Forum menu
How much will this new brexit party skew things?
Good question, they are standing in every single seat, last general election they stood aside in 300 seats to give the Tories a better chance to beat Labour.
They will be a headache for Sunak, he won't be need them to give the Tories even more hurdles. If they help to split the Tory vote, which presumably they will, it will obviously help Labour.
The traditional Labour voters who voted Labour in 2017 but we're put off in 2019 because of Labour's second referendum policy are unlikely to feel unable to vote Labour in next year's general election. I believe all the opinion polls are showing the Labour lead in the so-called red wall seats is significantly higher than the national average.
I have some sympathy with TJs view.
But I don't personally think enough people share that view. And over time I think it will lose its grip.
Remainers have wasted a lot of breath when they could be focused on the next campaign of choice.
Aim your frustration at market economies if you really want to make a difference to living standards. And the way we lie about needing billionaires for money. And so on.
All that is still present pre and post Brexit.
If you vote labour you are tacitly supporting brexit and Starmers lies over brexit.
Which probably makes you no better than a nazi.
What's this new Brexit party?
How can we have a new Brexit party?
Are we talking about Reform? They're not new.
What's the rumpus?
(Reform were smart enough recently to suggest no tax on incomes below 20K)
But they're also economically bone-headed in every other way. Plus they're obsessed with anti-mask.
They will go far 🙂
Yeah Reform, it's a fairly new party that was formed just before the last general election. Its current name is only two years old.
The wound is still fresh and gaping open. Its far from over and will still be a live issue at the next election
Okay I will give you that the repercussions are definitely to come but the debate will erode.
It simply will become old for most. People will move on.
If you vote labour now you are supporting brexit.
Cobblers, TJ. Do you support every single issue the SNP has campaigned on? If not, why did you vote for them?
Yeah Reform, it’s a fairly new party that was formed just before the last general election. Its current name is only two years old.
The Richard Tice made in China merchandise Britain is great party.
Richard Tice might spout crap but he's less hysterical than Farage. And always *sounds* reasonable in his approach.
I guess they could dent Tory progress.
What’s this new Brexit party?
Labour 😉
*runs away*
Cobblers, TJ. Do you support every single issue the SNP has campaigned on? If not, why did you vote for them?
No I don't support every issue the SNP campaign on which is why I have never voted for them as I have said many times
Labour 😉
*runs away*
😆
No I don’t support every issue the SNP campaign on which is why I have never voted for them as I have said many times
The one party you never talk about TJ is the one which you consistently vote for, the Scottish Green Party.
Instead you will rabbit on endlessly about the Tories, and Labour, and the SNP. But never mention the party that you have consistently supported for many years.
Which is strange.
No I don’t support every issue the SNP campaign on which is why I have never voted for them as I have said many times
So you don't vote for the party you relentlessly drone on about. Mmmkay.
I certainly believe that once in government support for Labour will collapse very quickly.
I reckon they'll have a significant honeymoon period a la Blair. Once they get in the relief in the electorate at a more positive outlook will last quite a while. They'll implement the low hanging fruit (getting rid of non-doms status, private school charity status etc) and quickly solve pay disputes with the public sector unions and reform stuff that has a direct impact on people like the public transport system to bring prices down. The only way they can f*** it up is if they do nothing, hence my point yesterday about them learning that lesson.
reckon they’ll have a significant honeymoon period a la Blair. Once they get in the relief in the electorate at a more positive outlook will last quite a while.
Scenario B: Things will be so bad when they take office it will simply take too long to turn anything substantial around.
This is the shitty un-level playing field Labour are given every time.
I can never forgive Labour in 2010 for not pushing back hard enough against the World Recession - they seem to roll over and take it.
So you don’t vote for the party you relentlessly drone on about. Mmmkay.
Yup - the SNP are the scottish government in coalition with the greens and their attitudes and policies often give lie to the idea that labour has no alternative as the SNP government show they do have. Stuff like over the EU. the SNP show its perfectly possible to be pro EU and to win huge majorities because the SNP show leadership over stuff not followers like the labour party have become
MY SNP mp is also a vile lying carpetbagger so impossible to vote for. My MSP is a good chap however
Ok to flip this back around away from what Starmer should have done IMO
Streeting today decided to [pick a fight with GPs. Now I think he is right in principle but picking a fight with GPs and wanting to take them all into the NHS as emplyees will not help the situation at all as it won't increase capacity short or medium term, indeed would be huge disruption and hugely expensive at a time when the last thing any part of the NHS needs is major reorganisation. To me thats an attempt at a populist move ie folk are fed up with GPs so announce you are going to do a major reform. If he had said something like " we need to look at the whole structure of general practise in consultation with all parties and see if we can make changes to make it more responsive to the needs of the population" that would be good. To make a pronouncement like this at this point seems to me totally counterproductive
Which probably makes you no better than a nazi.
The Nazis were rather keen on European unification so hardly Brexiteers.
TJ, this is what moving from private provision of services to an NHS of which more is owned by the public looks like… more healthcare staff being employed directly by the state rather than private companies.
As for bypassing GPs and pharmacists diagnosing and prescribing more… that’s an SNP policy being picked up by Labour, and can help with capacity.
Both good moves IMHO. GP reform is essential (well, at least that’s what the local hospital trust staff bang on about in the pub, anyway).
I agree its the right long term aim.
I question the tactical wisdom of making this announcement now. Its not something that would increase capacity in either the short or medium term and will be hugely expensive. Billions to buy all the GPs premises for a start off
As the election approaches, the policies slowly come… damned for not announcing them earlier… now damned for announcing them too early?
They'd just rent the premisies at inflated prices like they do for everything else NHS. I don't even think it's the right long term aim, the curent system would work with more resources. There's an ageing population, increasing population, more care methods and treatments available. In short demographic reasons for an increase in demand for GP services. The main response to that needs to be more GPs.
more healthcare staff being employed directly by the state rather than private companies.
I havent managed to find his actual speech but the bit generally quoted in reports doesnt actually say employed by the NHS it just says "modern practices". Which can be managed in several ways eg the Operose Health approach.
Brexit is done.
Remain is over.
Bre-entry is only just getting started.
Still not sure why we're going on about Brexit still, it has been done, Britain exited the EU, where the UK is just now is the problem, we lost benefits of being part of the EU, and have not actively managed areas where we could improve now we're out of the EU.
That's what the next government will be focusing on, for all the 'rejoin the EU' talk, as stated many times, we lost all our benefits on exit, to rejoin would cost us more money, time and effort, at a time when most of the world doesn't know what's going to happen, to simply state that rejoining would benefit the UK is about as blind as the Brexiteers telling us how leaving would be great for us.
It's also the same for Scotland, all the talk of being Pro-EU, applying as soon as they get independence and so on, that's great things to say, but no actual evidence that it'll benefit Scotland or the people, just slogans by politicians.
Which can be managed in several ways eg the Operose Health approach.
thats my fear given how pro privitisation he is and how corrupt
Argee - folk on here are fed up of brexit discussions. If you want to know about the advantage to scotland of independence and joining the EU pm me. I can list dozens. I ain't gonna discuss brexit no more on here
*everyone breaths sigh of relief*
Someone help me with an NHS failure point of logic given by the right.
They say "people living too long is party of the problem.,"
So hang on one second. People living too long surely is indicative of a successful health system?
Both my parents in the mid 70s and they're looking good-ish to me, neither taking too many resources as far as I can tell.
You could say you need scalability but living too long or whatever that means doesn't imply they're all connected to life support systems.
Tends to be more years of illhealth as well. give your folks another 10 or 15 years and they are likely to have used a lot of healthcare. MY parents have during their 80s
Its basically bobbins tho IMO
A quick google search on life expectancy shows it rose steadily from 1960 to 2010 from when it has largely flatlined to 2020. And from what I can see this is fairly similar for most large economies (unsurprisingly the US underperforming and lowering life expectancy from 2018).
I don't think that this can be used as an excuse for the current problems, certainly less so than any point in the previous 50 years, life expectancy has been roughly steady for the past decade and shouldn't be surprising to those responsible for planning healthcare.
Life expectancy doesn’t tell you the whole story, it’s about age distribution and just how many people are older. But it doesn’t come as a surprise, it should have been planned for, and that planning funded. The government dropped the ball.
Both my parents in the mid 70s and they’re looking good-ish to me, neither taking too many resources as far as I can tell.
Come back when they are in their mid 80s and tell us how much they are using the health service. May dad used it heavily before he died at 83, my mum is using is heavily at 78, my wife's mum and dad are using it heavily at 78 etc,.
When people tended to die at 70 it was before a lot of the age related stuff kicked in.
All that is missing the point though as we have known for the last 15 years that people are a) living longer and b)require more healthcare are they age so NHS funding, staffing, social care SHOULD have increased to cater for that. That fact it didn't is the cause of the problem.
A quick fix for bed blocking is to set up state run care facilities where people can be moved to until home care or care home gets sorted out but of course that would cost money, can't do that because of tax payers money and all the other BS.
They say “people living too long is party of the problem.,”
Probably a controversial opinion but I think it's much more than 'part' of the problem. I see no value in having hundreds of thousands or potentially millions of people sat in care homes with dementia because something else hasn't killed them first. We desperately need a grownup debate about assisted dying. I think if you ask most people what they would like to happen in that situation the answer would be pretty obvious.
Maybe we could learn something from the Vikings... 😳
We desperately need a grownup debate about assisted dying.
Its happening. There is a bill in Scotland going thru right now and in England there have been the first steps taken
However its actually very complex legally morally and ethically to do this with people living with dementia due to informed consent
I did start a thread about this topic a while ago. Might be best on that thread or a new one rather thanhere
its a topic very close to my heart for both professional and personal reasons
We desperately need a grownup debate about assisted dying.
Absolutely. But not to try and save the country money, or reduce the need for health and care service staff. Everyone (where possible) should have control over their end of life care, but let’s not start looking to a Logan’s Run style future, just because we’re not prepared to fund and staff care properly.
but let’s not start looking to a Logan’s Run style future
An aging population being blamed for the health care crisis and increasing food poverty problems, anyone fancy soylent green for Sunday dinner?
Lol that went down a path that I didn't expect.
But living longer generally to a point is a product of a decent standard of living/well being etc.
Surely it means for a good chunk of their lives they didn't need health care. That's the point I'm making.
So what folk are saying is we used to die younger - and now we're being kept alive?
That's a good thing in my opinion. But could be better clearly.
An aging population being blamed for the health care crisis and increasing food poverty problems, anyone fancy soylent green for Sunday dinner
That's the Tory narrative.
But it will come down to the exchequer.
Don't forget from their perspective they've been putting back into the economy for an awful long time.
Soylent Green now there was a depressing film.
They say “people living too long is party of the problem.,”
woman came to the surgery Friday morning with her family, she’s 83 in a wheelchair, is constipated. She’s on 6-7 fairly serious medications and has 4-5 co-morbidities ( heart issues diabetes etc etc) Any combination of her illness and drugs maybe causing her issues. Family was upset (put in a complaint) that 1. The GP they saw explained about the difficulties in assessing her, and 2 they didn’t leave the surgery with “a solution” there and then. I think they were expecting to be handed a ‘script for “something…”
that’s pretty much a routine patient. Only stand out was they were upset and complained. We’re seeing more and more elderly and ( increasingly frail ) patients
the upside of NHS is longer life, but along with that expectation you have to fund the cost of care for the elderly population you create. We’re not doing that. In pretty much every speciality we’re creating issues. Monitoring for glaucoma (for instance) is something like 10% of all out patient treatment at most Trusts. That’s only going to increase. It’s not really being funded, and that’s reasonably common.
I'm a spectator to a case at the moment. The amount of resources being thrown at a 90 year old who would by any humanist caring measure be better off dead is phenomenal. I find it hard to believe the system can still provide that level of care and that the staff are motivated to provide it. Impressive but futile.
It's motivated me to find some way of not being put through the same misery myself and finding some legal framework to make sure I'm not plugged into a battery of machines and fed a page long of medication that interacts badly to keep me alive when I'd be better off dead.
I understand why it's happening, the fear of being accused of not providing adequate appropriate care, but FFS let the poor sod go.
I rarely let my private issues colour my contributions to this forum but there you have it.
For balance, my wife (NHS - Care at Home) has an increasingly older patient list but they're mostly still living a happy, meaningful and sometimes very active life. The number of 90 year olds is quite staggering/encouraging. Obviously she only knows this because they still need some intervention but that is often no more than assistance with some personal care or with medication. 8ndeed sometimes it's almost more of a social visit 🙂
The "problem" of an aging population would be easier to handle if we were attracting more, younger, working tax-payers but, you know, immigrants.
The other 90-year-old is living as you say, scotroutes, but can't lift 70kgs, can't change a nappy, can't take someone incapable of movement anywhere without able-bodied assistance, can't rely on the help of super neighbours 24/7, can't cope with the incoherance due to yet another TIA and or blood sodium levels. At what point do you call it a day? IMO a while ago.
Hospital is curently the only solution as the services to maintain home life are unavailable/over stretched.
If society decides to keep people who'd be better of dead alive it creates anguish and misery for all around them if there isn't the specialist home/institutional care available 24/7.
The amount of resources being thrown at a 90 year old who would by any humanist caring measure be better off dead is phenomenal.
Whats that persons viewpoint? IMO thats the only thing that matters
If they want to fight to the end thats their right. If they want to go in peace now thats their right
To deny either path is wrong
I have fought for the rights of people to have what I believe is futile treatment against my own instincts because thats what right morally , legally and ethically
i am also fighting hard for assisted dying right now. Lobbying MSPs with my stories both personal and professional. Ive been on the radio, in the mainstream press and I have met with a number of MSPs.
Can I again suggest that if we want to discuss end of life care / assisted dying and so on then we start a new thread?
Or use this one?
https://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/dignity-in-dying/
I'll answer your question here and then drop the subject, TJ as I didn't wish to contribute to either of the appropriate threads.
The person concerned wanted to, and indeed has now signed a "do not resusitate" document but at the critical time of admission was not deemed to have sufficient capacity to make decisions so was treated without consulting any family member. All very logical and following procedure. Everyone is doing their job just fine.
What I'd like to see is the ability to have a code on my medical card that says "pas d'acharnement thérapeutique" whatever that is in English as of now (I'm 62) and "do not treat without signed consent from either the patient, his wife or his son aged over 85, if they can't be contacted, do not treat".
There will be I am sure some form of living will / advanced care directive / advance care plan in France
Certainly in the UK you can do this and done right its legally binding
My parents have them
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1612056528902656000?t=YBp8paj3cCeRAAuWfXPX4Q&s=19
No second jobs unless it's my mate Lammy.
I'm sure as an upstanding member of the Labour party Lammy will just quit LBC.
Lammy should have really joined Change UK.
Thanks for the helpful reply, TJ, you are absoultely right, I could elaborate but as promised ------------
I’m sure as an upstanding member of the Labour party Lammy will just quit LBC.
A London MP doing a phone in show on an Londoncentric radio channel, where the public can ask questions and debate with them? Arguably he should do it for free, but it is work that it’s worth an MP doing. Not like spending months in the Caribbean giving legal advice.
A London MP doing a phone in show where the public can ask questions? Arguably he should do it for free, but it is work that it’s worth an MP doing. Not like spending months in the Caribbean giving legal advice.
exactly. I don’t particularly like his radio host ‘fake sincere outrage’ style, but it’s absolutely justifiable to be doing this; it’s entirely within an MP’s engagement remit.
Advisory positions on private health company boards, less so…
A London MP doing a phone in show on an Londoncentric radio channel, where the public can ask questions and debate with them? Arguably he should do it for free, but it is work that it’s worth an MP doing. Not like spending months in the Caribbean giving legal advice.
Oh come on it's a commercial radio station where he's the host. That's not the same as your description.
It's this whole wishy-washy rubbish way of talking - no second jobs + followed by a heap of caveats.
Stop buying into the Starmer net of vagueness.
There are plenty of outlets MPs can appear on and not gain income.
Let's just say they can't have second jobs with income. I'd be happy with that.
Stop widening the net specifically for Starmer's not committal approach to everything.
It's not the worst crime of the century but Starmer constantly devalues any ideas he might have with a stream of poor clarity and goal post shifting.
It's not pragmatic it's pathetic.
https://twitter.com/wesstreeting/status/1612165976296140800?s=20&t=VSYXBw5y9u2fNcyURrAMlQ
@Keir_Starmer
: ‘I’m against austerity. But we’re going to have to be fiscally disciplined’
Talk about straddling two ends of a political narrative that you simply can't hold at the same time.
What a shambles. This is worse thank Sunak going on about Maths. This is terrible, needless austerity justification from a party and a leader that should know so much better.
how to say you are going for austerity without saying you are
how to say you are going for austerity without saying you are
Totally.
And guess what we have the previous body of work that is Tory austerity to show its impact.
I couldn't think of a more inappropriate time than now for Starmer to take this absurd position.
Spend more on key areas, reverse some of the shifting of the tax burden towards the less well off, don’t promise the voters that you can spend an unlimited amount of money without tax changes or without it having negative consequences. In other words… we know key public services and the shift away from fossil fuels needs big investment, but we also operate in the real world, not in a theoretical bubble. That isn’t what austerity is/was. Austerity was about cutting services used by, and the real take home pay of, people who have less in order to protect the wealthy from the impacts of at first the global credit crunch, and since then Brexit, Covid, Putin, etc…
Starmer urges Sunak to put NI above 'Brexit purity cult'
Which Sunak can't do of course as he's in hock to the cult.
I'm pleased to see a slight change in language from Starmer though. Anyone want to make a bet on what the daily mail/ express headlines are tomorrow?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-64256883#comments
Starmer knows that he's gotta walk that fine line on Brexit, i can see more and more politicians talking about the damage its caused as the public turn against it.
Be interesting to see which sitting Tory will be the first- not all of them are swivel eyed populists
we know key public services and the shift away from fossil fuels needs big investment, but we also operate in the real world, not in a theoretical bubble. That isn’t what austerity is/was
We haven't been living in the real world. We're living in a world that has been a been skewed towards wealth for a few
And the real world is simply to not run finances like household - because that would serve the economy and society better and reverse the effects of capital over labour.
Nothing will get better until someone pushes the levers in the opposite direction.
40 years of evidence shows us that.
So you can mop up Starmer's position time after time but he's simply reinforcing we can't do things.
I agree with Meadway on the thrust of this but not the mechanics as he's a 'borrowing' lefty economist.
https://twitter.com/meadwaj/status/1612727538245148673?t=QQMOGVbvj9h5G8pxk2G24A&s=19
It's early days but I'm putting this forward for the shittest NHS idea of 2023.
https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1614603335193198592?t=2TtxbDTMxHCFA8Qe_UcWgw&s=19
Also, Bastani could mention the STW Sunak thread would melt down the servers if a Tory said this.
If thats the nonsense about bypassing GPs for direct refferal then that is how many other systems work.
What Starmer fails to understand is then those people being referred to need another layer of triage to sort out the folk who are wrongly self referred or many more staff
Triaging by a non generalist isn’t always a bad first step though. Back problems is a good example: a physio will be better able to suggest the root problem than a GP, even if that means they can’t treat it themselves. They’ll likely still be able to ease the symptoms, as well as passing the patient onto a different specialist. Or bounce them to the GP if need be.
Oh, in addition, it’s also about waiting times (and needing more staff as TJ says). A GP appointment tomorrow, for any symptoms, is preferable to going direct to a specialist in several weeks time. So many things that can be (and need to be) caught quickly, whoever is first contact and doing the triaging.
In Edinburgh they have another layer of triage between GPs and orthopedic referals where you go via a senior physio who cuts out allthe nonsense that does not need ortho consultant appointments
However to do direct referals they will need a huge amount of triage which means many extra staff
I'm not saying it cannot work - it does in the Netherlands but any saving in GP time and cost is matched by extra staff needed to do the triage or extra consultants / registrars / specialist doctors
Its just pandering to the Express and wail readers who believe cumbersome bureaucracy in the NHS leads to delays. Thats just wrong
All paths towards improvement need more staff, and retaining staff, and motivated and properly supported staff. I don’t have a problem with also changing the GP gatekeeper role, and shifting some triaging elsewhere (which also means more staff needed wherever elsewhere is, for sure). It’s only because I’ve been swayed by rants from specialists and managers working for trusts and councils though, they’re not happy with local GPs and the delays for face for face appointments and therefore referrals. I don’t speak to any GPs here though (the ones that lived local left years ago)… so you might hear the same complaints about referrals from them in the other direction, I don’t know. Either way, there is a merit to self referring… it’s a hell of a lot better than people going to A&E to try get answers and reassurance (or treatment) quicker, that’s for sure. Not ready to go with the “worst idea” conclusion that Rone and Bastini are jumping straight to. Elements of playing to the press when it comes to GPs, for sure… but also playing to the public… GP appointments are a problem for many right now, even when a specialist referral is exactly what the patient is really looking for from the outset.
The last thing the NHS needs is major change. major reorganizations which is what this would be takes staff time and energy out of patient care.
What the NHS needs is to remove the bureaucracy of the fake internal market in england and all the nonsense that goes with it then left alone with a bigger budget
Its just pandering to the Express and wail readers who believe cumbersome bureaucracy in the NHS leads to delays.
Totally.
It's more downgrading of stuff. Rather than actual rebuilding.
Pure Tory playbook.
Also - internal bleeding? WTF.
The last thing the NHS needs is major change. major reorganizations which is what this would be takes staff time and energy out of patient care.
What the NHS needs is to remove the bureaucracy of the fake internal market in england and all the nonsense that goes with it then left alone with a bigger budget
I agree to a large extent with both those statements, but they’re contradictory.
There will be some change though, whoever wins the next election. “Leave alone but fix recruitment and retention” won’t be the line that any government takes in the coming years. Probably should be though.
internal bleeding? WTF
Probably referring to stool tests, but a nurse practitioner is likely to handle that rather than the GP anyway.
What the NHS needs is to remove the bureaucracy of the fake internal market in england and all the nonsense that goes with it then left alone with a bigger budget
Unfortunately with some of the things said, I can see a new market being created for corporate providers bidding to provide GP services.
As things stand, they can just buy up practices and take advantage of the current funding arrangements. Centene/Operose being the most obvious example of this.
I can see a new market being created for corporate providers bidding to provide GP services.
Thats clearly was Streeting is offering with his "directly employed GPs" but not changing anything else so private health companies can bid for NHS services
Also – internal bleeding? WTF.
Maybe some The Thick of It-esque clever reference / insider joke referencing the internal fractures and battles within the Labour party?
I'm still hoping that all this is one massive ruse to get the Red Wall Mortgage Man vote back onboard, then once in power he's going to do a "GOTCHA!" and introduce some radical socialist Northern European style project.
Then again......
Probably referring to stool tests, but a nurse practitioner is likely to handle that rather than the GP anyway.
You think so?
Lol.
Give you credit your the only person I've seen try to extract something sensible out this ridiculous comment.
Last person I know who had internal bleeding was rushed to hospital and died in the ambulance.
https://twitter.com/RichardJMurphy/status/1614594213894561792?t=WkcmxgEllJzbVMsNHJ1DlA&s=19
Probably referring to stool tests, but a nurse practitioner is likely to handle that rather than the GP anyway.
Nope. That sort of bleeding is seen by a GP as an urgent appointment. Trust me I know 😳. Even if that is what Starmer was thinking of it's a stupid idea. I doubt a consultant gastroenterologist would be too pleased to have loads of people with haemmorhoids wasting their time.
Too much info 😬 .
I’m not onside with the over the top criticisms of changing the GP gatekeeper role though. Plenty to improve on there. Reform in this area is not a way to cope with GP shortages though. People should have access to their GP when they need it. The only answer to that is more GPs. That doesn’t mean that everything must always start with the GP though…
Plenty to improve on there.
Yup. Physio type injuries are obvious things to take away from the GP. Go to a GP with a bad back and they'll send you away with some painkillers and instructions to rest up, when treatment/advice from a physio would be much more useful.
I actually think technology is the answer here. Seems to me a chat with an AI medical chatbot will be the standard in the not too distant future.
Go to a GP with a bad back and they’ll send you away with some painkillers and instructions to rest up,
No they will not as that is not NICE guidelines. Mine refer to physio
While I think directly employed GPs is a laudable long term aim short term it would be ruinously expensive. I am less confident about removing the gatekeeper role and again - short term ruinously expensive and also very disruptive. wher are yo going to get all the extra staff needed from? How are you going to train them? What premises are they going to work from?
the last thing the NHS needs is more disruptive reoganisation and picking a fight with GPs now is unutterably stupid
Surely first thing to fix should be appointments that's the thing that completely broke during the pandemic and now doesn't seem to have bounced back.
A phone call at 8am? To be told no appointments.
Seems to me that's the first weak link before you even get a GP. And the receptionist is already doing the misguided screening work for free.
"I'm sorry to hear that duck."
Lack of funding and lack of resources.
What if your bad back is something way more serious than a muscle issue. (I mean as it stands my GP never got close to helping me with my chronic bad back. )
I'm sorry but is this the whole point of a GP.
While I think directly employed GPs is a laudable long term aim short term it would be ruinously expensive.
There's no such thing as ruinously expensive when it comes to government spending. Of course there's good value for money in terms of outcomes. But we are so far in the other direction it doesn't bare analysis.
Do you think the Fed calls nearly a trillion dollars on the military ruinously expensive? No they are legally obliged to fulfill Congress' demands. Same in the UK.
Starmer is playing a terrible and regressive game of cutting back and trimming. I've no interest in such a technocrat that can't offer the country what it needs in a time of crisis. Especially when it's leaning more left that it has in the last couple of decades.
Why do these stupid leader feel they have to echo the Daily Mail approach instead of rewriting the narrative to suit the times?
At some point in the future the young will wipe out this reactionary voting.
I actually think technology is the answer here. Seems to me a chat with an AI medical chatbot will be the standard in the not too distant future.
That would route out a lot of things and help speed it all up, as would instant blood tests via finger prick (bit further in future). A lot of people don't actually need to see a doctor and can cover a lot of things over the phone which is the same function AI/ML could perform.