot the wait until the harrumphing that'll come from touching consultant contracts! Also, many of the points are for Emergency Medicine Consultants which is one of the hardest roles to fill in medicine already, never mind when it changes to fully 7 day working.
  6. For those having a bit of remembrance over the Warrington bomb 25 years ago, remind yourselves that the Good Friday Agreement essentially stopped this madness. Is your blue passport and "freedom" to do a lot less than we do now really worth the risk of this returning? If there were no other negative issue over Brexit then this would be enough for me to say "no thanks" to Brexit.
  7. If those religious folk are right and what you suffer in this life is a test then $deity will be getting a right earful from me for how much he/she/it has tested my wife over the last seven years. I'll spend eternity punting $deity in the private parts to see if he/she/it likes being "tested".
  8. This will come as a bit of a shocker but UKIP MEPs have voted in the EU Parliament. The vote was on the relatively uncontroversial subject of combating serious wildlife crime such as banning ivory trading, the sort of thing that most people probably thought was won in the 80s in the EU and just a distasteful historical thing. 647 in favour, 14 against. Of the 14 people voting against were 6 UKIP MEPs. The strangest thing is that they were voting against their normal political alliances in the EU Parliament on this subject. Nice of them to turn up to vote though.
  9. It's a very touchy point for the Tories in Scotland as they campaigned mainly on a very hardline view of protectionism and any deal that reminds voters of that at the next elections will see some lose their seats. Even Davidson's view is almost 1970s Labour protectionist compared to the Westminster Tory government's view. That said, I really can't see what we'd do with 100% control of our fishing "borders" as it really isn't as simple as "taking back control". There really isn't an easy win for the fisherfolk of the UK with this.
  10. Like how much of our jam we can sell the EU in return for their stuff? The transition deal was always going to be the easiest bit as it's actually far easier to complete the current EU budget cycle ending when this transition does than to break it all up because the UK leaves part-way through.
  11. Nice to see they continue with Farage's racist poster then that really has nowt to do with the EU at all given the folk walking are non-EU nationals.
  12. To be fair, the new transition agreement does let us do trade negotiations, just not implement them.
  13. The transition agreement is largely done now bar some issues, including major ones such as the Irish border, but it'll do nothing but cause the Moggites' blood pressure to rise. If you read through it, we've just green-lighted the EU proposals on most things. For all the bluff and bluster about this from those within and without the government in the Tory party, we've just taken the EU text and accepted it.
  14. And people laughed at Michael Foot...
  15. Ahhh, the truth is out: Brexit means Brexit according to Rees-Mogg. I'm glad that definition has been fixed then at long last. The guy is a stone-cold moron with far lower intelligence than he thinks he has, unfortunately he pairs that with a sense of entitlement so wide that he could be a member of the Royal family and an arrogance so large that he makes Jeremy Clarkson seem like a trappist monk. If Rees-Mogg spoke with a rough Cockney accent, or a Scouse one, or any other accent rather than posh English, then he'd have been laughed back to the dole queue well before now.
  16. I debated whether to stick this on this thread or the Tories thread but this one gets it: 12.4% increase in mortality in 2018, 10,000-ish extra deaths. I linked The Times' coverage of this because it's both a source respected by the right-wing folk and is the fairest coverage I've read: It's simple with an NHS hat on. Elderly folk have nowhere to go. It averages that one care home closes due to bankruptcy each week and others are struggling so badly that care quality has dropped. Many care homes who had staff nurses have let them go as "too expensive" and now completely dump their care onto hospitals and GP practices who are already overwhelmed. People can't get GP appointments to deal with "what's this thing?" or "I'm worried" type queries that often stop illnesses while they're still stoppable. The year-plus waits for routine surgeries that were eliminated by 2010 are now back in force and the 18 week target is demolished in most areas. Even then, many areas have implemented "referral centres" where non-clinicians review every referral to see if there's a reason to reject it. Some of the most ill people in society are denied routine healthcare because non-clinicians have decided that smoking or obesity is a bar to ANY treatment. Then you get the government point-blank refusing to deal with the NHS hospitals operating about 20% under minimum safe staffing across England. The government did the hard work of working out what "minimum safe staffing" means then now refuse to do it because it would bankrupt the NHS. There's around 40,000 nurses short of this level and would cost £2bn a year more to fund. Then you look at the massive cuts that are coming by 2020/21 in the NHS and despair a bit more as there can be no good coming from it. One area I've helped recently has a firm target of cutting hospital referrals by 8% in the next year with those patients at the low end of the bell-curve being just set adrift and told "sorry, we can't help you" regardless of suffering or need. This mortality figure will just get worse. The poorer areas are already seeing life-expectancy reduce. Anyone willing to defend the government on this?
  17. The guy three doors down to us has his house on the market, its price is just under twice the price we paid for ours in 2004. It's an identical house to ours but without the benefits we have of two sides onto protected countryside. When we moved in, we chose this place because it fit within 3x my salary at the time, it was a deliberate choice to make it affordable. Now, I'd need to have nearly a £100k salary to get a mortgage on today's value. No government can fix this because if they trash house prices then they instantly run the risk of bankrupting a very large pile of the country. Even if they somehow tied house price rises to inflation, it's too late for the vast majority of the UK where houses are beyond any but the largest of salaries and WAY beyond the UK's average salary of just under £27,000. This is where the right-to-buy stuff is just giving its peak dividend impact on the UK. The formerly large base of social housing owned by councils is all bar gone in many areas. Any new housing built comes at modern costs rather than having the base of owned houses before. Can it be fixed? Yes, but it'd require compulsory purchase of land by councils and state-owned construction companies who build defined houses at cost rather than for profit. It'd also require a level of investment not seen since the 1950s. Is it worth it? Definitely. Will it happen? No.
  18. I thought I'd share the pain on this one. My inner jukebox is stuck on this song and it just WILL NOT go away, thanks to the wife being annoying and playing it earlier: At least it wasn't as bad as Thursday's courtesy of hearing it on Radio 2:
  19. Russia

    He is a Privy Councillor, he is officially cleared to read ANY security information. Officially therefore, your first paragraph is nothing but anti-Corbyn propaganda given that he was recommended to the Privy Council by David Cameron and personally accredited by the Queen. It is only a courtesy that the Opposition Leader gets invited and if he were a genuine security threat then he wouldn't have had it. If he didn't get the full briefing then he's entitled to believe that the government have not done what he asked. The ONLY reason that May wouldn't give Corbyn everything on this is for party political reasons. I very strongly criticised Corbyn for his stance in Parliament, thinking that he had full access as is normal in things of this severity, i.e. an act of a severity on the UK capable of being a legitimate cause of war, and that he had chosen to pick at things best left unpicked. Now his questions make sense. His support of Russia and willingness to believe them over our security services is still pathetic but his other questions are more than fair game and he should have had the answers before he even stood up to give his reply.
  20. Quite a lot depends on your car but there are generic tips that work most of the time. If you feel the car skid, take your feet off the pedals immediately. Then think what way the car is sliding: is the back of the car sliding in one direction? If so, steer GENTLY into the same direction, i.e. back of car is going right, steer right. Keep your eyes on the road ahead so you can keep good context on your skid. It's a very rare bit of ice that's more than 5-10 metres across in the UK so keep feeling for when the tyres start gripping again and then GENTLY add a bit of power and recover your steering slowly to normal. If you're feeling confident then get yourself down to the lowest gear you can so that you don't run a stall risk. Once through the skid, get to a safe parking spot and let the adrenaline out! Generally though, if the roads are icy then don't drive. Even if you're the best snow and ice driver in the world, you have to cope with those others who think it's midsummer's day and that they're immortal. If you must drive, treble the distance you'd normally have with cars ahead and watch them for any skids or problems, they'll get it before you and you should be able to use that to adjust. If you're coming up to a corner, brake before the corner so that when you start to turn the wheel that you're already at the speed you think is safe to go around it, no braking on corners as that's the main cause of a skid. Who cares if you annoy someone else behind you if you really go down to a crawl on a corner you're not sure about. Don't sweat it too much though, think of how many years you've been driving and how many times you've skidded. As long as you know the basics then you'll most likely be fine. On that braking into corners thing, get into the habit of doing it ALL the time, even in perfect conditions, brake to the corner on the straight bits and when you start to turn the wheel then accelerate gently through it. If you ever go into a skid then you're doing most of the stuff by muscle memory anyway, plus you'll find yourself actually driving far more efficiently once you get the hang of it. Also, if you ever decide to do track racing then the only difference is harder braking (on/off) and hard acceleration in corners!
  21. Advert on LBC just now on Sky's Formula One coverage. £19 a month just for that if you don't want to subscribe to anything else on Sky Sports. Why can't they do that for rugby? The only thing Sky Sports show that I'd watch regularly is Super League, and maybe the England cricket games if they're on when I'm working from home. They'd get money from me regularly if they gave me a specific subscription to just watch the rugby league games or cricket. I'd be happy to pay up to £10 a month for that. I REALLY grudge the thought of subsidising football. Anyone had any success in getting Sky to understand that point?
  22. Russia

    It does explain some of Corbyn’s questions in Parliament. He was asking things that he should have been told in advance. Now we know why.
  23. Spend a penny

    The Daily Mail seem to be very confused over this. They don’t like change you see so don’t know which side to support...