Amber Rudd resigns

[Domh245]

and won't take much pleasure in saying "I told you so" when the consequences dawn on the leftists and rightists.

They'll get to feel really smug though, which is about all they've have left to cling on to if everything collapses around them.

 

[Tetchytyke]

someone actually starts to control NHS spending, make it more accountable, and improve efficiency.

The NHS is efficient. It really is. The inefficiencies are part of the push to introduce an internal market to a natural monopoly.

The idea the NHS is a "black hole" is just yet another way of deflecting from the real issue, which is that an ageing population means more people need more expensive medical interventions. And need more expensive and extensive social care.

Much of the "bed blocking is happening because local authorities- who've seen budget cuts of up to 40% in real terms- are no longer able to provide the extensive social care that's required to get vulnerable people out of hospital.

NHS costs WILL go up as people live longer and require more expensive and extensive medical interventions. It's not "inefficient", it's a simple fact that medical miracles cost cash, and lots of it. Cutting edge cancer treatments can easily cost half a million quid a pop. Even ten years ago that money wouldn't be spent: the patient would have died.

So yes, NHS funding will go up and up. And, as we've seen with Alfie Evans, there isn't the option to simply not pay the cost. So people really have a choice: higher taxes or no medical miracles. "Inefficiency" is just a way of kicking this tough choice into the long grass.

 

[northwichcat]

Mind you the Tory plan of not spending any money on the health service doesn't seem to be working well either!

If the Tories stay in power for too long we'll probably end up as a tax free nation which has no public services and we'll end up getting invoices from private companies for using the roads.

 

[northwichcat]

Back on topic, replacing Amber Rudd with Sajid Javed has put a mild Remainer in a key cabinet role and a much more radical one on the back benches. Let's see where that goes.

Question is who's going to replace Javed. Are we going to get a fresh face or are there going to be a few positions changing yet?

 

[Domh245]

Question is who's going to replace Javed. Are we going to get a fresh face or are there going to be a few positions changing yet?

James Brokenshire, former SoS for Northern Ireland. He'd stood down from that post because he was undergoing cancer (I think?) surgery, but evidently he's back up and running again.

 

[northwichcat]

Cutting edge cancer treatments can easily cost half a million quid a pop. Even ten years ago that money wouldn't be spent: the patient would have died.

Patients with incurable cancer gets palliative care - that costs money but how much it costs depends how long they carry on living after being diagnosed as having incurable cancer. What has changed is when cancer is and isn't seen as curable.

Terminal cancer is also a reason for 'bed blocking', someone can be discharged from hospital with terminal cancer and able to go back to their own home but then the next time they are admitted to hospital the hospital is unable to discharge them unless they have a care home place.

 

[Raul_Duke]

Diane Abbott had car crash of an interview about the Windrush scandal this morning.

In the last five minutes you can really see the wheels come off*...

*despite the fact you can see her being audibly prompted with what to say.

http://bit.ly/2JDvU0o

 

[jellybaby]

we'll end up getting invoices from private companies for using the roads

I'd love invoices for road use. Get rid of VED and fuel tax and charge based on the wear to the road, tail pipe emissions and contribution to congestion. Something closer to railway pricing.

 

[Tetchytyke]

What has changed is when cancer is and isn't seen as curable.

That's really what I was driving at. We have cancer that is treatable now that even ten years ago would have resulted in nothing more than inflating the patient with morphine and sending them on their way.

It's the same across all aspects of medicine. Babies can survive in incubators from as early as 25 weeks these days. Even a few years ago when my eldest was born it was more like 30 weeks as the floor for survival, babies born before then would really only receive (very brief) palliative care. It's a miracle but it costs money. An intensive care bed for a premature baby costs over two grand a day. That sort of money requires a long, difficult, conversation about whether we spend it or not. Wibble about "NHS efficiencies" and a "black hole for money" just distract from this.

 

[Domh245]

That's really what I was driving at. We have cancer that is treatable now that even ten years ago would have resulted in nothing more than inflating the patient with morphine and sending them on their way.

It's the same across all aspects of medicine. Babies can survive in incubators from as early as 25 weeks these days. Even a few years ago when my eldest was born it was more like 30 weeks as the floor for survival, babies born before then would really only receive (very brief) palliative care. It's a miracle but it costs money. An intensive care bed for a premature baby costs over two grand a day. That sort of money requires a long, difficult, conversation about whether we spend it or not. Wibble about "NHS efficiencies" and a "black hole for money" just distract from this.

The current "hospital" show on the BBC is really quite eye opening about some of these points. The episode from a couple of weeks ago had a young girl (22 months) in Paediatric Intensive Care who had pneumonia. She was born at 24 weeks and has spent 10 months in hospital. They mentioned that keeping her alive so far has cost the NHS somewhere in the region of £1million - like you say, it's a miracle but it costs money.

The episode last week looked at the challenges facing them in terms of getting patients back out again. I've not watched all of it so far but from what I saw it was again eye opening.

 

[NorthernSpirit]

What the heck those of us in the centre do.

Vote UKIP instead. Whether you like them or not as they're also a centrist party and are an alternative to the other three, look how well they did in 2014.

I've mentioned before, my mates father is staunchly Labour but since Corbyn is leader, he's voting UKIP instead as even he can't face having a Labour government headed by Corbyn. So that's at least one Labour voter who has opened their mind a little and are, in their view, taking a risk.

 

[cactustwirly]

Vote UKIP instead. Whether you like them or not as they're also a centrist party and are an alternative to the other three, look how well they did in 2014.

I've mentioned before, my mates father is staunchly Labour but since Corbyn is leader, he's voting UKIP instead as even he can't face having a Labour government headed by Corbyn. So that's at least one Labour voter who has opened their mind a little and are, in their view, taking a risk.

What!!

UKIP definately isn't centre! It's very much a right wing party.
Labour & Conservatives were centre-ish, when Cameron, Blair, Brown & Miliband were leaders.
No point voting for UKIP now, it's on the verge of bankruptcy and Brexit is happening, so they've got no purpose.

Well according to the Guardian, a new centrist party is in the process of being formed for the next election.
That will turn the tables, I imagine there will be some defections from Labour if Corbyn is still at the helm.

 

[northwichcat]

Vote UKIP instead. Whether you like them or not as they're also a centrist party and are an alternative to the other three, look how well they did in 2014.

I've mentioned before, my mates father is staunchly Labour but since Corbyn is leader, he's voting UKIP instead as even he can't face having a Labour government headed by Corbyn. So that's at least one Labour voter who has opened their mind a little and are, in their view, taking a risk.

UKIP's main policies are getting out of the EU and reducing immigration (right wing policies.) A lot of their other policies started off as something they heard another party saying that they decided to adopt. For example, The Greens decided to oppose HS2 because while they support improved rail links they don't support so much being spent on one project while many local routes are crying for improvements. Soon after the Greens announced that, UKIP announced they were also anti-HS2 and in favour of better local rail links. Their taxation policy is centrist but it's been copied from the SNP. Their health policy was very right wing but it seems they've backed down over charging for doctor's appointments now.

 

[Domh245]

Vote UKIP instead. Whether you like them or not as they're also a centrist party and are an alternative to the other three, look how well they did in 2014.

UKIP? Centrist? Hahahahahahaha! They're an alternative yes, but by almost any account they're anything but centrist. They started off centrist and certainly weren't centrist in 2014, and they've only lurched rightwards since.

I also don't get this idea of voting for someone who you're opposed to because you dislike the other parties. It's like the people who supported Bernie and then voted for Trump because he wasn't Hillary - look how that turned out! If you dislike the options on the ballot paper, write expletives or draw whatever you like all over it to officially spoil it. Don't endorse parties that go against your principles just because they're "alternative"

 

[Domh245]

A lot of their other policies started off as something they heard another party saying that they decided to adopt. For example, The Greens decided to oppose HS2 because while they support improved rail links they don't support so much being spent on one project while many local routes are crying for improvements. Soon after the Greens announced that, UKIP announced they were also anti-HS2 and in favour of better local rail links. Their taxation policy is centrist but it's been copied from the SNP. Their health policy was very right wing but it seems they've backed down over charging for doctor's appointments now.

AKA populists (or opportunists!)

 

[northwichcat]

Well according to the Guardian, a new centrist party is in the process of being formed for the next election.

Is that the one that Euan Blair is behind? If it works and existing MPs transfer from Labour, Lib Dems and the Conservatives and they become the governing party it would have similarities with Canadian politics. In Canada the PM is a centrist who is leader of the Liberal party but the son of a former PM, who was a Conservative, while they also have a New Democratic Party (with ideals similar to those of Corbyn) which isn't likely to ever win an election but has grown quite a bit in recent years.

 

[cactustwirly]

Is that the one that Euan Blair is behind? If it works and existing MPs transfer from Labour, Lib Dems and the Conservatives and they become the governing party it would have similarities with Canadian politics. In Canada the PM is a centrist who is leader of the Liberal party but the son of a former PM, who was a Conservative, while they also have a New Democratic Party (with ideals similar to those of Corbyn) which isn't likely to ever win an election but has grown quite a bit in recent years.

No, Simon Franks is behind this one

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...tical-party-break-mould-westminster-uk-brexit

New centrist party gets £50m backing to ‘break mould’ of UK politics
Plans secretly made for a new political party drawing from left and right

A new political party with access to up to £50m in funding has been secretly under development for more than a year by a network of entrepreneurs, philanthropists and donors keen to “break the Westminster mould”, the Observer can reveal.

The movement, spearheaded by a former Labour benefactor, is understood to have been drawn up by a group frustrated by the tribal nature of politics, the polarisation caused by Brexit and the standard of political leadership on all sides. It appears to have a centrist policy platform that borrows ideas from both left and right.

Senior figures from the worlds of business and charity are understood to be involved, as well as former supporters of the main parties, including a number of former Tory donors.

Sources say the project, led by the multi-millionaire philanthropist and founder of LoveFilm, Simon Franks, has had full-time staff members for as long as a year. Initial discussions are said to have begun at the end of 2016. Franks has set up a company, Project One Movement for the UK, which is likely to be the vehicle for the enterprise.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

I do pity Amber Rudd a little bit. She seemed like a better politician than Theresa May, and so far could very well be considered a better Home Secretary. Not that it's an achievement, cause May's proven herself weak and incompetent, so there's not a high bar really. But I admit, I don't know a great deal about all that's going on.

Vote UKIP instead. Whether you like them or not as they're also a centrist party and are an alternative to the other three, look how well they did in 2014.

I've mentioned before, my mates father is staunchly Labour but since Corbyn is leader, he's voting UKIP instead as even he can't face having a Labour government headed by Corbyn. So that's at least one Labour voter who has opened their mind a little and are, in their view, taking a risk.

UKIP? Centrist? I don't think they even belong in the same sentence without the word "not" in between them. UKIP don't really stand for anything really, they just take some popular policies and put them together to attract the votes. The only reason they were so popular was because of widespread Euroscepticism that none of the other parties addressed. In fact that's the sole purpose of it's existence really. Not to mention, sometimes they are not even being practical in policies but rather are using feelings just to put their cases forward (yes, the left does this too, but they don't usually try and hide it).

For example: Nigel Farage, who though not UKIP leader anymore is still the face of UKIP and it's idol leader, was on Fox News lately jumping on the bandwagon of giving parents more control over the decisions of medically ill children. This was obviously referring to the Alfie Evans case where his parents weren't allowed to take him out of the UK to Rome because it wasn't in the kid's best interests. It was just part of a wide misrepresentation of the whole case really because there was nothing to be done for little Alfie. Nevertheless, Nigel the populist decided to jump on the bandwagon cause why not?

UKIP's main policies are getting out of the EU and reducing immigration (right wing policies.)

They aren't so much right-wing policies as they are being addressed by the right-wing and dealt with in a more right-wing manner. There's certainly a left-wing case for leaving the EU and reducing immigration, such as the impact on wages that happens in certain areas in regards to the latter policy. The only problem is that a lot of the mainstream left dare even address the issue without somehow being racist or intolerant towards foreigners even though it's not that black and white.

 

[northwichcat]

I also don't get this idea of voting for someone who you're opposed to because you dislike the other parties. It's like the people who supported Bernie and then voted for Trump because he wasn't Hillary - look how that turned out! If you dislike the options on the ballot paper, write expletives or draw whatever you like all over it to officially spoil it. Don't endorse parties that go against your principles just because they're "alternative"

I was on a tour of Canada, which also had a number of Americans on it, when the presidential candidates were confirmed. The impression I got out from those on the tour is that neither was wanted as president. One young man from Texas wanted Tez Cruz to be president and really didn't want Trump but would probably end up voting for Trump to stop Clinton getting in. It seems others wanted someone between Bernie Sanders and Clinton, with Sanders being seen as too old while Clinton was too closely linked to the institution.

Regarding not voting for someone you don't endorse, what about the French presidential election? Some of those with left wing views would probably have felt there's no-one they really want to endorse but if they decided to vote for Macron they helped prevent France getting a right wing president, which they would have likely hated a lot more.

 

[northwichcat]

They aren't so much right-wing policies as they are being addressed by the right-wing and dealt with in a more right-wing manner. There's certainly a left-wing case for leaving the EU and reducing immigration, such as the impact on wages that happens in certain areas in regards to the latter policy. The only problem is that a lot of the mainstream left dare even address the issue without somehow being racist or intolerant towards foreigners even though it's not that black and white.

The following points were in their 2017 manifesto:
- Ban wearing of the niqab and the burqa in public
- Allow women to get pensions from aged 60
- University tuition fees axed but only for certain subjects like medicine
- New restrictions on Jewish and Islamic methods of slaughtering of animals
- Give local authorities low interest loans to help them buy up and demolish low quality housing and industrial units to provide quality accommodation

The first one is one of the most right wing policies you could come up with and the second is obviously an attempt to attract women to vote UKIP by reversing an equality change. Ignoring the low interest loans the last point has been tried and it's had a negative impact for those on low incomes who can't afford to move in to the 'quality accommodation' so have to move elsewhere. The other two could go either way e.g. you could have more working class people studying medicine or you could have middle class people getting free tuition while working class people don't.

My favourite however is removal of EU constraints on fishing but then adding restrictions on Sea Bass fishing as part of another policy. :roll:

 

[Domh245]

Regarding not voting for someone you don't endorse, what about the French presidential election? Some of those with left wing views would probably have felt there's no-one they really want to endorse but if they decided to vote for Macron they helped prevent France getting a right wing president, which they would have likely hated a lot more.

That's more of a difficult situation and arose mainly because the presidential ballot only had the 2 candidates on it, something that you don't tend to get in the UK. In situations like that were it is an actual two horse race then voting for someone you don't like to prevent someone you really don't like getting into power is OK, although it is one of the other issues with modern day politics were it has devolved into "Who do I dislike the least" rather than "Who do I like the most" and leads to things like tactical voting, which is again something that I dislike. At the last GE I voted lib dem because they were the party I felt most aligned with, I could have voted Labour in an attempt to unseat Anna Soubry (although I'll admit she can be quite entertaining in terms of how much she goes against her own party - at least during debates) but didn't because I didn't want to endorse the labour party. Conversely a mate of mine voted Labour to prevent a Tory MP but confessed that he'd much rather have voted Lib Dem instead of Labour because he aligned more closely with them.

Really though it comes down to the individual and how much they are willing to weight their dislike of one candidate over the other, as explained above I'd rather vote for who I'd actually like to see represent me rather than who I'd dislike the least to represent me, and if nobody takes my fancy I'll spoil my ballot. Someone else might be quite content to vote tactically because they dislike a certain party and there's nothing inherently wrong with that.

 

[AlterEgo]

Even in countries where they do have proportional representation, it doesn't seem to automatically lead to improved turnout in elections.

I think voter apathy is widespread among many western democracies now to be honest.

Democracy is certainly not delivering in many Western states. At some point in my lifetime I expect a form of sortition to be seriously discussed.

 

[northwichcat]

At the last GE I voted lib dem because they were the party I felt most aligned with, I could have voted Labour in an attempt to unseat Anna Soubry (although I'll admit she can be quite entertaining in terms of how much she goes against her own party - at least during debates) but didn't because I didn't want to endorse the labour party. Conversely a mate of mine voted Labour to prevent a Tory MP but confessed that he'd much rather have voted Lib Dem instead of Labour because he aligned more closely with them.

It looks like your constituency in recent years has generally had a Conservative MP when the Conservatives have been the largest party and a Labour MP when Labour have been the largest party. Although, historically that wasn't the case with Labour's Seymour Cocks (the speaker must have loved that name) being MP for almost 25 years and it taking God to remove him from his seat.

I don't get Anna Soubry or Heidi Allen, both of them seem to make good arguments which don't correspond with Conservative policy, yet when they vote they don't rebel as often as you might think and they stand up for under pressure members of the cabinet.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

The following points were in their 2017 manifesto:
- Ban wearing of the niqab and the burqa in public
- Allow women to get pensions from aged 60
- University tuition fees axed but only for certain subjects like medicine
- New restrictions on Jewish and Islamic methods of slaughtering of animals
- Give local authorities low interest loans to help them buy up and demolish low quality housing and industrial units to provide quality accommodation

The first one is one of the most right wing policies you could come up with and the second is obviously an attempt to attract women to vote UKIP by reversing an equality change. Ignoring the low interest loans the last point has been tried and it's had a negative impact for those on low incomes who can't afford to move in to the 'quality accommodation' so have to move elsewhere. The other two could go either way e.g. you could have more working class people studying medicine or you could have middle class people getting free tuition while working class people don't.

My favourite however is removal of EU constraints on fishing but then adding restrictions on Sea Bass fishing as part of another policy. :roll:

When I said not so much right-wing policies, I meant the issue of the EU and immigration. UKIP itself though is a different story. I hope there was no misunderstanding on that part.

 

[Bromley boy]

The most regrettable thing about that "incident" was that Gordon Brown was exactly right in his appraisal of that woman's character. She was, and remains, a racist idiot.

That’s a little harsh. Expressing concerns about immigration is not the same thing as racism (much as people like to use the term to shut down debate).

For a good example of a genuinely racist idiot you need look no further than the current shadow Home Secretary.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Expressing concerns about immigration is not the same thing as racism (much as people like to use the term to shut down debate).

I agree with that.

But I also think she's a racist idiot.

 

[hexagon789]

For a good example of a genuinely racist idiot you need look no further than the current shadow Home Secretary.

She's definitely good at making controversial statements anyway.

 

[Busaholic]

Back on topic, replacing Amber Rudd with Sajid Javed has put a mild Remainer in a key cabinet role and a much more radical one on the back benches. Let's see where that goes.

I'm not sure you're right about that. Javed tied his colours to the mast behind Remain because he was a protégé of George Osborne, and expected a prime post should Osborne replace Cameron as P.M. after the 'Yes' vote in the Referendum. You see the problem?! Since May's elevation he has been as robust as her in his fervour for Brexit, just as he used to be. Michael Fallon was another long-time Leaver who suddenly found they were a Remainer when the prospect of leaving office seemed to beckon. Happily, he got his just desserts. Javed made all the right noises after Grenfell, and backed them up with absolutely nothing. If May has been absolutely cynical (Heaven forfend!) in appointing a non-white person to the Home Secretary job in the expectation that there'll be deflection from her, and her government's, lamentable performance, I suspect she really is living in cloud cuckoo land. By rights, Labour should now be twenty points ahead in the opinion polls, but Corbyn is nearly as naff as May and inspires little confidence in the general populace, a puppet of the Far Left.

 

[Domh245]

If May has been absolutely cynical (Heaven forfend!) in appointing a non-white person to the Home Secretary job in the expectation that there'll be deflection from her, and her government's, lamentable performance, I suspect she really is living in cloud cuckoo land.

I don't think that is necessarily the case. Javid, whilst pretty lacklustre in his response to Grenfell, is one of the more competent members of the cabinet and so he's something of a safe pair of hands which is the sort of thing that is useful at the Home Office. Certainly for something like Home Office it is far better to promote a proven, safe pair of hands into it, than bringing in a junior minister or backbencher. The other safe pairs of hands are either busy being scapegoats in other departments (Hunt), in more important departments (Hammond), or would upset the delicate balance of leavers/remainers at the top (Gove)

 

[edwin_m]

That's more of a difficult situation and arose mainly because the presidential ballot only had the 2 candidates on it, something that you don't tend to get in the UK.

Not so - "independents" do stand for the US presidential, though because of varying rules in different states they aren't always on the ballot nationwide. There's a whole horde of them linked below just for 2016:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite...and_independent_presidential_candidates,_2016

This article contains lists of official and potential third party and independent candidates associated with the 2016 United States presidential election.

"Third party" is a term commonly used in the United States in reference to political parties other than the two major parties, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. An independent candidate is one who runs for office with no formal party affiliation.

They have no hope of winning but can deny victory to someone else. Most famously if Ralph Nader handn't split the Democratic vote in 2000 then Gore would have won comfortably instead of Bush winning (or not winning according to your point of view) by a few hundred disputed votes in Florida. And I venture to say that if that had happened, the world today would be a much less dire place.