Forum menu
The phoning at 8am thing was bought in by a previous government to reduce waiting lists? It doesn't actually reduce the time you wait but since you are not recorded as waiting the you don't go on the statistics.
More GPs is the answer. One A+E near me has a good system. They have proper A+E for emergencies, GP, nurses and pharmacy. They know people turn up when they shouldn't and adapted to be more efficient. Easier in a major hospital.
The answer is likely to be long term thinking/planning and letting people who understand the problem and have expertise sort it out. Not an MP in the job for a few weeks, only worried about the next election and siphoning money off for personal gain.
Seems to me all this stuff is just deflection to avoid spending money.
I mean AI bots - currently peak AI is to tell you that you will be waiting longer in a queue because it's unprecedented times, and crashing Teslas.
Technology can solve a lot of problems but you can put people to work and give them an income doing these things. And you know you might be in danger of boosting the economy by following such a path.
We need better customer service not worse.
Yup. Physio type injuries are obvious things to take away from the GP.
Manchester has direct access physios. We have one in our practice and patients can self refer. Most GPs also have clinical pharmacists who now do the bulk of medicine management work. ANP and nurses team do the bulk of the diabetes checking (foot checks HR BP) etc etc. Alongside all this though you need to do a ton of patient education. Too many folks see coming to the GP as seeing a doctor, they feel shortchanged if they end up in front of something else even if they get the same (or better) information and they're seen more quickly and get better sooner.
Self referral is fine, there was a couple of CCGs that had a direct access central triage team for ALL referrals (Milton Keynes and a couple on the Welsh Border CCGs IIRC) you create a referral request electronically and it's sent to a central team, they triage (manned by specialists) decide on what level you should be seen and either book the appt or advise where you go. Choose and Book was a variation of this, but didn't cut out the GP.
AI can absolutely do the same function as a GP over the phone. If it determines that you need to actually see the GP it will book an appointment for you just as the GP over the phone may do.
It will actually be better customer service as you can call at any time 24/7.
Can't see how having more GPs doing stuff that can be faster/better/instant via AI is going to boost the economy, you will have to explain that a bit further.
We need better customer service not worse.
One of my partners has suggested in the past that any service that is free to use has intrinsically no worth, and is treated by users accordingly. GP DNA rates are partly driven by the fact that there's no penalty for not going. Make an appt for a couple weeks*, feel better in the mean time, just don't go. no comeback.
* GPs are NOT an urgent care service, this is how it's meant to work.
While I think directly employed GPs is a laudable long term aim
I'm genuinely torn, although there's some issues that need resolving. For instance; I run an inner city GP practice, I can get GP to come to work here because (partly) I can set my own sessional rate at slightly better than the GP at the leafy wealthy part of town just two miles away. If GPs are all going to be paid the same, how will I attract them to come to work for me? What's to stop them going down the road if they'll earn the same? Secondly the GP partnership model works reasonably well. Decent salary, good pension; a business model that's designed to make it hard to fail, but isn't going to make you a millionaire either but will provide a long term secure career. The GP are invested in the practice and the wider PCN to make it a success, and in turn that's better for patients. Agreed that the barrier to entry to new partners is too high, but if you rewrite the contract what's the motivation? Then there's budgets, make everyone a civil servant and the very next thing that comes along is target setting and budget cuts.
AI can absolutely do the same function as a GP
Who holds it's indemnity? what are the AI's qualifications, and experience? is it being monitored for it's prescribing? is it being checked by the CQC to the same standard as clinicians now? To who do I complain if i need to, and what's the redress?
Can’t see how having more GPs doing stuff that can be faster/better/instant via AI is going to boost the economy, you will have to explain that a bit further.
You are using the power of the state to pay someone to do a job that benefits society - especially where there is demand / lack. That is one more employed person too.
That person then spends the state money into the economy through the private sector and generates further growth. Money is then returned via the taxtion system where part of it is deleted out of the economy. Leaving a net expanse of funds in the real economy.
It is exactly how an economy functions, and exactly how growth occurs given the government is the monopoly isser of the £.
Now it's up to you to tell me how you generate growth another way?
AI can absolutely do the same function as a GP over the phone.
Lol - the NHS can't even maintain an operable booking system - never mind AI. Maybe sometime in the future when the basics are fixed.
said he was on TV and trying to be delicate. He was referring to blood you might see when you go to the toilet.
In this case, people should be able to self-refer, he said.
So who would you self refer to? Gastronenterologist? Oncology? General surgeon? Most likely explanation for visible blood is piles and I am sure specialists will love having their time taken up with folk with piles who do not need that specialist care. A nurse would not be able to triage that without a lot of specialist training. Its way beyond the skillset
As Nickc says - self refferal for some conditions can be relatively straightforward. Local to me you can self refer for chiropody for example. I could self refer for back pain but I think that was an internal NHS only service not for the general public
The difficulty with getting GP appoints is I believe ( Nickc / any GPs please correct if wrong) 1) vacancy rates with GP. many practices have vacancies. 2) more GP time taken up with managing very sick folk where their treatment in hospitals has been delayed and 3) a minor factor is the variable service offered by GPs
I can always get an on the day appointment with my GP. always. they do an open ended urgent surgery so there is no fixed number of appointments. They see everyone. There may well be a telephone triage stage tho to weed out those who don't need that urgent appointment
Once again it comes down in large part to the lack of social care causing log jams throughout the system
Most likely explanation for visible blood is piles and I am sure specialists will love having their time taken up with folk with piles who do not need that specialist care.
Yup. Allow these people to self refer and you'll get tens of thousands of people with piles self-referring themselves to specialists thinking they have bowel cancer. Not only does that waste the specialist's time but it leads the patients themselves to suffer days/weeks of anxiety and stress while they wait for their appointment. I can't think of a worse example for self-referral.
More GPs is the answer.
This. Anything else has to be as well as, not instead of, increasing the number of GPs.
Starmer now picking a fight with holyrood over the gender reformact
Now whether you think Scotland has got it right or not on this divisive issue ( I think they have it about right) the bill was fiercely debated, passed holyrood with a huge majority backed by (most of ) the SNP, the greens,labour, lib dems and a few tories.
But Starmer thinks his views should be imposed on the Scots parliament. He accuses the SNP ( ignoring the big cross party support) of using it as a political football. Basically he is saying that the Scots parliament needs a westminster veto even on devolved powers. profoundly undemocratic and he is picking a needless fight - and also not recognising that Scots law is different to English. In Scots law you are an adult at 16
So anti democratic and wrong in law. He really does keep doubling down and gifting the SNP a series of open goals
If being able to change gender at 16 would cause issues in England then what has he got to say about tourists from other countries where gender change at 16 is recognised? Nowt. They would cause these same imaginary issues
Who holds it’s indemnity? what are the AI’s qualifications, and experience?
I guess the indemnity would be held by the NHS, and the qualifications and experience would be the collective knowledge of the dataset which was used to train it. I don't think anyone is suggested AI would replace a GP, instead it would replace the receptionists or the 111 service who ask you a few questions and direct you to the appropriate route for treatment. The limit of it's care would probably be the ability to issue prescriptions for non-harmful conditions, and of course it would probably still have the option to ask to see a real person.
If being able to change gender at 16 would cause issues in England then what has he got to say about tourists from other countries where gender change at 16 is recognised?
I haven't seen anything from Starmer on this, but the UK government are proposing that "tourists" from a whole load of countries will not be recognised as the gender they are in their own countries. All feels a bit Orbán.
They would cause these same imaginary issues
I'm with you on this. Creating fear for political advantage. Do you have a link showing Starmer supporting the UK government as regards blocking the move in Scotland?
Found something @ the Guardian Live feed...
"I am worried about the fact that I think this is being used by the SNP as a sort of devolution political football. And I think it’s being used by the government – or might be used – as a divisive football in relation to the particular issue.
On this whole issue of trans rights, I think the government is looking to divide people rather than bring people together."
...they've got it from LBC. Didn't hear it myself.
In Scots law you are an adult at 16
So why don't they allow a 16 year old adult to buy a pint of beer in a pub?
It doesn't sound very absolute.
Is the formatting mucked up for everyone onthis thred? Its allover the place for me since my cut and past post above. I've reported i to tech
Is the formatting mucked up for everyone onthis thred? Its allover the place for me since my cut and past post above. I’ve reported i to tech
Yeah you broke the thread TJ.
It had to happen eventually - it was just a matter of time.
Toynbee can truly jump through hoops to justify Starmer's Tory posturing but this piece elevates 'Starmerhope' to new levels of Emperor's New Clothes.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jan/16/keir-starmer-nhs-reform-tory-labour
Toynbee is another that has traveled a long way from the left to the right
You are using the power of the state to pay someone to do a job that benefits society – especially where there is demand / lack. That is one more employed person too.
That person then spends the state money into the economy through the private sector and generates further growth. Money is then returned via the taxtion system where part of it is deleted out of the economy. Leaving a net expanse of funds in the real economy.
It is exactly how an economy functions, and exactly how growth occurs given the government is the monopoly isser of the £.
Now it’s up to you to tell me how you generate growth another way?
Yes, I know that thanks. The question was specifically more about why a GP benefits the economy more than anyone else. The person who becomes a GP could go into Science based R&D, engineering and 100 other things that would use their dedication/intellect and also benefit the economy while the automation deals with stuff a GP doesn't need to do.
Guess you will be with the mobs trying to burn down the AI/ML...
Interesting to see some supposed lefty types oppose Starmer/Streeting's idea of making GPs salaried staff. I don't really know enough about it TBH but on the surface it looks like a classic left wing thing to do. Essentially nationalising general practice. If you ask most people of a left persuasion they would advocate the wholesale nationalisation of the NHS and care sectors so I don't know why GPs are an exception? I suppose the devil is in the detail. I see no reason why GPs couldn't have the same autonomy as an NHS employee as they do now.
he question was specifically more about why a GP benefits the economy more than anyone else.
Anyone else? Did we even go there. Apologies I might have missed the reference to that.
Can’t see how having more GPs doing stuff that can be faster/better/instant via AI is going to boost the economy, you will have to explain that a bit further.
There's your question ...
Guess you will be with the mobs trying to burn down the AI/ML…
No idea what you mean there. What mob are you in?
Interesting to see some supposed lefty types oppose Starmer/Streeting’s idea of making GPs salaried staff. I don’t really know enough about it TBH
I think it's based on one Streeting comment about ripping up contracts.
GPs don't like the sound of it though.
How they structure their tax affairs - either employed or self-employed but still paid for by the state - not sure how it has bearing either way. Barely any detail out there from what I've seen.
I'm probably out of the loop on all of this.
What mob are you in?
Everything has to be a polar debate these days.
In this case... are you "pro-Skynet" or a "modern day luddite"... nonsense of course.
The nuance of this one is... both Machine Learning and Expert Systems have a role to play in triage, diagnosis and giving patient advice.... but that doesn't change the fact we need more not fewer GPs with our aging population.
In this case… are you “pro-SkyNet” or a “modern day luddite”… nonsense of course.
Anything that benefits society is good by me. Providing there is a back-stop for employment in the case of AI.
Bring on Fully Automated Communism. 😉
Interesting to see some supposed lefty types oppose Starmer/Streeting’s idea of making GPs salaried staff.
I don’t see how it helps the current crisis in primary care, and given the sample size of just my GPs it’s not massive popular. Most see it as an excuse to take away autonomy and reduce costs as opposed to making the service better for patients, so are suspicious of the motives for it. I guess the devil is in the detail, but without knowing fully what any plans (if there are any beyond just floating the idea to gauge its popularity with voters) we’re all guessing. I’m not completely anti it, but it would need to be carefully implemented; and the history of politicians messing about with folks pay and service contracts in the NHS isn’t a happy one.
Interesting to see some supposed lefty types oppose Starmer/Streeting’s idea of making GPs salaried staff
No problem with GP's being directly employed by the NHS, less so with a layer of corporate contracts siphoning off more NHS money for shareholder profits. Which in reality would probably reduce doctors pay and increase inefficiency and the workload and stress levels of front line staff even more.
less so with a layer of corporate contracts siphoning off more NHS money for shareholder profits.
Surely directly employing GPs within the NHS would eliminate the corporate middlemen who siphon money from the system? Same goes for many other parts of the health and social care system. I see very little downside to directly employing and managing all health and social care professionals. What needs to change though is the top-down hierarchical structure so that GP practices, hospitals, care homes etc are democratically accountable and have the agility to target specific care and support to the community.
Here's a good example of something that needs to be eliminated.. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/jan/15/private-brokers-earn-millions-finding-care-homes-for-nhs-patients
I see very little downside to directly employing and managing all health and social care professionals
who would you include in that? Dentists? Opticians? Pharmacists? Outside of Trusts, huge amounts of public healthcare is provided by private companies and individuals. It’s easy to label it as “corporate” with all the negative implications of that, but the reality is hundreds of small businesses employing millions of folks that will be directly effected by what amounts to huge changes if we were to make them all civil servants
I would certainly change the partner model for GP to make it easier (and cheaper) to join a practice. NHS Scotland for instance recognised that building costs were a major problem in primary care and have undertaken to take ownership of the buildings to relive that pressure. Those sorts of targeted actions have much more of an impact and save huge amounts of public cash (not as sexy a policy though)
Surely directly employing GPs within the NHS would eliminate the corporate middlemen who siphon money from the system?
Who are these corporate middlemen?
I believe salaried GPs properly incorporated into the NHS is a good thing and long overdue
However what i question here is the practicalities, costs and priorities. To do this would cause massive disruption and upheaval and will upset GPs enormously. Given the much more serious and important issues why concentrate on this? Massive reorganizations take up huge amounts of staff time. In the short term it would be counterproductive.
To me its all about copying the tory tactic of divide and conquer / find an enemy within with a side helping of allowing private heathcare companies to bid for contracts to run these directly emplyed GP services
Surely directly employing GPs within the NHS would eliminate the corporate middlemen who siphon money from the system?
The problem is they arent actually saying they would be direct NHS employees but just salaried and left it vague as to what that means.
Which quite a few are currently working for but not part of a GP partnership or for APMS contract eg Operose.
I am more than a little concerned by what Starmer has said about reforming the NHS over the last few days but just read this.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jan/16/keir-starmer-nhs-reform-tory-labour
Any thoughts guys, @tjagain?
I have not read the whole article but Toynbee has moved far to the right. I don't trust a word she, Starmer and Streeting say on the NHS
Starmers attacks on NHS bureaucracy are again him pandering to the express and mail readers to who this is a shibbolth. Streeting is in the pay of private health companies. Starmer is picking an unnecessary fight with GPs again pandering to the right wing press.
the whole thing revolts me
I have not read the whole article but Toynbee has moved far to the right. I don’t trust a word she....
She is just a woman who has managed to secure herself a job which pays quite a lot of money in return for her writing what is on her mind.
She is unelected and there is absolutely no reason why her personal opinions about anything should matter other than because people choose to attach some importance to them. I have no idea why.
I have never read more than maybe a paragraph or two of anything she has written. I very quickly ask myself "why am I reading this shite?"
She is unelected and there is absolutely no reason why her personal opinions about anything should matter other than because people choose to attach some importance to them. I have no idea why
Would this apply to any article from a newspaper columnist ever?
I think the Guardian columnists (Freeland, Rawnsley, Jenkins etc) are fascinating - push for change - change is offered, push back like liberal dopes, then spend the next few years whining about how the Tories are horrific.
I read Toynbees books way back when. She was a leftie with clear ideas and analysis. Over the decades she moved far away from this and became an apologist for the "centrist" wreckers in the labour party using the most absurd local contortions to reach that position.
It’s easy to label it as “corporate” with all the negative implications of that, but the reality is hundreds of small businesses employing millions of folks that will be directly effected by what amounts to huge changes if we were to make them all civil servants
Alternatively there's no profit going out of the system to shareholders. Profits that are rarely re-invested in improvements when push comes to shove. There's usually a lot of talk of doing more with less which in healthcare is a nonsense.
Errmmm- most GPs will be partners not shareholders and there are no profits as such
They take income after expenses. Partners do a lot better than salaried though they have to do more for it - England figs from https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/gp-earnings-and-expenses-estimates/2020-21 (most recent year available):
The estimated average income before tax of GPs in either a General Medical Services or a Primary Medical Services practice was:
£142,000 for contractor GPs [i.e. partners]
£64,900 for salaried GPs
That's not pro-rata so includes part time.
All a long way from Keir. Whatever, this country currently spends in the middle range of Euro counties on health as a proportion of GDP. Less than the higher GDP per capita higher tax northern euro countries. But we pay our doctors relatively highly.
Does that figure for contractor GPs include the money they spend on the practice? They usually have to buy a share of it and pay for improvements. I know the contracts have changed over the years but my pal who is a GP told me his loan repayments for his share of the practice was more than his mortgage on a big posh house in a posh town. Yes he will get the capital back when he retires if he can sell his share but he will not get all the interest back
GPs are well paid - no doubt but why do we have such a shortage of them?
I don't think you are comparing like with like on stating we are in the middle of european spending as GDP for healthcare either
Not me. OECD, see e.g. https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=SHA
Does that figure for contractor GPs include the money they spend on the practice?
No. That's after expenses etc. It's all public. BMA, pulse mag and BMJ careers all use the same figures. GPs aren't badly paid relative to other professions, but medical consultant careers are more attractive and can pay a fair bit more.
There's no shortage of high quality applicants to medical school. Labour's idea is for relatively modest spend expand the number of places on courses to pump out more doctors. I think this is a good idea (my opinion).
£64,900 for salaried GPs
The NHS has to fund NI and pension for salaried staff so the cost is more like £90k.
Wouldnt the salaried staffs NI and pension be paid for by their provider eg normally the GP partners or other organisation?
Cakeism
He is playing us for fools. there is no significantly closer relationship available without CU and SM which he rules out and he must know this
He can fiddle around the edges yes. But he has ruled out anything significant in the way of rapproachment and nothing he suggests will undo the vast bulk of the damage
It’s all been said already, many times, but building a closer relationship isn’t a one step process… we have years, if not decades, of doing this. A slow thawing of relationships and stopping the slide of aggressive divergence and barrier building we’re currently still on (that’s far from over under this government). “Snap your fingers and Brexit is all undone” is fantasy politics.
Yes - and starmer is lying about it. He is playing us for fools.The man has turned into a hard brexiteer. He is now against any significant change. Don't be fooled.
This is interesting, imo anyway, nearly all the pollsters give Labour more than a 20% lead over the Tories, and have done so for a while. Except for two, Deltapoll and Opinium, both of which give Labour a 14-16% lead over the Tories.
It is considerably less than those heady days back in October when Labour were regularly showing well over a 30% lead over the Tories, but I suspect that under present conditions if a snap election was held right now the result would probably be in the region of Tories 30% Labour 45%.
And that would represent one of the worst general election results ever for the Tories, if not the worst.
https://twitter.com/DeltapollUK/status/1614957236408705024
https://twitter.com/theipaper/status/1616198356639907842?t=dWGdmbY9CiXA1cy9YhEYjQ&s=19
Wonder how this will pan out.
Yes – and starmer is lying about it. He is playing us for fools.The man has turned into a hard brexiteer. He is now against any significant change. Don’t be fooled
If it's one thing I've learnt about Starmer is I don't trust him on any position he takes.
He doesn't have a position really.
Depends which way the wind's blowing.
And that would represent one of the worst general election results ever for the Tories, if not the worst.
Different timeframes but I think the Tories are going to claw back some into the Summer.
The magic of inflation and lower interest rates is coming. ("Our independent friends at the BoE are now in a position to lower rates")
Whether it will be enough and the official recession will eventually turn up, who knows. (I believe we're well into one currently but GDP keeps doing these sneaky 0.1% numbers.) Basically no growth which ever way you cut it.
Anyway clearly there's hardly going to be much growth - especially when last year's figures were bolstered by GP spending (i.e government spending.)
Long term I still think the Tories are screwed.
Here in Bassetlaw we just got the 18million levelling up boost. Brendan Clarke-Smith is all over it like a cheap suit.
Imagine having to bid and beg for public money from your own government?
Here in Bassetlaw we just got the 18million levelling up boost. Brendan Clarke-Smith is all over it like a cheap suit.
https://twitter.com/BassetlawDC/status/1616128179282018304?t=qKIphc_tYT2_ubUQ9cLjXA&s=19
And herein is the problem with bidding and grants - it's seen as a massive victory when you get 50p from the government. Despite decades of disintegration.
Levelling up for the red wall. Wonder if they will build an actual red wall?
And herein is the problem with bidding and grants – it’s seen as a massive victory when you get 50p from the government. Despite decades of disintegration.
And from what I can see it encourages bids for "shiny show ponies" that ministers can use for photo ops rather than "work horses" that really help regenerate an area.
Exactly.
Different timeframes but I think the Tories are going to claw back some into the Summer.
Six months ago I would have said that the Tories would claw back much of their support by the time of the general election, but I no longer believe that - imo it will likely be minimal.
The reason is that imo the Tories have become a toxic brand. And Sunak seems to be proving that - he has barely improved the Tories's level of support after taking over from Liz Truss.
The Labour lead throughout Sunak's premiership, and remember this is still supposed to be his "honeymoon period", has been very considerably greater than it was even in the final days of Boris Johnson's dying premiership.
Why is that? The huge collapse in support for the Tories under Liz Truss was fairly understandable, although it still took me by surprise, but why has it barely recovered under Sunak? He hasn't made anything like approaching the blunders that Truss made. And compared to Truss the Tories seem fairly happy with him.
IMO no one could under the current circumstances reverse the Tories's fortunes - after 13 years they have reached their use by date.
Yes I appreciate that inflation will fall so there will be some good news, already it is below the EU average, as is unemployment, but won't be enough to save the Tories devastating rut imo.
Liz Truss sent the Tories into a death spiral which they can't get out of and only several years of Labour governments will correct.
Why is that?
Starmer not painting a target on his head, and increasingly presenting his cabinet as a government in waiting not just an opposition.
Liz Truss sent the Tories into a death spiral which they can’t get out of and only several years of Labour governments will correct.
All I will say they've been on a downward trajectory for some time but things change fast.
Lower inflation, interest rates yet to be seen, possible stave off of recession and some angry migrant stories.
Also, as above sneaky levelling up funds popping up.
Coming into summer will be interesting.
That said they have to fail eventually.
IMO no one could under the current circumstances reverse the Tories’s fortunes – after 13 years they have reached their use by date
Yeah that's my gut feeling too.
It only takes another crazy Black-Swan event and things could spiral again one way or another.
I think you might be exaggerating how much of the Tories's dire situation is down to the state of the economy.
Back in August the Labour lead was mostly in single figures now it is easily double that, I don't think this is because the economic outlook is now so much worse than it was in August.
There are other important factors which come into play, and they tend by even more out of the control of the Tories.
I agree that any perceived improvements in the economy will help them but I think the effect will be fairly minimal. Although time will tell.
I think you might be exaggerating how much of the Tories’s dire situation is down to the state of the economy.
'Lizz' Truss's whole sinking was based on slightly misunderstood mechanisms of the economy and its consequences - even if her direction was cock-eyed.
And I know you love a good poll.
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1616420404863565826?t=s_nTXkYaPnRuDDrGdLF_xA&s=19
Lizz’ Truss’s whole sinking was based on slightly misunderstood mechanisms of the economy and its consequences
The negative reaction to Truss's economic policies came from two different directions - the markets and the voters.
The markets reacted badly to her economic unorthodoxy and voters reacted badly to total injustice of putting money into the pockets of the wealthy during a cost of living crises.
I'm not sure that voters necessarily misunderstood anything - their rejection of trickle down economics seems to have been quite sound imo.
Truss should have learnt the lesson of unfair taxation policies from the downfall of her heroine. She clearly didn't.
rone
Full MemberThe magic of inflation and lower interest rates is coming. (“Our independent friends at the BoE are now in a position to lower rates”)
Yup, they're already trailing that halving interest rates is going to be celebrated as a gigantic win, it's all going to be sold as "down 5%" not "up 10% and then down 5%". And the cost of living crisis will be "solved" by the sun coming out and heating bills falling
The markets reacted badly to her economic unorthodoxy and voters reacted badly to total injustice of putting money into the pockets of the wealthy during a cost of living crises
The markets were over-leveraged (with hedging) in very simple Friday night terms. Fixed very easily with 19bn (not 60bn) BoE regular intervention.
It's as much a problem with that as it was with Trussenomics.
As an aside watch the US going into total meltdown with their self-imposed debt ceiling. Again.
And then watch it amount to nothing.
Apparently the US government might go bust. Lmfao.
Musk going on about government being a bad business with it's debt. Without government 'debt' (asset swap of government money for interest bearing bonds) there would be no private savings or money for the private sector to manipulate.
These people are crackers.
Government debt is your interest bearing savings, bonds, NS&I etc.
Sorry, one more interesting thing - as the world economy starts to diversify again and markets stabilise - money is flowing back out of the dollar, and sterling is gaining strength.
People are going back into risk-on assets. So floating currencies are doing their jobs and we have to stop screaming when they move up and down.
I'm not saying modern market economies don't demand some stability and reassurance - but volatility makes people very wealthy.
There are markets for consumers (that don't really work in our interest) and making billions out of markets for the rest of them.
To go back to the nonsense from streeting and Starmer about further privitisation inthe NHS:
the NHS england fake market set up by the tories to allow privitisation costs £4.5 billion a year. thats £4.5 billion per year NHS england could have for patient care just by eliminating that and costs to eliminate it are low. This is exactly what the SNP did in Scotland. remove the fake market with minimal other alterations, leave the organisation pretty much alone after that
Privitisation also cost lives - 500 or so a year
The right to roam will be amazing if they put it through.
It is a good thing, but it has got to be pretty near the bottom of the list of priorities.
pretty near the bottom of the list of priorities
Labour keep overly tight discipline on policy announcements to keep focus and get message across - "Labour have no policies".
Labour front bencher briefs on what Labour are preparing in his policy area - "the wrong priorities".
As the election draws closer, this is what they risk - "why are Labour talking about that, it doesn't effect me" - but also, if they are to form a government and hit the ground running, they need to have prepared in every policy area. Every one. Most of the policy teams seem to be following a shut up and get on with it strategy, but that approach must end at some point.
Was there not a previous "right to roam" act in England that is so full of restrictions and caveats it was useless? Also excludes cycling and the current campaign in England excludes cycling
Don't expect anything like the scottish right to roam from this.
Yes, cycling looks to be excluded. Revision for National Parks to go beyond the "pass across/though" limitation of the existing legislation down here seems a small but welcome step. It's not Scottish level access, but the change in the law is needed ASAP to prevent landowners using the law as it currently stands to further limit the public enjoying the great outdoors. This can be done quickly.
Could go in the Brexit thread
but quite interesting
I suspect that were the economy to pick up that bregret might fall, but for now, it explains labour's stance
https://twitter.com/anandMenon1/status/1619998681427763202
We're over 18 months from an election, and the tories will throw some treats at the voters 6 months out, add to that the reality that a lot of those disapproving are going to vote how they always vote, and it'll not be a huge win for Labour, i'd settle for any win, as this country reminds me so much of the US at times, where Republicans will always vote, no matter the candidate, whereas Democrats tends to be apathetic and not vote when they're not happy, it's the same with the tory voters, they'll whinge, they'll moan, but put them in a voting booth and they'll tick for the tory candidate.
People are clearly changing their minds on Brexit. Whilst the bigoted, selfish and thick old gits who voted for it are unlikely to change their minds, they are dying* and being replaced by young voters strongly in favour of remain/rejoin.
Any labour leader who doesn’t seize the opportunity to appeal to these voters by offering pathways (however long they are) back to the EU is throwing away a generation of party support. It could put the tories of the game for decades.
* I won’t apologise for any of that. If you still support brexit, you’re all those things and more. But mostly the thick bit. And before anyone says “you won’t win them over by calling them names” - I don’t want to. I’m probably, statistically, younger than they are, so I’ll just wait until they’re gone.
https://twitter.com/LeftieStats/status/1624828006471540736?t=Y-iJxqGXyoQuIVbl45WCZA&s=19
30p Lee bounce
30p Lee bounce
I'm not sure he can take all the credit
The change is compared to last November, just after Truss's kamikwasi budget
Migration has become the thing for both parties to unwelcome now.
30p Lee is their main strategist.
This is how the election will be operated.