Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[Typhoon]

Blair and Brown used the prosperity of the 90s to create 600,000 public sector jobs, and their associated pensions. I’d say that was quite a radical and expensive change…

Doesn't it depend on what the public sector jobs were (I don't know)?

 

[Enthusiast]

It’s 700,000 cars representing about 10% of cars in the new zones...

It's not just the vehicles in the extended ULEZ zone. It also effects all those in the Home Counties who need to travel into the outer London boroughs.

 

[takno]

Doesn't it depend on what the public sector jobs were (I don't know)?

At a quick google it looks like 80% of them were in the health service and education, and they failed to make up for the public sector cuts in the previous 7 years, so essentially sensible moderate and fairly cheap staff deployed with a laser focus on the areas which people care about.

 

[oldman]

Blair and Brown used the prosperity of the 90s to create 600,000 public sector jobs, and their associated pensions. I’d say that was quite a radical and expensive change…

The definition of public sector keeps changing so headline comparisons don't mean much. Network Rail is public sector, Railtrack wasn't. RBS became public sector for a while. Further education colleges became public sector just last year. It doesn't mean the workers suddenly get better pensions.

 

[The Ham]

But will it be a fact of life and a non issue?

When the full implications of this become clear and people have to start paying £12.50 per day because their vehicle doesn't meet some arbitrary emissions standard, and they just don't have the money to replace that vehicle, they are not going to sit back quietly and accept it as fact.

Look at what has happened over so called "low traffic neighbourhoods", some of whch have had to be scrapped because of the level of opposition to them.

And who believes that the charge will stay at £12.50 for very long?

The numbers impacted are likely to be low, with the cost of a exempt vehicle being limited.

A lot is said about how can those on low incomes afford to replace their vehicles, well given the average car costs over £3,000 per year to run (and whilst an average few are going to cost under £1,800 per year), it's not all that significant. Potentially it could be too a few (for example having just brought a vehicle and therefore being out of pocket), however with more and more locations brining in similar zones such a move would have been unwise.

Once it's up and running, chances are the anger about it will dissipate fairly quickly from the vast majority of people (not least from those who find that they actually own a vehicle excempt from the charge).

That's not too say that there won't be people negatively impacted by this increase in zone, however there are schemes being put in place to aid people to change their vehicle.

The problem is the current trans law creates a catch 22 - you need to live as the opposite gender for 2 years before being eligible for surgery. So a trans person has to use the opposite gender toilets despite having not physically had surgery. Most other European states have reduced that requirement to 6 months and 2 or 3 approvals from different psychiatrists - once you’ve done that, you can either get the surgery if self funding, or join the queue for the state healthcare system doing it. It’s a very complex problem that should sit outside cheap electoral soundbites and posturing.

Generally, as a member of the LGBT community, attacks on trans make me very uncomfortable - as shown in Florida, once trans people are othered, LGB tends to be next - as shown by bans on drag and the banning of any LGBT education in schools (section 28 has basically been brought back in Florida). In the U.K., I assumed that social rights were a done deal and the focus should be on growing the economy and improving public services. Sunak seems to be reopening that settlement, and that makes me very uneasy.

It's very easy to "encouraged" to hold a view about people different to oneself - the reality is that they are likely to have found life difficult (the more they deviate from the norm the harder it is) and so it's not likely to be something anyone would do lightly.

The reality is that it's complex. In that you can't define things easily. Go too far one way and there a risk that men use it to carry out harm to women, whilst go too far the other and it runs the risk of hate crimes against people beyond just those who are transgender.

As I (and probably many MP's making comments on this matter) don't fall into either camp (i.e. not being a women or LBQT+), I would suggest that the best course of action is to listen to those most likely to be impacted on both sides and come to a measured outcome and not a knee jurk reaction.

(Unfortunately I fear that those who look and sound most like those who are supposed to be listening will be those who win out - so most likely male, over 50, middle class, white, straight, privately educated, etc. Even if individual MP's do listen and, more importantly, understand; the risk is that they will be subject to the Whips and "encouraged" to vote on party lines).

 

[Typhoon]

At a quick google it looks like 80% of them were in the health service and education, and they failed to make up for the public sector cuts in the previous 7 years, so essentially sensible moderate and fairly cheap staff deployed with a laser focus on the areas which people care about.

Thank you. Unfortunately 'public sector' has an association with civil servants sitting around at their desks coming up with more policies to make the the life of the average man in their Vauxhall Corsa more miserable.

Instead they were fulfilling key points in their 1997 manifesto:

Over the five years of a Labour government:

1. Education will be our number one priority, and we will increase the share of national income spent on education as we decrease it on the bills of economic and social failure.​

......

5. We will rebuild the NHS, reducing spending on administration and increasing spending on patient care*​

So electors got what they voted for!

The definition of public sector keeps changing so headline comparisons don't mean much. Network Rail is public sector, Railtrack wasn't. RBS became public sector for a while. Further education colleges became public sector just last year. It doesn't mean the workers suddenly get better pensions.

I didn't know that. I will now be able to boast that I spent half my working life in the private sector. Oddly, I recently read that my erstwhile colleagues have been directed to wear suits to work - so they are having to smarten up now they are in the public sector!

I do note that as of March 2023, almost 60% of those in the public sector worked in education or for the NHS! Which, I am sure, some of us will view positively.

* - between 1999 (the first year easily available) and 2010 the number of people working for the NHS went up by over 30%. This pre-dates the Lansley reforms which seemed to introduce bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy. (Data courtesy of the Office of National Statistics.)

 

[Snow1964]

I do note that as of March 2023, almost 60% of those in the public sector worked in education or for the NHS! Which, I am sure, some of us will view positively.

* - between 1999 (the first year easily available) and 2010 the number of people working for the NHS went up by over 30%. This pre-dates the Lansley reforms which seemed to introduce bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy. (Data courtesy of the Office of National Statistics.)

Like a lot of organisations, the quantity of staff is very bad indicator.

Much better when they give the percentage involved directly in providing the service. It's very easy to create jobs that basically just do repeat admin, or spend their time arranging meetings about when to hold a meeting, nothing on the front line.

The NHS is bogged down in bureaucracy, not uncommon to see 3 or 4 nurses waiting whilst one is one phone trying to transfer a patient. There is no modern logistics tracking like you would see on a parcel, or porters getting computerised instructions, basically everything is done with lots of staff that aren't actually making patient healthy, but are instead tail chasing to keep up.

 

[najaB]

The NHS is bogged down in bureaucracy, not uncommon to see 3 or 4 nurses waiting whilst one is one phone trying to transfer a patient. There is no modern logistics tracking like you would see on a parcel, or porters getting computerised instructions, basically everything is done with lots of staff that aren't actually making patient healthy, but are instead tail chasing to keep up.

Sounds a lot like the US medical system, to be fair. About 30% of US healthcare spending goes into the cost of administering their excessively complex system.

 

[The Ham]

Like a lot of organisations, the quantity of staff is very bad indicator.

Much better when they give the percentage involved directly in providing the service. It's very easy to create jobs that basically just do repeat admin, or spend their time arranging meetings about when to hold a meeting, nothing on the front line.

The NHS is bogged down in bureaucracy, not uncommon to see 3 or 4 nurses waiting whilst one is one phone trying to transfer a patient. There is no modern logistics tracking like you would see on a parcel, or porters getting computerised instructions, basically everything is done with lots of staff that aren't actually making patient healthy, but are instead tail chasing to keep up.

Some of the "nurses waiting whilst one is in the phone trying to transfer a patient" could be down to the fact that admin staff get cut as they aren't providing care to patients.

The reality is that often it can be better to have some admin staff so that those (often higher paid) clinical staff can actually do clinical work.

It certainly shouldn't be impossible to be able to have a computer based transfer service which staff could request a transfer and then are informed to make the transfer, with the recieving ward getting a notification of a new arrival once a person had be allocated.

I suspect there's likely to be cases where a person to person would be beneficial (Patient x is due to discharge in 30 minutes, so send Patient Y over now as by the time they get here there will be space for them.

However the receiving ward could be notified of requests and either then allow early access (to deal with the above case) or could prioritise those which need their care more than others.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Sounds a lot like the US medical system, to be fair. About 30% of US healthcare spending goes into the cost of administering their excessively complex system.

We all know how expensive the US system is for relatively poor coverage and I'd imagine almost no-one wants to emulate that in the UK, so I doubt that makes a good comparison. I think a more interesting question would be how the NHS compares with the various European healthcare systems in terms of bureaucracy?

 

[takno]

Like a lot of organisations, the quantity of staff is very bad indicator.

Much better when they give the percentage involved directly in providing the service. It's very easy to create jobs that basically just do repeat admin, or spend their time arranging meetings about when to hold a meeting, nothing on the front line.

The NHS is bogged down in bureaucracy, not uncommon to see 3 or 4 nurses waiting whilst one is one phone trying to transfer a patient. There is no modern logistics tracking like you would see on a parcel, or porters getting computerised instructions, basically everything is done with lots of staff that aren't actually making patient healthy, but are instead tail chasing to keep up.

I don't know what hospital you've been at recently, but I've been spending 2-3 hours on various wards recently and this doesn't reflect my experience on any of them. At the very least they had absolutely everything tracked on computers, with every dose of drugs, every meal and every procedure logged and managed via barcodes.

There was certainly a degree of chaos and ringing around, but that mostly reflected the fact that coronary care was full up due to the underinvestment in facilities to do everything from basic angiograms to heart surgery, and the patients were backing up into AMU and stopping other patients from being able to get out of ambulances.

There was also a fair amount of what could have been regarded as overstaffing and standing around, but that mostly reflected that modern logistics systems need input, and patient outcomes are improved by accurately logging what happens. Additionally there are staff taking a breath between periods of intense work, and waiting to be able to respond quickly to anything from an urgent bedpan request to a code being called.

With respect, most logistics staff dumped into a ward job in a typical hospital would probably have a breakdown in about 5 minutes

 

[Yew]

The NHS is bogged down in bureaucracy, not uncommon to see 3 or 4 nurses waiting whilst one is one phone trying to transfer a patient. There is no modern logistics tracking like you would see on a parcel, or porters getting computerised instructions, basically everything is done with lots of staff that aren't actually making patient healthy, but are instead tail chasing to keep up.

Perhaps this is due to the lack of investment over the last decade, under the Conservative Party? If there was less pressure to cut costs, we could have invested and have a more efficient organisation; instead, once again the Tories have shown that they are penny-wise and pound-foolish.

 

[nw1]

According to the Times, the Tories are going to double down on transgender rights (as in getting rid) and putting the boots into migrants as their election strategy. Wow i so look forward to that. Using poor and marginalised peoples' lives for their own gain. The Tories really do deserve to be wiped out for good.

Yawn, same old same old from Sunak.

The Tories need to realise they need to move towards the centre if they want to capture votes.

There is already a party representing the populist right: Reform UK. The Tories should let that party get on with that and concentrate on being a centre-right party again.

Never mind the parlous state of the NHS, the cost of living, job security concerns due to recent developments in AI, and cuts to public services - the big problems, apparently, are immigrants and trans people!

 

[edwin_m]

Yawn, same old same old from Sunak.

The Tories need to realise they need to move towards the centre if they want to capture votes.

There is already a party representing the populist right: Reform UK. The Tories should let that party get on with that and concentrate on being a centre-right party again.

Never mind the parlous state of the NHS, the cost of living, job security concerns due to recent developments in AI, and cuts to public services - the big problems, apparently, are immigrants and trans people!

They are worried that Reform UK will syphon off votes, as UKIP and Brexit Party threatened to do so previously, so extracting concessions on Tory policy.

Unlike in 2019 many centrist voters will see Labour as a credible alternative (despite what some on this forum might say) particular if the Tories go too far to the right.

 

[DustyBin]

The problem is the current trans law creates a catch 22 - you need to live as the opposite gender for 2 years before being eligible for surgery. So a trans person has to use the opposite gender toilets despite having not physically had surgery. Most other European states have reduced that requirement to 6 months and 2 or 3 approvals from different psychiatrists - once you’ve done that, you can either get the surgery if self funding, or join the queue for the state healthcare system doing it. It’s a very complex problem that should sit outside cheap electoral soundbites and posturing.

Six months doesn’t seem very long to me, although I suspect that in most (if not all) cases the whole process (i.e. from first experiencing gender dysphoria to actually having surgery) takes a lot longer.

I completely agree with your final sentence.

Generally, as a member of the LGBT community, attacks on trans make me very uncomfortable - as shown in Florida, once trans people are othered, LGB tends to be next - as shown by bans on drag and the banning of any LGBT education in schools (section 28 has basically been brought back in Florida). In the U.K., I assumed that social rights were a done deal and the focus should be on growing the economy and improving public services. Sunak seems to be reopening that settlement, and that makes me very uneasy.

Florida is very different to the UK obviously, but I do see where you’re coming from. LGB rights have improved massively in my lifetime (and I’m not that old!) and things absolutely mustn’t be allowed to regress in this regard. Anecdotally, I’ve found that the majority of people view LGB and T rather differently, rightly or wrongly.

 

[nw1]

Florida is very different to the UK obviously, but I do see where you’re coming from.

Florida is doing a heck of a lot to undo its international reputation. It was previously a swing state and I always imagined Miami to be something of a "cool" place - I've never been even close to Florida (closest I ever got was Atlanta airport, to change planes) but that was the image it always projected.

 

[Typhoon]

Florida is very different to the UK obviously, but I do see where you’re coming from. LGB rights have improved massively in my lifetime (and I’m not that old!) and things absolutely mustn’t be allowed to regress in this regard. Anecdotally, I’ve found that the majority of people view LGB and T rather differently, rightly or wrongly.

It strikes me that De Santis is trying to out-Trump Trump.

 

[takno]

Florida is very different to the UK obviously, but I do see where you’re coming from. LGB rights have improved massively in my lifetime (and I’m not that old!) and things absolutely mustn’t be allowed to regress in this regard. Anecdotally, I’ve found that the majority of people view LGB and T rather differently, rightly or wrongly.

There has been a degree of determination to conflate the two on the part of a lot of pressure groups like Stonewall. Whatever the rights and wrongs supporting other oppressed minorities and not-pulling-up-the-ladder, this has created a lot of pressure on LGB rights in the UK, and has made it extremely easy in other countries to push an agenda which threatens LGB rights alongside not helping trans rights. Given that there is a pretty arguable case that LGB rights and lifestyle are themselves directly threatened by some pro-trans actions this is a bit of a double-whammy

Overall the recent Labour statement on the matter was pretty reassuring, and showed that at least somebody is trying to listen to the discussion and build a consensus way forward rather than regressing into tribal warfare.

 

[Purple Train]

It strikes me that De Santis is trying to out-Trump Trump.

Trying to trump Trump, perhaps?

 

[simonw]

But will it be a fact of life and a non issue?

When the full implications of this become clear and people have to start paying £12.50 per day because their vehicle doesn't meet some arbitrary emissions standard, and they just don't have the money to replace that vehicle, they are not going to sit back quietly and accept it as fact.

Look at what has happened over so called "low traffic neighbourhoods", some of whch have had to be scrapped because of the level of opposition to them.

And who believes that the charge will stay at £12.50 for very long?

Today I received a letter from M r Khan the telling me that my car will be charged £12.50 a day if/when the zone is expanded.

On the reverse side were some (What looked like) very reasonable offers to scrap the car and also details of scrape schemes available to Tradespeople.

 

[duncanp]

Today I received a letter from M r Khan the telling me that my car will be charged £12.50 a day if/when the zone is expanded.

On the reverse side were some (What looked like) very reasonable offers to scrap the car and also details of scrape schemes available to Tradespeople.

It depends on the terms of the scrappage scheme, for both personal and business motorists.

But if they still end up having to pay out some money to get a ULEZ compliant vehicle, that will be a cost to them which may be difficult in the current economic circumstances.

 

[simonw]

It depends on the terms of the scrappage scheme, for both personal and business motorists.

But if they still end up having to pay out some money to get a ULEZ compliant vehicle, that will be a cost to them which may be difficult in the current economic circumstances.

Well the details are easily Googleble

Scrappage scheme

The Mayor's new £110m scrappage scheme will help clear London's air by providing grant payments to eligible Londoners to scrap or retrofit the most polluting vehicles. This is to help them prepare for the ULEZ expansion on 29 August 2023

tfl.gov.uk

 

[DustyBin]

There has been a degree of determination to conflate the two on the part of a lot of pressure groups like Stonewall. Whatever the rights and wrongs supporting other oppressed minorities and not-pulling-up-the-ladder, this has created a lot of pressure on LGB rights in the UK, and has made it extremely easy in other countries to push an agenda which threatens LGB rights alongside not helping trans rights. Given that there is a pretty arguable case that LGB rights and lifestyle are themselves directly threatened by some pro-trans actions this is a bit of a double-whammy

Overall the recent Labour statement on the matter was pretty reassuring, and showed that at least somebody is trying to listen to the discussion and build a consensus way forward rather than regressing into tribal warfare.

This is my take on it as well, albeit very much as an outsider looking in. That said, I do have a couple of friends who are LG and they share the same view (and indeed concerns).

You’re absolutely right as well regarding the need for an actual discussion and consensus way forward; it all feels rather toxic at present.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Jul 2023 ==

It depends on the terms of the scrappage scheme, for both personal and business motorists.

But if they still end up having to pay out some money to get a ULEZ compliant vehicle, that will be a cost to them which may be difficult in the current economic circumstances.

It’s worth noting as well that due to (enormously) inflated values, there’s never been a worse time to buy a used vehicle. People are being shafted here (again), whichever way you look at it.

 

[350401]

This is my take on it as well, albeit very much as an outsider looking in. That said, I do have a couple of friends who are LG and they share the same view (and indeed concerns).

You’re absolutely right as well regarding the need for an actual discussion and consensus way forward; it all feels rather toxic at present.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Jul 2023 ==



It’s worth noting as well that due to (enormously) inflated values, there’s never been a worse time to buy a used vehicle. People are being shafted here (again), whichever way you look at it.

I was pleased to see the Labour policy, it seems quite workable compared to the current policy and comes across as a fair way of balancing the needs of the trans community and needs for single sex spaces for women.

As a gay man, I have noticed a distinct increase in homophobia in the last year or so. There has been a lot of conflating LGB and T rights by homophobes, who basically use (often baseless IMHO) concerns about Trans to be old school homophobic. My partner and I have been cat called on the tube in the last year for holding hands and I’ve been spat at. And to counter a (hurtful) trope, I’m not particularly flamboyant - we were in bog standard casual clothes. One of my friends had a decorator refuse to decorate their flat because they are gay.

It’s getting worse and I hold both Sunak and Badenoch and the “anti woke” GB news crowd accountable for this. Partly because of this (and partly due to crashing the economy, the NHS, railways etc) I’ve gone from being a Cameroon-esque Conservative supporter (socially and economically liberal) to resolving to never voting for them and supporting whoever will kick them out.

 

[The Ham]

“anti woke” GB news

The "news" channel which is so anti establishment that it fears about being shut down by the establishment, yet has several current MP's as staff (including the deputy chairman of the Tory Party).

 

[dgl]

When you're responsible for most of the current ills then you need someone to blame, naturally something a lot of their supporters don't understand and something that was "not accepted" when they were young is a perfect section of society to blame.
It's something that in history has happened regularly and unfortunately starting to get more common again.

 

[birchesgreen]

Rights should never be taken for granted.

 

[nw1]

It strikes me that De Santis is trying to out-Trump Trump.

And does the US really need any more of these foaming-at-the-mouth, hard-right extremists?

I see he wants to restrict abortion too.

It's the ultimate hypocrisy that these people call themselves "libertarian". They are not. DeSantis is self evidently a meddling busybody who wants to stick his beak into people's private affairs, and to be quite frank, it is none of his business. He is in no way a libertarian, but rather, a dangerous authoritarian.

Maybe the ultimate humiliation for DeSantis would be to be forced to wear drag and, simultaneously, be forced to teach children about LGBT rights.

 

[Yew]

And does the US really need any more of these foaming-at-the-mouth, hard-right extremists?

I see he wants to restrict abortion too.

It's the ultimate hypocrisy that these people call themselves "libertarian". They are not. DeSantis is self evidently a meddling busybody who wants to stick his beak into people's private affairs, and to be quite frank, it is none of his business. He is in no way a libertarian, but rather, a dangerous authoritarian.

Maybe the ultimate humiliation for DeSantis would be to be forced to wear drag and, simultaneously, be forced to teach children about LGBT rights.

I must admit, I do find both wings of the "Ban Brigade", abortion in the US, and banning Smoking in NZ to both be abhorrent.

 

[najaB]

I must admit, I do find both wings of the "Ban Brigade", abortion in the US, and banning Smoking in NZ to both be abhorrent.

The difference being that (a) smoking does affect other people, it's not just personal choice; and (b) people who are currently old enough to smoke will be free to choose to do so if they want to.