1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Poll: General Election 2019 voting intention - Nov 1st - 14th

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Rilot, Nov 5, 2019.

?

Who will you vote for?

  1. Labour

    95 vote(s)
    22.6%
  2. Conservative

    104 vote(s)
    24.8%
  3. Liberal Democrat

    162 vote(s)
    38.6%
  4. SNP

    19 vote(s)
    4.5%
  5. Green

    7 vote(s)
    1.7%
  6. Brexit

    15 vote(s)
    3.6%
  7. UKIP

    1 vote(s)
    0.2%
  8. TIG

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  9. Plaid Cymru

    2 vote(s)
    0.5%
  10. DUP

    1 vote(s)
    0.2%
  11. Sinn Fein

    2 vote(s)
    0.5%
  12. Independant

    3 vote(s)
    0.7%
  13. Other party

    1 vote(s)
    0.2%
  14. Spoil ballot

    8 vote(s)
    1.9%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. StriderX

    Capodecina

    Joined: Mar 18, 2008

    Posts: 21,792

    Don't really want to make a new thread as it pertains to the government anyway, and is an important piece of national infrastructure.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50369413

    So after China more or less took a monopoly on steel production and after we stopped the EU from applying a tariff scheme on importing their steel, the government have quite literally (embellishment on my part) allowed the sale of British Steel to China...

    A sign of things to come I suppose, yes technically BS did this on it's lonesome (I will assume so, not quite sure how administration goes on who takes the ultimate decision), but the government is involved and the optics of this are impossible to ignore. The other potential candidate was a Turkish pension fund (Ataer Holding), which is involved in their military pension in that country (which considering recent events...). I guess it says more about British Steel than it does the potential buyers that those were the two at the top of the list...

    With all the lovely nonsense surrounding 5G and China's stake in it, and our previous/current willingness to bend over backwards for Russian/Arab money to look the other way, is this China's turn?
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2019
  2. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 47,407

    Location: Plymouth

    On the contrary, I think you've described the natural trajectory of democratic socialism perfectly.

    The democratic in democratic socialism obviously only applies when democracy agrees with the actions of the leadership and the desire for state control. If it doesn't, you have to beat the population until it does...
     
  3. The_Abyss

    Capodecina

    Joined: May 15, 2007

    Posts: 11,804

    Location: Ipswich / Bodham

    It says nothing more than the state of British Steel. Hopelessly uncompetitive and historically unable to modernise.
     
  4. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 43,070

    Erm.. I'm voting Lib Dem.

    Regardless on what basis are you calling the stuff about Corbyn "smears"?

    Corbyn is objectively way more of a scumbag than Boris.
     
  5. robgmun

    Capodecina

    Joined: Apr 30, 2006

    Posts: 15,261

    Location: London

    This, he's such a weak cry baby and attention seeker. I haven't taken anything he says seriously for many years.
     
  6. RedvGreen

    Mobster

    Joined: Dec 2, 2009

    Posts: 3,877

    Location: Midlands

    The late Jersey millionaire who founded OcUK didn't vet the users of the forum for their political stance.
     
  7. garnett

    Mobster

    Joined: Mar 25, 2008

    Posts: 4,933

    Is the biggest problem in the UK the number of voters cognatively vulnerable to getting mugged by fallacies due to a lack of education in critical thinking?

    Take the fact-free basis for a bland assertion that the Tories have excelled in...
    Here's a good chart for those not impervious to facts.

     
  8. krooton

    Caporegime

    Joined: May 9, 2004

    Posts: 25,413

    Location: Leafy outskirts of London

    Erm, GP access/ratio is decreasing, technically there could be more GPs than ever, but if the rest of the population has increased more, then that would be moot in this chart.
     
  9. garnett

    Mobster

    Joined: Mar 25, 2008

    Posts: 4,933

    It doesn't matter. The original assertion was a bland assertion the NHS was an area where the Tories have succeeded.

    It was lazy and vague and it's the sort of, "Well, it's common sense, i'nit" thinking that used to be tolerated without challenge in the UK while it didn't harm the country, but then it resulted in Brexit.
     
  10. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 47,407

    Location: Plymouth

    But that analysis is also potentially misleading, because it uses headcount, not fte.

    If you have 50,000 full time gps and 50,000 part time, and you drive more full time employees until you have 75,000 full time gps and only 20,000 part time, your headcount goes down, but your hours available goes up....

    Note, I'm not saying this is happening, just that statistics are complicated and easy to misuse, deliberately or accident.

    We won't even start talking about how patient contact time isn't necessarily the same as contracted hours.
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2019
  11. StriderX

    Capodecina

    Joined: Mar 18, 2008

    Posts: 21,792

    Let’s not ignore the fact that even if funding increased in real terms, locum doctor usage also increased, I’m on my phone so I don’t want to fiddle with this right now, but the cost of a locum doctor is extortionate.

    So the funding increases just end up going to these inefficient usually long distance (further advancing their cost as the demand is so high) contractors when ideally we should be trying to keep enough full time folk before they flee to better systems abroad or become seemingly permanent locums.

    I bet there has actually realistically been a cut to the service in general when you start accounting for these inefficient (but necessary) overspends per doctor.
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2019
  12. Bald-Eagle22

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Mar 30, 2007

    Posts: 1,843

    Location: Essex

    Not what lefty’s want but yes I’m very serious , if there’s a con/Brexit party coalition he’s going to land a very big job . He has the ear of the President (impeachment aside )so why not .
     
  13. Evangelion

    Capodecina

    Joined: Dec 29, 2007

    Posts: 23,034

    Location: Adelaide, South Australia

    I honestly can't see how Farage's party can win a coalition with the Tories, who have already ruled out a pact with them. And even if they did win a coalition, I don't see why Johnson would be motivated to give Farage an ambassadorship.

    Farage must have seen the writing on the wall; he's now softening his stance towards Johnson's deal in the hope of winning a voting alliance with the Tories. But Johnson doesn't need him. The Tories will walk straight into power while Corbyn scratches his head in total confusion.
     
  14. StriderX

    Capodecina

    Joined: Mar 18, 2008

    Posts: 21,792

    Farage won’t be done yet, there’s already a bloc of voters who are so anti immigrant that he still has a base of idiots to steal from to fund his lifestyle.

    Works in the US, certainly will here.
     
  15. Quartz

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Apr 1, 2014

    Posts: 8,926

    Location: Aberdeen

    No, it's not really a good chart, for reasons already explained. You need to demonstrate that the reduction has had an actual negative impact.

    However, it's also not a bad chart and a reduction in the number of doctors per person is of prima facie concern. Local doctors tell me that the proximate cause is the pensions issue which the Tories have failed to fix. Apparently this was a Labour introduction and requires legislation which the Tories have not even tried to introduce.
     
  16. neviditelny

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Oct 15, 2015

    Posts: 1,018

    If we would stop deploy agency staff we would be incredibly unsafe. We have 5-6 agency nurses that we have been allowed/granted to block book as they are very good and work well within the team so we need that we will get nurses who does a really good work. With the agency nurses it can be really hit and miss how good they will actually be.
    The problem is with recruiting new nurses is that is a huge shortage of nurses in UK (about 40 000 for the entire UK) so we rely on newly qualified nurses and imported nurses.
    I'm not sure how many vacancies we have at the moment but at one stage earlier this year we had 17 nurse vacancies for my ward, the ward next to ours have about 28 nursing vacancies...

    Agency work can at least double, in some cases almost triple your wages plus you can chose when and where to work as well, so I don't blame people joining agencies. And you also get to avoid all the politics within the ward/Trust etc.

    We have tried to see if the Trust could raise our wages but we are told that they can't afford that, which in some ways is quite hilarious considering what we pay for agency staff..
     
  17. Quartz

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Apr 1, 2014

    Posts: 8,926

    Location: Aberdeen

    Don't confuse salary with cost of employment. Assuming agency staff work the same way I did when I was a NHS contractor, you don't get a pension, you have to pay your own National Insurance, you don't get paid days off, you don't get any benefits, and so on.
     
  18. FortuitousFluke

    Mobster

    Joined: Jul 7, 2011

    Posts: 3,824

    Location: Cambridgeshire

    Whilst you're technically right you only actually see these benefits if you're using agency staff appropriately, e.g. to cover short shift occasionally or to cover peak periods. At the moment the NHS is using bank, agency, and locum to cover shift patterns which would ideally be covered by a full time member of staff, which is incredibly cost inefficient.

    This is what happens when you don't train enough professionals, you cede control of the market. I've actually heard about locums starting bidding wars between hospitals in order to knock up their rate for a shift.
     
  19. garnett

    Mobster

    Joined: Mar 25, 2008

    Posts: 4,933

    No. I don't need to do anything.

    You made a bare, vague assertion without any supporting evidence. The onus is on you to back that claim up.

    It's staggeringly brass-necked or obtuse (or both) for you to try to insist on this from others, and reinforces the impression you don't know what you're doing.
     
  20. Irish_Tom

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 12,285

    So it hasn’t improved under the Tories? ;)

    What’s the net cost/saving to the trust?
    Does salary + pension + paid holiday + perks + employer NI contributions work out more expensive or cheaper than the cost of an agency worker?

    *edit* Assuming the agency worker is on full-time hours for a year (which, by the sounds of it, isn’t an unreasonable assumption in some cases).
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.