Off Topic Politics Thread

[Puck]

Please Puck. Don't defend the privatised UK rail system, even it means sticking your neck out Tory wise. I've seen the fares compared to the rest of Europe. It's a farce. If Michael "choo-choo" had to actually pay to travel he'd be the first one to see the discrepancy.

I haven't expressed any opinion on the UK's privatised rail system, I'm simply pointing out that the EU is introducing a similar system right across the continent.

You want to remain in the EU and you seem to want British Rail back. I'm afraid you can't have both.

 

[Archers Road]

I haven't expressed any opinion on the UK's privatised rail system, I'm simply pointing out that the EU is introducing a similar system right across the continent.

You want to remain in the EU and you seem to want British Rail back. I'm afraid you can't have both.

Let's just say that I would be extremely surprised if German and French state rail companies do not find that their bids receive a very favourable response.

However, you are right. The EU plans to impose privatisation across the European network, and that is the reason the RMT Union recommended their members vote to leave in last year's referendum. It's hard to believe that there is an appetite throughout Europe for a dogs breakfast of a network similar to our own, but such a model is apparently in the pipeline.

 

[Puck]

Let's just say that I would be extremely surprised if German and French state rail companies do not find that their bids receive a very favourable response.

Perhaps so. The EU has said it aims to improve impartiality and remove discrimination but I'm not convinced. The aim is clearly to break up national monopolies and I doubt a smaller country would get away with that sort of behaviour but France or particularly Germany may. The ECJ could be called into action eventually. We shall see.

 

[ImpSaint]

Don't know what point you are trying to make here.
Maybe it's the shortness of your post that is confusing me.

The leave campaign as well as UKIP and Conservative are pushing a skills based immigration policy. Nurses, doctors are skills. They would still qualify.

It isn't a case of EU people applying for jobs in the UK and now they aren't. The NHS have actively been recruiting abroad. They don't just advertise and EU people apply. They actively recruit abroad.

And yes I do think burseries should never have been stopped. I think we should be providing incentive for UK people to train up for the medical profession and not be relying on the short term business model of it being cheaper to import skills. That is too short term.

I am not against the pay cap being removed either. I am not against more money (lots more money) going into the NHS. I am very against it simply being put more money in and that extra money ending up in the wrong places as it does now. We know the minute an extra ?bn is announced all the CEO and upper-management will be spying 20% increases and all the outsourcing prices will go up.

Amazing how more money always finds its way into pockets that are already full.

 

[ImpSaint]

Please Puck. Don't defend the privatised UK rail system, even it means sticking your neck out Tory wise. I've seen the fares compared to the rest of Europe. It's a farce. If Michael "choo-choo" had to actually pay to travel he'd be the first one to see the discrepancy.

Puck is saying that the rest of the EU will have to abide by the same rules that we are in at the moment. There is pressure from the EU to privatise everything including many things like the post and telecoms that Germany has resisted for so long. There is a reason that shares of these keep being shifted from German government owned to the KfW bank (mostly state owned.)

I personally can't see the point in the railways being privatised. They just run profitable lines with the government picking up losses and paying for the network anyway however anyone that champions the EU and then moans about privatisation is not really paying much attention because the EU wants everything privatised.

 

[San Tejón]

The leave campaign as well as UKIP and Conservative are pushing a skills based immigration policy. Nurses, doctors are skills. They would still qualify.

It isn't a case of EU people applying for jobs in the UK and now they aren't. The NHS have actively been recruiting abroad. They don't just advertise and EU people apply. They actively recruit abroad.

But hasn't it been stated, quite recently, that applications from EU workers to join the NHS has dropped by 95%, as a direct result of the uncertainty that still remains over their future rights, to remain in the U.K?
If that is the case it would indicate that EU workers aren't applying for the many vacancies in the NHS.

 

[shoot_spiderman]

But hasn't it been stated, quite recently, that applications from EU workers to join the NHS has dropped by 95%, as a direct result of the uncertainty that still remains over their future rights, to remain in the U.K?
If that is the case it would indicate that EU workers aren't applying for the many vacancies in the NHS.

As you say, less EU nurses joining ... and more leaving

30,000 shortage of nurses in UK
Nett reduction of nurses since 2016
Those leaving commonly cite low pay and poor working conditions
Increasing levels of stress related sick leave
Removal of bursaries leads to 23% reduction in applications
£3.7bn spent on Agency staff

 

[fatletiss]

£3.7bn spent on Agency staff

Just a part of one of the things that made me comment earlier his week on the NHS. Paying employees they retired off as agency staff too!

 

[shoot_spiderman]

Just a part of one of the things that made me comment earlier his week on the NHS. Paying employees they retired off as agency staff too!

Assuming you're talking about NHS wasting money, the biggest reason they spend so much on Agency is obviously because of staff shortages and sickness. They need to spend money on proper staffing levels (hence less sickness) and then they wouldn't all leave to do agency work. In my experience most nurses go into the job as a vocation not a cash cow.

They've capped agency fees but they can't fill some shifts because agency staff don't take them up if they dont pay 'enough' so wards run at unsafe levels of staffing
Demand is so high for agency shifts they can pick and choose
If they really must fill a shift they have to go to the highest pay rates

Short term answer is don't 'throw' money at NHS but put policies and funding in place specifically to fix the staffing problems
Then we can move on to the more complex stuff

 

[ImpSaint]

Short term answer is don't 'throw' money at NHS but put policies and funding in place specifically to fix the staffing problems
Then we can move on to the more complex stuff

Spot on. No-one minds an extra £?bn going directly to the front line. What they do mind is putting that money in and then CEO down to middle management getting pay rises, BigPharma increasing their prices and any other non frontline filling their pockets.

That is the problem really. If someone questions money going in to the NHS it is immediately spun as not wanting to put money in rather than being wary of where all the money is going.

TBH I don't buy EU nurses or Phillipino or any other country giving out "poor pay and conditions" as the reason they are leaving. What is the pay in their country? And what are the conditions?

And like I said earlier. The headline is a reduction in applications. HAs there also been a reduction in recruiting? Or has recruiting being increased resulted in less applications? It "could" be a situation where the same number of non UK nurses are being employed by the NHS but more are being recruited rather than applying. There is far too much spin around these days to know what the truth really is.

 

[shoot_spiderman]

Spot on. No-one minds an extra £?bn going directly to the front line. What they do mind is putting that money in and then CEO down to middle management getting pay rises, BigPharma increasing their prices and any other non frontline filling their pockets.
That is the problem really. If someone questions money going in to the NHS it is immediately spun as not wanting to put money in rather than being wary of where all the money is going.
TBH I don't buy EU nurses or Phillipino or any other country giving out "poor pay and conditions" as the reason they are leaving. What is the pay in their country? And what are the conditions?
And like I said earlier. The headline is a reduction in applications. HAs there also been a reduction in recruiting? Or has recruiting being increased resulted in less applications? It "could" be a situation where the same number of non UK nurses are being employed by the NHS but more are being recruited rather than applying. There is far too much spin around these days to know what the truth really is.

The NHS needs more money, this government is starving them, not all the money will go to all the right places as we don't live in a perfect world. If we won't fund the NHS until its perfect we're in big trouble. The US gets worse value for money with a privatised system

Generally EU nurses are leaving and not joining because of Brexit whereas UK nurses are leaving because of pay and stress. For poor conditions read 'under-staffed, over-worked, not able to provide adequate care'.

There are a huge number of vacancies in the NHS waiting for trained nurses who either don't exist or have left due ro pay and stress.

The real spin is the government saying they are putting more money in when it isn't keeping pace with inflation and increased costs in the health sector.
And the real story is there aren't enough staff - 30,000 shortage of registered nurses - and the government aren't doing anything to solve it

 

[greensaint]

The NHS needs more money, this government is starving them, not all the money will go to all the right places as we don't live in a perfect world. If we won't fund the NHS until its perfect we're in big trouble. The US gets worse value for money with a privatised system

Generally EU nurses are leaving and not joining because of Brexit whereas UK nurses are leaving because of pay and stress. For poor conditions read 'under-staffed, over-worked, not able to provide adequate care'.

There are a huge number of vacancies in the NHS waiting for trained nurses who either don't exist or have left due ro pay and stress.

The real spin is the government saying they are putting more money in when it isn't keeping pace with inflation and increased costs in the health sector.
And the real story is there aren't enough staff - 30,000 shortage of registered nurses - and the government aren't doing anything to solve it

Well they've scrapped the Bursary, asking nursing students to pay for their own training. That should do it.

 

[SaintinSerbia]

Serbia has an NHS (still struggling on from the good old communist days of Tito) My wife spent 3 days in a ward last year. You know it's underfunded when you have to bring your own toilet paper!

 

[tiggermaster]

There are 2 issues here.
1. It is hard to deny that the NHS has been starved of resources whilst greater demands are being made of it.
2. Funds supposedly made available for services are reportedly not reaching the front line. Since the purchaser, provider split was planned under Thatcher and implemented under Major there have been various reorganisations under various governments that have increased the layers of management and bureaucracy culminating in the final f*** up from Lansley. Do away with the artificial market, return the NHS to an organisation where everybody bats for the same side. Remove unnecessary layers of management. Involve clinicians in future planning from the bottom up. The outcomes would include investment in services and increased morale in front line staff. It's not rocket science.

 

[ChilcoSaint]

There are 2 issues here.
1. It is hard to deny that the NHS has been starved of resources whilst greater demands are being made of it.
2. Funds supposedly made available for services are reportedly not reaching the front line. Since the purchaser, provider split was planned under Thatcher and implemented under Major there have been various reorganisations under various governments that have increased the layers of management and bureaucracy culminating in the final f*** up from Lansley. Do away with the artificial market, return the NHS to an organisation where everybody bats for the same side. Remove unnecessary layers of management. Involve clinicians in future planning from the bottom up. The outcomes would include investment in services and increased morale in front line staff. It's not rocket science.

Spot on Tigs.

 

[Beef]

A Tory Brexiteer has described the UK leaving the EU without a deal as a “real n*****r in the woodpile” at a meeting of eurosceptics in Central London.

Anne Marie Morris, MP for Newton Abbott since 2010, made the astonishing remark while discussing what financial services deal the UK could struck with Brussels after 2019.

Despite using the racist term, none of her fellow panelists, including Tory MPs Bill Cash and John Redwood, reacted.

After saying just 7% of financial services in the UK would be affected by Brexit, Morris said: “Now I’m sure there will be many people who’ll challenge that, but my response and my request is look at the detail, it isn’t all doom and gloom.

“Now we get to the real n****r in the woodpile which is in two years what happens if there is no deal?”

The comments came at the launch of a report into the future for the UK’s lucrative financial sector after Brexit.

The launch was held at the exclusive East India Club in St James Square, a few hundred yards from the Mall, and organised by the Politeia group - which describes itself as “A forum for social and economic thinking”.

The City of London’s Colton Richards was in the audience, and was appalled by Morris’s comments.

He told HuffPost UK: “It was disgusting to hear those comments by somebody in public life.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ent...608e4b02e9bdb0e2c77?ncid=engmodushpmg00000004

 

[shoot_spiderman]

There are 2 issues here.
1. It is hard to deny that the NHS has been starved of resources whilst greater demands are being made of it.
2. Funds supposedly made available for services are reportedly not reaching the front line. Since the purchaser, provider split was planned under Thatcher and implemented under Major there have been various reorganisations under various governments that have increased the layers of management and bureaucracy culminating in the final f*** up from Lansley. Do away with the artificial market, return the NHS to an organisation where everybody bats for the same side. Remove unnecessary layers of management. Involve clinicians in future planning from the bottom up. The outcomes would include investment in services and increased morale in front line staff. It's not rocket science.

Now I'm aware of 2 to an extent but have no idea where the money goes except to all those layers of management and consultants.
I experienced the US healthcare system briefly in the 70s and left the hospital via the Admin dept where the Manager explained what would happen with my bill. The layers of bureaucracy proved to be very beneficial to me as they didn't really stand a chance of getting to me in time to get me to pay. He was quite happy to tell me this and then wish me luck as I left

I realised on that day that privatised public services don't reduce bureaucracy as people might imagine, they increase it. Its no way to run a Health Service.
But to remove the artificial market is going to be a big job, we have to fix what we have now. However, the money needs to go to the front line as you say.
They've made it into rocket science somehow. It needs a leader to get it out of the **** in a pragmatic and short-term manner.

 

[Beef]

You must log in or register to see media

You must log in or register to see media

Disgusting

 

[San Tejón]

I was sent an email today, from a Conservative voter, referring to the Grenfell disaster.
Wondering if anyone else has seen it, and their thoughts on it.
Looks like someone trying to shift blame for the disaster onto the tenants and Labour, but maybe I have misinterpreted it.
I've pasted it below.

"they're not even going to prosecute those tenants who have illegally sub-let their properties!!!
Wonder if they paid tax on the rental earnings!
They don't even want a "white" judge to run the enquiry. Wonder why?

Obviously, "attack is the best form of defence"

I'll say no more - good old J. C!!

Before you join the Theresa May lynch mob here are some FACTS relating to the Greenfell tragedy..


1 The block of flats was run not by the Council but by KCTMO. This body is made up of 8 TENANTS, 4 councillors and 3 independent members.


2 Labour hold the seat that the block is situated in.


3 Labour run the London Council who manage the underfunded London Fire Service.


4 Emma Coad the sitting Labour MP for that ward also sat on the KCTMO.


5 The advice to stay put which Sadiq Khan has been so vocal about was given by the London Fire Service.


6 The decision to change contractors during the refurb was made by KCTMO.


7 The decision not to spend an additional £138k on fitting sprinklers was again KCTMO.


8 The decision to create ALMO organisation such as the KCTMO was made under the Right To Manage legislation passed in 2002 as part of the Common hold and Leasehold Reform Act.


9 This was put in place to give leaseholders and tenants a greater say and the ability to self manage, which in some circumstances has clearly proven to be flawed.


10 Which Govt was in a charge when this law was passed? It was Labour.


11 Sadiq Khan as mayor of London Produced a report to say that the fire service did not need further funding.


12 Emma Coad elected Labour MP was on the board of the Tenant Management group who are being accused of not listening to tenants.
It's a modern lynch mob encouraged by bitter Labour MPs who having lost a close election want to destroy an elected government for a chance of a second election.

Hope this sheds a little light on the subject."

 

[shoot_spiderman]

A response I found ...

1 - the block of flats was run not by any council but by KCTMO. This body is made up of 8 TENANTS, 4 councilors and 3 independent members.
The block is run by KCTMO but the management committee includes 8 residents, which includes both tenants and leaseholders. The local council still retains control over the budget of the organisation.
2 - Labour hold the seat that the block is situated in.
Labour does indeed hold the local council seat in which Grenfell tower is situated, but that's just one of seven Labour seats on the council (40 Tory, 7 Labour, 3 Lib-Dem). Noting that the tower block is in one of the very few non-Tory wards in Kensington and Chelsea is an obvious distraction tactic.
3 - Labour run the London Council who manage the under funded London Fire Service
As noted above Kensington and Chelsea council is a Tory controlled council, and has been a Tory controlled council since its inception in 1964. The idea that Kensington and Chelsea council manage the fire services of the entire city of London is transparent nonsense. Why would anyone bother to invent such a ludicrous lie? How could anyone expect others to be thick enough to believe such a ludicrous lie?The reason London's fire service is underfunded is not because the (Tory controlled) Kensington and Chelsea council cut it (!!!) but because the Tory Mayor of London Boris Johnson imposed savage austerity cuts, including the closure of 10 London fire stations in one fell swoop.
4 - incidentally Emma Coad the sitting Labour MP for that ward also sat on the KCTMO.
Emma Coad was only elected as the Labour MP on June 8th 2017, just days before the fire. Before that the Tory MP for Kensington was Victoria Borwick (who lobbied Theresa May to drop David Cameron's ban on the ivory trade from the 2017 Tory manifesto instead of lobbying her to follow the expert advice and ban flammable cladding on high rise buildings).Coad was on the board of KCTMO until 2012 when she resigned. She left long before any refurbishments to Grenfell tower were made. Coad's time on the board was before the residents fire safety concerns were repeatedly raised and ignored by the organisation.
5 - the advice to stay put which Sadiq Khan has been so vocal about was given by the London Fire Service.
It is true that fire service advice to high rise tenants is often to remain within their properties, but had the fire authorities known that the private contractors had cut corners by cladding the entire building in flammable plastic, I'm pretty sure they would have issued very different advice.
6 - the decision to change contractors during the refurb was made by KCTMO.
The decision to outsource so much refurbishment work to unaccountable subcontractors and sub-subcontractors was a total mess. At the top of the pyramid of responsibility was still the Tory controlled local council which had to sign off on the bills.
7 - the decision not to spend a paltry £138k on fitting sprinklers again KCTMO.
Who knows where this £138,000 spend on sprinklers comes from? The building wasn't fitted with sprinklers (despite a succession of Tory housing ministers spending four years sitting on a report calling for sprinklers in tower blocks to avoid a repeat of the Lakanal fire in 2009).
8 - the decision to create ALMO organisation such as the KCTMO was made under the Right To Manage legislation passed in 2002 as part of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act.
This is an outright lie. KCTMO was founded on April 1st 1996 by the Conservative council at the tail end of John Major's Conservative government.
9 - this was put in place to give leasehold tenants a greater say and the ability to self manage, which has clearly proven to be a disaster.
Is this really a right-winger implying that renationalisation of all the council housing that has been carved up and given away to private management companies would be a good idea? If it is, it would be a total reversal of the last four decades of hard-right neoliberal housing policy.
10 - and which Govt was in a charge when this law was passed? Yup you guessed it Labour.
Another outright lie. As mentioned above KCTMO was founded in 1996 by a Tory council, under a Tory government.
11 - Sadiq Khan as mayor of London Produced a report to say that the fire service did not need further funding.
A spectacular misrepresentation: Sadiq Khan produced a report as housing minister on funding in 2008; 9 years ago! He became Mayor in 2016. In November 2008 on public record Khan said: "We are committed to sustainable funding for all fire and rescue authorities" before pointing out that Labour made significant investments in the fire service: "I have the figures for the past 10 years, and interestingly the smallest increase was 1.9 per cent. in 1998-99, when we were tied to Conservative spending limits. From then on, there have been increases of 3.9 per cent., 5.4 per cent., 6.2 per cent., 7.3 per cent., 6 per cent. and 4.9 per cent". So funding went up under Labour. Since becoming mayor in 2016 Khan has said "no more cuts to London Fire Brigade" and supported Jeremy Corbyn's manifesto which included a funding increase for the UK fire services and the hiring of 3,000 extra fire fighters.
12 -Emma Coad elected Labour MP was on the board of the Tenant Management group who are being accused of not listening to tenants.
This is a lazy repetition of the misrepresentation from point 4, she was on the board but resigned in 2012.