|
Post by lidar on Jun 12, 2017 11:48:42 GMT
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Jun 12, 2017 11:50:54 GMT
It's impossible to feel sorry for Theresa May, especially if we lose the BBC and the NHS because of her. I highly doubt we will lose either the BBC or the NHS because of one person. Cheers Tony If we lose them it will absolutely be Theresa May's fault because she has appointed people on her cabinet who hate those organisations despite public protest telling her not to.
|
|
|
Post by acousticwolf on Jun 12, 2017 11:53:06 GMT
A very interesting read, thanks I'd be amazed if she lasts longer than 6 months to be honest, more likely they will sort out the DUP arrangement, make a start on Brexit negotiations and then have a leadership challenge which may or may not end in another election. Cheers Tony
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Jun 12, 2017 12:12:34 GMT
I highly doubt we will lose either the BBC or the NHS because of one person. Cheers Tony If we lose them it will absolutely be Theresa May's fault because she has appointed people on her cabinet who hate those organisations despite public protest telling her not to. I'm sorry, but that is nonsense. I don't usually disagree so bluntly with people, but both the BBC and the NHS have existed for the majority of their time under Conservative governments. Both institutions are still here, both are still publicly funded one way or another, and they are not going anywhere now or in the future. The eternal arguments are about structuring and amounts of money for the NHS ( never enough for what is needed, medically possible or desired) and the BBC's funding model, not their existence.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Jun 12, 2017 12:16:38 GMT
If we lose them it will absolutely be Theresa May's fault because she has appointed people on her cabinet who hate those organisations despite public protest telling her not to. I'm sorry, but that is nonsense. I don't usually disagree so bluntly with people, but both the BBC and the NHS have existed for the majority of their time under Conservative governments. Both institutions are still here, both are still publicly funded one way or another, and they are not going anywhere now or in the future. The eternal arguments are about structuring and amounts of money for the NHS ( never enough for what is needed, medically possible or desired) and the BBC's funding model, not their existence. Jeremy Hunt hates the NHS yet he is still appointed health minister. Pretty much every Tory under Theresa May's government hate the BBC yet she keeps those on her cabinet who hate the organisation. There have been public protest to both.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2017 12:18:22 GMT
A very interesting read, thanks I'd be amazed if she lasts longer than 6 months to be honest, more likely they will sort out the DUP arrangement, make a start on Brexit negotiations and then have a leadership challenge which may or may not end in another election. Cheers Tony I think so too. Lots to look forward to - I don't think.
|
|
|
Post by sherlock on Jun 12, 2017 12:20:04 GMT
I highly doubt we will lose either the BBC or the NHS because of one person. Cheers Tony If we lose them it will absolutely be Theresa May's fault because she has appointed people on her cabinet who hate those organisations despite public protest telling her not to. 1. The Prime Minister and Cabinet cannot make laws by themselves 2. What public protest was there about the Cabinet appointments? 3. The Tories have been in power for the majority of the NHS' (and probably the BBC's as well) existence, if they wanted to do away with them they would have done that a long time ago and there is no evidence whatsoever of any plans to do away with either the BBC or the NHS
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Jun 12, 2017 12:41:29 GMT
If we lose them it will absolutely be Theresa May's fault because she has appointed people on her cabinet who hate those organisations despite public protest telling her not to. 1. The Prime Minister and Cabinet cannot make laws by themselves 2. What public protest was there about the Cabinet appointments? 3. The Tories have been in power for the majority of the NHS' (and probably the BBC's as well) existence, if they wanted to do away with them they would have done that a long time ago and there is no evidence whatsoever of any plans to do away with either the BBC or the NHS 1. True 2. Look on Twitter. Loads have been complaining about Theresa May's cabinet. People have even been calling Jeremy Hunt 'Jeremy ****'. 3. Yes but the Tories currently with seats and in the cabinet have been even more determined to get rid of the NHS and t BBC. Both have experienced ridiculous cuts, and thanks to the Tories the NHS are even having to shut some hospitals. As for evidence, look up Virgin Health Care. They have taken over some NHS hospitals.
|
|
|
Post by sherlock on Jun 12, 2017 13:03:55 GMT
1. The Prime Minister and Cabinet cannot make laws by themselves 2. What public protest was there about the Cabinet appointments? 3. The Tories have been in power for the majority of the NHS' (and probably the BBC's as well) existence, if they wanted to do away with them they would have done that a long time ago and there is no evidence whatsoever of any plans to do away with either the BBC or the NHS 1. True 2. Look on Twitter. Loads have been complaining about Theresa May's cabinet. People have even been calling Jeremy Hunt 'Jeremy ****'. 3. Yes but the Tories currently with seats and in the cabinet have been even more determined to get rid of the NHS and t BBC. Both have experienced ridiculous cuts, and thanks to the Tories the NHS are even having to shut some hospitals. As for evidence, look up Virgin Health Care. They have taken over some NHS hospitals. Twitter isn't a good measure of public opinion at all, and besides people have been calling Jeremy Hunt that nickname for years. I haven't seen any evidence of any Cabinet ministers wanting to get rid of those organisations. There is a difference between cutting funding and outright getting rid of something. As for the Virgin Health Care contracts. If they are providing good healthcare that is free at the point of use, I have no problem with that. If there is ever talk of payment in return for healthcare then I will have a problem. If the service they provide is ever seen as outright bad then I will have a problem. I haven't seen hard evidence for either of those scenarios.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Jun 12, 2017 13:05:59 GMT
1. True 2. Look on Twitter. Loads have been complaining about Theresa May's cabinet. People have even been calling Jeremy Hunt 'Jeremy ****'. 3. Yes but the Tories currently with seats and in the cabinet have been even more determined to get rid of the NHS and t BBC. Both have experienced ridiculous cuts, and thanks to the Tories the NHS are even having to shut some hospitals. As for evidence, look up Virgin Health Care. They have taken over some NHS hospitals. Twitter isn't a good measure of public opinion at all, and besides people have been calling Jeremy Hunt that nickname for years. I haven't seen any evidence of any Cabinet ministers wanting to get rid of those organisations. There is a difference between cutting funding and outright getting rid of something. As for the Virgin Health Care contracts. If they are providing good healthcare that is free at the point of use, I have no problem with that. If there is ever talk of payment in return for healthcare then I will have a problem. If the service they provide is ever seen as outright bad then I will have a problem. I haven't seen hard evidence for either of those scenarios. I have a huge issue with the Virgin Health Care stuff because it is further evidence of what the Tories want to do to the NHS. If you want to save the NHS, then next election we all need to vote Labour. Same with the BBC. Labour will stop the ridiculous cuts and give both the money they need.
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Jun 12, 2017 13:25:25 GMT
Mark Mardell's analysis of May's position on BBC website very insightful. Almost makes one feel sorry for her. You know what, I felt somewhat sorry for her prior to the election, in Brexit she inherited the poison chalice. However, the minute she announced the election, I lost all sympathy for her, not only did the election appear to be entire self serving and nothing to do with the country at large, to find yet again that the Tory's have created a situation that blew up their faces, meh, good luck to them, in the most cynical way I can muster.
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Jun 12, 2017 13:37:50 GMT
As for the Virgin Health Care contracts. If they are providing good healthcare that is free at the point of use, I have no problem with that. If there is ever talk of payment in return for healthcare then I will have a problem. If the service they provide is ever seen as outright bad then I will have a problem. I haven't seen hard evidence for either of those scenarios. I have no particular opinion on Virgin Healthcare. But I do have issues with healthcare provided by commercial outfits. Not because of any ideology but because of how it hurts health care provision. For instance, I get part of my care from a commercial provider under the auspices of the NHS, but there is a big difference between them and the other NHS services I receive. All the other NHS services I interact with take a holistic approach (that is to say, they look at me and my symptoms as a whole, and treat me based on that whole) whereas the commercial provider only get paid for and is only interested in providing a specific service. This has two effects, firstly that if I say to them in response to proposed treatment "yeah, but you need to consider X", they respond "We can't do anything about X", it also in my experience makes them keep offering me treatments that they can provide, even if better treatments are available from other sources, after all they only get paid so long as they continue to treat me. This creates a perverse incentive, they are incentivised to keep treating me, not to cure me and not to refer me elsewhere, or consider my wider interests. EDIT/AFTER Thoughts: I recently spent a few days in hospital after a minor (very minor) heart attack. After talking to the cardiologist she and I both agread that beyond taking some blood thinners that I would receive no other treatments or exploration. Why? Well, in isolation, my heart attack warranted further treatments and exploration, however because of my overall health and existing conditions it seemed best not to go down that route. However, I am left wondering, had the cardiologist and her department been in a situation where they were only paid if I was treated and had no interest in my other conditions, would I not be receiving treatment that on best information would actually be harmful to me overall?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2017 13:51:58 GMT
Now being reported that the Queens speech will be delayed a few days while they try to agree with the DUP (and their own potential rebels) what should go in it.
Omnishambles.
A government that can't deliver a queens speech is no government at all.
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Jun 12, 2017 13:56:52 GMT
Now being reported that the Queens speech will be delayed a few days while they try to agree with the DUP (and their own potential rebels) what should go in it. Omnishambles. A government that can't deliver a queens speech is no government at all. Ah indeed, but I suspect, at this moment at least, it's more about not knowing what they can put in it, rather than not being able to deliver one at all. However, whatever, it is hardly a sign of a secure government.
|
|
|
Post by sherlock on Jun 12, 2017 13:57:53 GMT
Now being reported that the Queens speech will be delayed a few days while they try to agree with the DUP (and their own potential rebels) what should go in it. Omnishambles. A government that can't deliver a queens speech is no government at all. Some might even say it's weak and wobbly. What's even better is allegedly part of the reason for delaying it is the Queen's Speech has to be written on vellum (parchment made of goat skin) which needs at least a week to dry. Just a lovely reminder of how utterly old fashioned British parliamentary procedures can be.
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Jun 12, 2017 14:05:09 GMT
Now being reported that the Queens speech will be delayed a few days while they try to agree with the DUP (and their own potential rebels) what should go in it. Omnishambles. A government that can't deliver a queens speech is no government at all. Some might even say it's weak and wobbly. What's even better is allegedly part of the reason for delaying it is the Queen's Speech has to be written on vellum (parchment made of goat skin) which needs at least a week to dry. Just a lovely reminder of how utterly old fashioned British parliamentary procedures can be. Yeah, except of course, ask an archivist or preservator whether they would want a document on paper, electronically or on vellum, you will see them opt for vellum pretty much every time.
|
|
|
Post by sherlock on Jun 12, 2017 14:09:43 GMT
As for the Virgin Health Care contracts. If they are providing good healthcare that is free at the point of use, I have no problem with that. If there is ever talk of payment in return for healthcare then I will have a problem. If the service they provide is ever seen as outright bad then I will have a problem. I haven't seen hard evidence for either of those scenarios. I have no particular opinion on Virgin Healthcare. But I do have issues with healthcare provided by commercial outfits. Not because of any ideology but because of how it hurts health care provision. For instance, I get part of my care from a commercial provider under the auspices of the NHS, but there is a big difference between them and the other NHS services I receive. All the other NHS services I interact with take a holistic approach (that is to say, they look at me and my symptoms as a whole, and treat me based on that whole) whereas the commercial provider only get paid for and is only interested in providing a specific service. This has two effects, firstly that if I say to them in response to proposed treatment "yeah, but you need to consider X", they respond "We can't do anything about X", it also in my experience makes them keep offering me treatments that they can provide, even if better treatments are available from other sources, after all they only get paid so long as they continue to treat me. This creates a perverse incentive, they are incentivised to keep treating me, not to cure me and not to refer me elsewhere, or consider my wider interests. EDIT/AFTER Thoughts: I recently spent a few days in hospital after a minor (very minor) heart attack. After talking to the cardiologist she and I both agread that beyond taking some blood thinners that I would receive no other treatments or exploration. Why? Well, in isolation, my heart attack warranted further treatments and exploration, however because of my overall health and existing conditions it seemed best not to go down that route. However, I am left wondering, had the cardiologist and her department been in a situation where they were only paid if I was treated and had no interest in my other conditions, would I not be receiving treatment that on best information would actually be harmful to me overall? Interesting perspective, and I wish your recovery well. I'll freely admit my opinions (as above) are largely drawn from my basic principles about healthcare rather than actual experiences (I've been lucky with my health in general so healthcare hasn't been something I've had to turn to often) so your experience has certainly given me food for thought.
|
|
|
Post by acousticwolf on Jun 12, 2017 14:34:30 GMT
Some might even say it's weak and wobbly. What's even better is allegedly part of the reason for delaying it is the Queen's Speech has to be written on vellum (parchment made of goat skin) which needs at least a week to dry. Just a lovely reminder of how utterly old fashioned British parliamentary procedures can be. Yeah, except of course, ask an archivist or preservator whether they would want a document on paper, electronically or on vellum, you will see them opt for vellum pretty much every time. Apparently it isn't written on vellum these days. Perhaps they think fox skin is better? Cheers Tony
|
|
|
Post by lidar on Jun 12, 2017 14:48:51 GMT
Some might even say it's weak and wobbly. What's even better is allegedly part of the reason for delaying it is the Queen's Speech has to be written on vellum (parchment made of goat skin) which needs at least a week to dry. Just a lovely reminder of how utterly old fashioned British parliamentary procedures can be. Yeah, except of course, ask an archivist or preservator whether they would want a document on paper, electronically or on vellum, you will see them opt for vellum pretty much every time. Those who worried the DUP would try to turn the clock back 300 years were obviously right after all.
|
|
|
Post by mark687 on Jun 12, 2017 15:30:10 GMT
just seen a GIF on Corbyn views through the years by Channel 4, his views on defence are flipping unnerving.
Regards
mark687
|
|