May a wimp of a leader

Guich · Post by **Guich** » Thu Apr 20, 2017 9:49 am

nil_desperandum wrote:Fair enough, but the economics of it dictate that most things are funded to the minimum level, and so there will never be a surplus, and additionally savings are constantly being sought and in many cases demanded / enforced.
How can a library ever be profitable? But how can it's value be measured?
What price a good education for our children?
You really can't compare something like a library to a business.

You're right the two sectors can't really be compared (but I will), and most in the private sector are more than happy to fund the great work done in the public sector. But it's wastefulness that is hard to stomach.

Through my work I have seen eye-watering and sometimes blatant wastefulness in the NHS, Education and particularly the Councils. In the private sector such wastefulness would result in liquidation and multiple job losses.

Before anyone jumps down my throat - I see far fewer examples now and, in my opinion, government policy has pushed things to far the other way in some, but not all, areas. The NHS needs a dramatic overhaul.

In business we always say you should manage your finances exactly the same in the good times as the bad. Only the best do that, as the temptation to take hard earned dividends in the good times is often too high.

LoveCurryPies · Post by **LoveCurryPies** » Thu Apr 20, 2017 9:49 am

wickdkewlclaret wrote:

I'll be voting for this guy.

HOW WILL HE DELIVER?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Apr 20, 2017 9:55 am

Anyone can say what JC says, but the question that people like me ask are always the same

"How will we pay for it, as that is going to cost an absolute fortune"

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Thu Apr 20, 2017 10:16 am

It's funny how most of the people who complain about the state of the NHS under a Tory government, are the same people who voted in favour of uncontrolled, mass immigration in the EU Referendum. That would of seen the NHS absolutely ruined

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Thu Apr 20, 2017 10:19 am

Damo wrote:It's funny how most of the people who complain about the state of the NHS under a Tory government, are the same people who voted in favour of uncontrolled, mass immigration in the EU Referendum. That would of seen the NHS absolutely ruined

I've been in hospitals quite a lot over the years and the only immigrants I've ever seen are those treating me.

Guich · Post by **Guich** » Thu Apr 20, 2017 10:22 am

Here's something to make you shudder chaps.

According to the bookies Jeremy Corbyn is 500 times more likely to be PM than Leicester were to win the 2016 Premier League.

To be fair Leicester were crap though

ClaretinMyBlood · Post by **ClaretinMyBlood** » Thu Apr 20, 2017 10:29 am

Some people seem to think and be implying that the NHS service was doing great under the last labour government. That same labour government closed our A&E in Burnley? Placing unnecessary stress on the Blackburn A&E.
Would a small charge system on hospital and doctors visits (similar level to a prescription charge) limit the amount of wasters that use valuable NHS time and resources? I would be in favour if so, there is however the question whether these wasters would fit into the bracket that already receive 'free' prescriptions and such like & would continue to drain our health services.

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Thu Apr 20, 2017 10:32 am

If you hadn't been told that the A&E in Burnley had been closed, you wouldn't know. The urgent care centre is more than fit for purpose.

Charging for the NHS completely goes against the point of the NHS.

ClaretinMyBlood · Post by **ClaretinMyBlood** » Thu Apr 20, 2017 10:39 am

UpTheBeehole wrote:If you hadn't been told that the A&E in Burnley had been closed, you wouldn't know. The urgent care centre is more than fit for purpose.

Charging for the NHS completely goes against the point of the NHS.

Really?
Guessing you've never needed to be blue lighted? (That extra 10/15 minute journey could be the difference between life and death for some)
Guessing you've never been to the urgent care unit with something urgent? Waited 6 hours to see the one doctor that was on shift, only to find his shift had finished and there wasn't another doctor due in for another 3 hours. To then be wrongly diagnosed due to the high workload of an inadequate service?

There's also a lot of things against the point of the NHS, the 'N' stands for national for starters.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Thu Apr 20, 2017 10:40 am

ablueclaret wrote:Just look at the health Service rationally Sidney, ageing population, growing population, more available treatments, it's obvious costs are going to increase at times exponentially, and yet it is considered by many experts the most efficient health service in the world.

Show me a private company that isn't inefficient, most of us experience them day in day out, I waited all day for a delivery yesterday but didn't receive it, just typical of the service the private sector provide, and with no comeback.

Plenty of private companies make a loss.

As for the NHS, plenty of us are aware of the aging population, but when it was originally set up life expectancy was a lot less.

It isn't the most efficient in the world if it's farming out work to private hospitals.
All it's doing is masking the problems.

They also fudge the waiting lists, making people attend something else first within the allotted time so the lists are seen to be decreasing so to speak.

I have a rotated pelvis resulting in a curvature of the spine, but to see a specialist I've first got to attend physio courses over 6-8 weeks before I get to see the skeletal specialist...
Physio won't fix my problem, but they dumped me in there to reduce the waiting lists.

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Thu Apr 20, 2017 10:46 am

ClaretinMyBlood wrote: Waited 6 hours to see the one doctor that was on shift, only to find his shift had finished and there wasn't another doctor due in for another 3 hours. To then be wrongly diagnosed due to the high workload of an inadequate service?

Give the NHS more funds then,and recruit more doctors (from overseas).

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Apr 20, 2017 10:47 am

It's funny how most of the people who complain about the state of the NHS under a Tory government, are the same people who voted in favour of uncontrolled, mass immigration in the EU Referendum. That would of seen the NHS absolutely ruined

Its funny how that seems to have grabbed the imagination of the public, when all the evidence points to cuts being the reason its struggling.

But hey, if you are going to blame immigration for everything, tell old people who will vote that the health service is struggling, and its because of those nasty, hard working people from other countries.

And thats before I go into the % of said immigrants that work in the NHS.

Quick edit - the NHS needs reform no doubt and a vision for the world we now live in. That doesn't change the fact that cuts are causing possibly irreparable damage to it.

ClaretinMyBlood · Post by **ClaretinMyBlood** » Thu Apr 20, 2017 10:47 am

UpTheBeehole wrote:Give the NHS more funds then,and recruit more doctors (from overseas).

Back to the money tree we go rather than trying to deal with the issue?

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Thu Apr 20, 2017 10:55 am

You keep calling it a money tree, but what do you think taxes are for? They're for government spending.

You appear to use the NHS quite often, and you evidently think it should be better.

Are you really happy that of your tax, billion upon billions goes to a nuclear deterrent that will never, ever get used?

Use that money to fund the NHS instead.

Stop fighting pointless wars in the middle east against an exaggerated enemy. Use that money to fund the NHS instead.

And as per on of Corbyn's ideas, create funds by issuing bonds etc. His was for a 'bank of the north'. It's just a title, an idea. it's just the same way that governments for centuries have raised capital, by issuing bonds.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Apr 20, 2017 10:57 am

Thing is UptheBeehole, I'm looking at his policies.

He's got seven weeks to convince me (and everybody) how the country can afford it. And he needs to be detailed.

As we can't, and he won't, and we've been here before, then he's got very little chance.

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Thu Apr 20, 2017 11:00 am

Half the country just voted to leave the EU knowing literally zero details of how it would happen.

Tall Paul · Post by **Tall Paul** » Thu Apr 20, 2017 11:00 am

ablueclaret wrote:Show me a private company that isn't inefficient, most of us experience them day in day out, I waited all day for a delivery yesterday but didn't receive it, just typical of the service the private sector provide, and with no comeback.

The comeback is you order from someone else next time.

ClaretinMyBlood · Post by **ClaretinMyBlood** » Thu Apr 20, 2017 11:02 am

I have made use of the NHS, a service which my taxes pay for, A total of twice in the past 5 years. I do believe my taxes more than adequately cover good service for the treatment I required.

I agree with the wars in the Middle East, but I think there is still the guilt held that we started that abyss (under a labour government)

Our nuclear defences for me a 100% justified, we shouldn't have to compromise our national security.

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Thu Apr 20, 2017 11:02 am

Tall Paul wrote:The comeback is you order from someone else next time.

That doesn't change anything if the store you order from then contract the same chancers to deliver the goods.

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Thu Apr 20, 2017 11:04 am

ClaretinMyBlood wrote:Our nuclear defences for me a 100% justified, we shouldn't have to compromise our national security.

What's the difference between having a nuclear deterrent and just telling people we've got a nuclear deterrent? It would never get tested.

Use the funds for something else. Make lives better.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Thu Apr 20, 2017 11:05 am

We could probably reduce our nuclear weapons and still be fine.

There's only so many times you can destroy the world via a nuclear war.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Apr 20, 2017 11:06 am

Half the country just voted to leave the EU knowing literally zero details of how it would happen.

But you assume that they has reasons for wanting to leave.

I know that JC policies will cost more than we have got. And that he doesn't care how much it costs, because thats what he's wanted to do all his life.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Thu Apr 20, 2017 11:06 am

UpTheBeehole wrote:What's the difference between having a nuclear deterrent and just telling people we've got a nuclear deterrent?

The government can't keep secrets, everyone would find out soon enough.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Apr 20, 2017 11:07 am

What's the difference between having a nuclear deterrent and just telling people we've got a nuclear deterrent? It would never get tested.

Anyone got any idea at all why the USA hasn't levelled North Korea yet?

Oh, yeah, thats it, they have nuclear weapons.

quoonbeatz · Post by **quoonbeatz** » Thu Apr 20, 2017 11:07 am

policies are likely to get ignored anyway as this election is pretty much a one issue election; its a brexit election. it was called on the basis of that one issue and we've already seen that people are intending to vote purely on brexit.

makes you wonder why, if they just wanted to confirm the backing for brexit, they didn't just call another referendum? brexit is apparently backed more in the polls than it was previously so what are they scared of? it goes back to her being a weak leader.

ClaretinMyBlood · Post by **ClaretinMyBlood** » Thu Apr 20, 2017 11:08 am

I'm not sure the costings are related to the stockpile.
More the up keep in the technology & an antiquated outdated defence would be equal to no defence.
With how the world is shaping up at the minute if we didn't have our own defence system we could end up sucking the c*ck of a nation to protect us.

Firthy · Post by **Firthy** » Thu Apr 20, 2017 11:10 am

Labour are full of good ideas, they just forget to mention where the money will come from.

hampsteadclaret · Post by **hampsteadclaret** » Thu Apr 20, 2017 11:12 am

Remember...June always spell the end of May..

[original by me....ok that's a lie]

ThinLizzy · Post by **ThinLizzy** » Thu Apr 20, 2017 11:13 am

claretdom wrote:When you look at the facts :-

52% of the country were lied to and fooled into voting brexit, a high % of those who voted to leave have since passed away and if we had the vote again remain would win
Then this woman is proceeding to take us out the amazing EU despite all these lies now being exposed and how vital it is we stay in the EU
The NHS is collapsing due to tories
All workers are about to lose their rights and pensions due to tories once we leave the EU

Suppose we should be pleased she has called this election, I mean she can't win can she ?

Just

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Thu Apr 20, 2017 11:15 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:Anyone got any idea at all why the USA hasn't levelled North Korea yet?

Oh, yeah, thats it, they have nuclear weapons.

They've already done it once, and that directly lead to the situation now.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Apr 20, 2017 11:18 am

Well, all I can say to that is that your grasp of history is as good as JC grasp of economics.

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Thu Apr 20, 2017 11:29 am

So the US didn't turn the north to rubble in the Korean War?

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Thu Apr 20, 2017 11:32 am

ClaretinMyBlood · Post by **ClaretinMyBlood** » Thu Apr 20, 2017 11:41 am

If it be your will wrote:We are in danger of becoming a real redneck society here, one that says 'I don't care about health, education, science or learning, so long as we look really hard on the world stage.'

Far from looking hard, to most of the planet we just look stupid. We spend vast sums on a system that will never be used, is under American control, and one that even Michael Portillo describes as 'militarily useless'.

So what's your option? Have no serious method of defence?
We would need a great NHS to cope with all the casualties should we not be able to defend our country properly.
With tensions so high in the world at the minute, I doubt now would be a good time to scrap our defence systems.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Apr 20, 2017 11:49 am

Think its more the 2nd part of what you've said I have an issue with.

You are effectively using the situation in the 1950s because you want to win an argument about having trident in 2017.

The reason that the US and its allies bombed the north in the 1950s was because the North Koreans and the US and allies were fighting up and down the peninsula.

The reason the US hasn't attacked North Korea yet in 2017 is because they have nuclear weapons and appear to want to use them.

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Thu Apr 20, 2017 11:55 am

But why would they attack? Because NK is a bit noisy?

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Thu Apr 20, 2017 11:58 am

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Thu Apr 20, 2017 12:02 pm

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Thu Apr 20, 2017 12:05 pm

There will never be another war fought on UK soil.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Thu Apr 20, 2017 12:08 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Think its more the 2nd part of what you've said I have an issue with.

You are effectively using the situation in the 1950s because you want to win an argument about having trident in 2017.

The reason that the US and its allies bombed the north in the 1950s was because the North Koreans and the US and allies were fighting up and down the peninsula.

The reason the US hasn't attacked North Korea yet in 2017 is because they have nuclear weapons and appear to want to use them.

Hi Lancs, I think it's a little more nuanced. North Korea has got, shall we say, an unusual political situation and a leader that is intent on developing nuclear weapons capabilities - against UN conventions. What does the UN/row do about it? (Iran is somewhat similar). South Korea is "protected" by USA (I don't intend this to be offensive to South Korea, I'm unsure of the formal status). There are 10 million people living in Seoul approx. 35 miles from the DMZ and border with the North. (Seoul is a beautiful city, both very old, and very new - I was lucky to visit two years ago).

How does anyone manage a potentially unstable situation? PDT has obviously decided (or delegated) that there must be a halt to NK's expansion of nuclear capabilities. The RoW agrees, I sure this is also China's position. Jaw-jaw is obviously preferable way to defuse the situation, but can Kim be persuaded that this is also the best course for him to follow?

If NK didn't have nuclear weapons and wasn't seeking to expand their nuclear capabilities we can all be certain that no one would want to attack NK.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Apr 20, 2017 12:10 pm

You may be right, but you don't leave yourself wide open to that possibility.

I'll leave it here, but if you are not going to have nuclear weapons, then you need to have a lot more conventional forces than we do now.

I've no idea if that is more expensive or less or the same as having nukes btw

You are right If it be your will, whole different discussion so I'll leave it here.

ClaretinMyBlood · Post by **ClaretinMyBlood** » Thu Apr 20, 2017 12:20 pm

If it be your will wrote:Interesting question. We'd have to look at Italy or Spain, perhaps, to see how their health structures deal with all their casualties.

Within the EU they have military support from other EU members.
Plus they haven't been hit by a war. I'm not saying that we will be at war any time soon, but there's always a possibility one could happen and I feel we need to be ready for when it does.

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Thu Apr 20, 2017 1:28 pm

UpTheBeehole wrote:I've been in hospitals quite a lot over the years and the only immigrants I've ever seen are those treating me.

Did you get that quote directly from the Guardian or are you just being silly for the sake of an argument?

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Thu Apr 20, 2017 1:38 pm

I've had treatment in a number of northern hospitals and I honestly can't recall sharing a ward with anyone non-British.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Thu Apr 20, 2017 1:58 pm

Damo wrote:Did you get that quote directly from the Guardian or are you just being silly for the sake of an argument?

Whether it's silly or not, it's absolutely clear that even before Brexit we're heading for a staffing crisis in the NHS, due to a significant drop in the number of applicants for vacant posts from the EU.
There are currently around 55,000 nurses working in the NHS from the EU, but still around 24,000 vacancies. (A recent report highlighted that virtually every hospital in the UK has a shortage of nurses and many vacancies that they are unable to fill.)
Since the EU referendum the number of applicants from the EU has dropped from over 1,300 per month to just 101. A whopping 90% drop.
Uncertainly about their future status in the UK post- Brexit is being given as one reason for this drop, but also a significant rise in racist attacks since the referendum.
The left-wing source for this information: The Daily Telegraph
It will be ok, of course, because post- Brexit, there will most likely be a lot less money for the NHS, so many of these vacant posts will be axed. A rather frightening prospect considering the current state of the NHS. The most likely solution for a Tory Govt with a sizeable majority - Privatisation.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Thu Apr 20, 2017 2:03 pm

UpTheBeehole wrote:I've had treatment in a number of northern hospitals and I honestly can't recall sharing a ward with anyone non-British.

I've been in hospital a couple of times in the past 12 months. There were patients from a number of different backgrounds on the ward and a few different languages were spoken at visiting times. The same was very obvious among the hospital staff, cleaners, nurses, junior doctors and senior consultants. It's good to see the diversity. I didn't see anyone's passports. I'm happy whether they were all Brits or some were migrants and visitors.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Thu Apr 20, 2017 2:11 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:Whether it's silly or not, it's absolutely clear that even before Brexit we're heading for a staffing crisis in the NHS, due to a significant drop in the number of applicants for vacant posts from the EU.
There are currently around 55,000 nurses working in the NHS from the EU, but still around 24,000 vacancies. (A recent report highlighted that virtually every hospital in the UK has a shortage of nurses and many vacancies that they are unable to fill.)
Since the EU referendum the number of applicants from the EU has dropped from over 1,300 per month to just 101. A whopping 90% drop.
Uncertainly about their future status in the UK post- Brexit is being given as one reason for this drop, but also a significant rise in racist attacks since the referendum.
The left-wing source for this information: The Daily Telegraph
It will be ok, of course, because post- Brexit, there will most likely be a lot less money for the NHS, so many of these vacant posts will be axed. A rather frightening prospect considering the current state of the NHS. The most likely solution for a Tory Govt with a sizeable majority - Privatisation.

Hi nil_d, aside from the way the NHS is organised - I've put forward my thoughts on that on other threads - has there been any work done that will explain why the 55,000 nurses have left their own country and their own health care systems to come and work in the NHS?

I've heard it said that some EU citizens are not coming to UK, and some are leaving, because the Pounds they will be paid do not convert into the same number of euros as before - i.e. the devaluation of GBP has reduced their earnings relative to what they can earn in their own country. I can see the logic - why would any of us move to a new country to earn less?

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Thu Apr 20, 2017 2:16 pm

Paul Waine wrote:Hi nil_d, aside from the way the NHS is organised - I've put forward my thoughts on that on other threads - has there been any work done that will explain why the 55,000 nurses have left their own country and their own health care systems to come and work in the NHS?

I've heard it said that some EU citizens are not coming to UK, and some are leaving, because the Pounds they will be paid do not convert into the same number of euros as before - i.e. the devaluation of GBP has reduced their earnings relative to what they can earn in their own country. I can see the logic - why would any of us move to a new country to earn less?

Hi Paul,
I have followed your various posts re: the NHS with interest.
In answer to your first question, I assume they have come because firstly we have vacancies which are widely advertised abroad, and (as you suggest) they want to earn more money than at home. The important point however, is that we are currently heavily reliant on NHS staff from both the EU and further afield in order to keep it afloat.

Guich · Post by **Guich** » Thu Apr 20, 2017 2:39 pm

quoonbeatz wrote:policies are likely to get ignored anyway as this election is pretty much a one issue election; its a brexit election. it was called on the basis of that one issue and we've already seen that people are intending to vote purely on brexit.

makes you wonder why, if they just wanted to confirm the backing for brexit, they didn't just call another referendum? brexit is apparently backed more in the polls than it was previously so what are they scared of? it goes back to her being a weak leader.

I don't think it makes her a weak leader Quoon, maybe an opportunistic one. She clearly simply wants a quick increase in majority and it's pretty safe. Yes the US elected a nutter, but we won't, no matter how much Jezza tries to emulate the Don with his anti-establishment claptrap.

Yes many polls indicate increasing support for Brexit, but when you see how both sides behaved before the Referendum, and how some have behaved since, why on earth would you call another one? You'd get the same result with more nastiness on both sides...pointless. Just get on with it.

ablueclaret · Post by **ablueclaret** » Thu Apr 20, 2017 2:48 pm

Nothing wrong with Corbyn's desire to get the rich to pay their share its just how you get them to do so, much more problematic.
Until accounts lawyers and bankers go to prison for their actions nothing much going to change.