Political round up.............

First topic message reminder :

Turn up for the books.............The hard left guy gets on the ballot for the Labour leadership !!....Managed to bag 35 nominations although some were chucked at him by Burnham who will no doubt pick up many of his second preferences...........

Corbyn has no chance....

However it means one of the other three is likely to get hurt in the first round..........Corbyn no doubt will hoover up the extreme nutty left of which there are no doubt plenty in the Labour party and will probably get enough to take him through the first round !!...

(Cruddas finished top in the 2007 Deputy leader race after the first round (He was the "left" candidate)...Of course Harman and Johnson did better as the rounds progresses with second prefs...)

That means one of the three favorites is likely to be eliminated first..................

Latest odds............

Burnham 10/11
Kendall 5/2
Cooper 3/1
Corbyn 66/1 .................

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:And where do I say Labour are anti-women?

Oh, give it up. You quoted "...because votes have been more important to them than women's rights."

Do I think that Labour are happy to overlook some indiscretions that occur within the confines of a certain culture and community in this country, just so they can maintain part of their voter base? Almost certainly.

Do I think that Labour are anti-women as a whole because of that? Certainly not.

Labour's female MPs are far hotter than the Tory ones. I like what they bring to the table.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Correct, you're offering a rather bungled and muddled defence of the Labour Party.

Pointless trying to debate you......Think others seem to have given up too..

Worth remembering about the polls..............After the fiasco at 2015 the pollsters have changed their weightings........So If Corbyn is nine points down.......Pre 2015 he'd probably be less....

More emphasis now on those certain to turn up..

I'm a rare breed on this forum - backing up what I say with evidence and reason. I'm not surprised if some others have 'given up', as you aptly put it.

Azzy wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:And where do I say Labour are anti-women?

Oh, give it up. You quoted "...because votes have been more important to them than women's rights."

Do I think that Labour are happy to overlook some indiscretions that occur within the confines of a certain culture and community in this country, just so they can maintain part of their voter base? Almost certainly.

Do I think that Labour are anti-women as a whole because of that? Certainly not.

Labour's female MPs are far hotter than the Tory ones. I like what they bring to the table.

What about the Tory lady up in Morley?!

http://www.andreajenkyns.co.uk/

If Pritti Patel kept her trap shut......I'd spar a few rounds..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8ZKn3qXKAc

Tut, tut, the Conservatives have been misbehaving.

Not that anything will happen as a consequence, of course.

What do people think of the junior doctor situation...

They can go do one Olly.

Olly wrote:What do people think of the junior doctor situation...

I think there's a lot of disingenuous people on both sides. That recently publicised #IAmTheDoctorWho thing (see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-35540067) makes me want to puke and the BMA is nothing if not political. Then again, Jeremy Hunt is probably being someone whose behaviour rhymes with his own surname. A pox on both their houses.

So the nuclear option is now back on the table, just as I said.

However, the government shouldn't be so hasty. The vast majority of the public are siding with the junior doctors in this dispute.

Problem with the Dr strike/contract issue is you have cnuts on both sides - Jeremy Hunt (he's so toxic, why does DC keep rolling him out in important roles??!) and BMA (a bunch of marxist trade unionists who care more about tearing into a Tory UKG than anything else).

So much hypocrisy it's ridiculous. BMA have done everything they can do make this political, and emotive, but then have a go at UKG accusing it of doing the same.

Problem is, none of us, NONE OF US, know the detail of what's being discussed behind closed doors. Not the Drs on strike, not the nurses and lay persons supporting them, not the MPs, not ANYONE.

We don't know what concessions UKG may have offered, we don't know what BMA may have asked for.

It's just one big mess. Hence the nuclear option seemingly being back on the table, seriously this time.

Using the term "Marxist" to describe the BMA is ridiculous. Part of the dispute is about money.

They are beligerently left wing and have no interest in the operation of a market. I could've just said 'commy', the irony being if that were the political situation they and their members would be getting paid pittance and have no say in it whatsoever.

Pr4wn wrote:Using the term "Marxist" to describe the BMA is ridiculous. Part of the dispute is about money.

Pathetic isn't it.....

I find both sides petty but ultimately Hunt is trying to privatise the NHS and this is the first step towards that....

Do everything in our power to keep the best fat cat bankers, when it comes to people who actually matter do everything to push them away from the profession...

To think I actually voted for this...

Olly wrote:I find both sides petty but ultimately Hunt is trying to privatise the NHS and this is the first step towards that....

Do everything in our power to keep the best fat cat bankers, when it comes to people who actually matter do everything to push them away from the profession...

To think I actually voted for this...

Except he's not. That simply shows how much of the anti-Tory rhetoric you've bought in to.

A excellent article by Simon Jenkins of the Guardian.

Both sides need to compromise.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/10/adoration-nhs-tough-love-gps-consultants-nurses

Also, referring to any union as "Commies" is even less helpful than any of the political rhetoric out there. Secondly, the NHS is the NHS. It's not a market. You can't claim it's a market and then also claim that this isn't privatisation by stealth.

Will have a read but not hopeful, Simon Jenkins is an absolute plum. Hate it when he gets the guest column in the Standard, never seen him write anything not worth burning.



Also, you don't seem to understand what a market is. Markets are a way of describing how agents/factors interact.

Hunt is the one who co-authored a book on privatisation isn't he? Also the bloke appointed by the government in the negotiations is Sir David Dalton, who in a 2014 report suggested that concessions could be established by which companies are given contracts to operate publicly-funded hospitals, pointing to Ribera Salud Grupo in Spain and AMEOS group in Germany and Austria as examples that could be followed. Both are private companies of course.

What I find strange in this whole debacle is the weekend working aspect.

Who trains to become a doctor expecting a Monday-Friday working week? Surely Day 1 on Junior Doctor training begins with 'we have a 7 day a week National Health Service'?

I was in hospital in 2013 from Thursday-Monday. A doctor wrote in my notes that I could be released on the Saturday, but no doctor came to the ward until Monday 4pm. What kind of service is that? And I was lucky, I didn't die from lack of specialist care, unlike the thousands who do each year in hospitals up and down the country.

I now class junior doctors in the same category as tube drivers - greedy, selfish, and only in it for the money. They may have had some genuine concerns over the state of the NHS, but striking, and behaving as they are, has made me distrust them for life.

I am now supporting Jeremy Hunt, and whoever replaces him when he inevitable gets shuffled round, to enforce new contracts and sack anyone who refuses to sign them.

You're hilarious sometimes.

The word "market" can have multiple meanings and in the shoddy context you placed it in before, one of them could have been in the purely capitalist sense, thus suggesting that the NHS should be privatised.

My view is that Brits want everything. They want low taxes and a health service that is free at the point of delivery, run efficiently and having well-paid, well-looked-after professionals within it.

You simply can't have it all.

Pay more tax. And that includes Google.

Can someone explain how privatizing the NHS helps anyone, Tory or Labour? Surely it would be catastrophic to the future of any political party to even entertain the notion?

If they want to privatise it they'll have to get someone less retarded than Hunt to do it...

The guy who hid behind a tree so no one would see him with Murdoch ....

The guy who never spoke to Newscorp about their BSKYB bid while his aide talked openly for months with them behind his back !!

He makes Justin Bieber look like Einstein..

Pr4wn wrote:You're hilarious sometimes.

The word "market" can have multiple meanings and in the shoddy context you placed it in before, one of them could have been in the purely capitalist sense, thus suggesting that the NHS should be privatised.

My view is that Brits want everything. They want low taxes and a health service that is free at the point of delivery, run efficiently and having well-paid, well-looked-after professionals within it.

You simply can't have it all.

Pay more tax. And that includes Google.

This. I would happily pay more tax if it meant the NHS was run properly, doctors were getting paid adequately, and other government run services were smooth and efficient.

Azzy wrote:Can someone explain how privatizing the NHS helps anyone, Tory or Labour? Surely it would be catastrophic to the future of any political party to even entertain the notion?

It doesn't make sense - but it's what's beginning to happen

Hunt announces imposition of the contract - shortage of nurses and they'll soon be a shortage of doctors, along with issues in general practice. Don't get ill anytime soon folks!

Olly wrote:

Azzy wrote:Can someone explain how privatizing the NHS helps anyone, Tory or Labour? Surely it would be catastrophic to the future of any political party to even entertain the notion?

It doesn't make sense - but it's what's beginning to happen

Hunt announces imposition of the contract - shortage of nurses and they'll soon be a shortage of doctors, along with issues in general practice. Don't get ill anytime soon folks!

The public are behind the junior doctors..............

Sky poll - 74% behind the Doctors....

Ipsos mori - 64% blame govt for strike...................13% blame Junior doctors...

I imagine if you cut through the bull.....Posters on here are more jealous of smart people with good futures ahead of them......Than any smokescreen excuse about people dying..

Should always have the right to strike if the issue warrants it...I believe this issue does.

noticeable that even a Telegraph poll with the loaded question "are you worried about the strike affecting NHS services?" rather than simply "do you support the Junior doctors strike?" came out 2-1 in favour of the doctors (i.e. 67% professed themselves not worried about services being affected). The public is very much on the doctors side in this dispute, and with a poll yesterday indicating that 90% of junior doctors were ready to leave the NHS if a new contract were imposed I think Hunt has completely misjudged this one.

Pr4wn wrote:You're hilarious sometimes.

The word "market" can have multiple meanings and in the shoddy context you placed it in before, one of them could have been in the purely capitalist sense, thus suggesting that the NHS should be privatised.

I didn't actually say the NHS 'was' a market, you interpreted that. I pointed out that BMA, like all Trade Unionists, didn't want their labour market (and it is a market) to operate freely.

I don't believe the NHS should be privatised, I don't think it is being privatised, but I do think it has shoddy areas like all facets of the public sector and could both learn and benefit from private sector experience and investment.

Any time the 'public' is shown to have a different opinion than me, I know I'm doing alright.

Every junior doctor I've seen interviewed says 'ooh, it's not a job, it's a vocation'. If it's a vocation, you shouldn't have a problem accepting a contract to do what you supposedly love - especially as it's well remunerated.

Truss, you can't honestly sit there and believe the Tube drivers on their £45k salaries, working 35 hours a week, have a constant right to strike action? They strike every single year because they know they'll get a good deal.

I'd sack every junior doctor, tube driver, teacher, coal miner, politician, soldier, milkman, dentist, construction worker and dog walker that ever went on strike. If I could. I loathe strike action, as the complaints always say 'it's not about the money'. IT IS ALWAYS ABOUT THE MONEY.

Azzy wrote:Any time the 'public' is shown to have a different opinion than me, I know I'm doing alright.

Every junior doctor I've seen interviewed says 'ooh, it's not a job, it's a vocation'. If it's a vocation, you shouldn't have a problem accepting a contract to do what you supposedly love - especially as it's well remunerated.

Truss, you can't honestly sit there and believe the Tube drivers on their £45k salaries, working 35 hours a week, have a constant right to strike action? They strike every single year because they know they'll get a good deal.

I'd sack every junior doctor, tube driver, teacher, coal miner, politician, soldier, milkman, dentist, construction worker and dog walker that ever went on strike. If I could. I loathe strike action, as the complaints always say 'it's not about the money'. IT IS ALWAYS ABOUT THE MONEY.

Who said anything about tube drivers...

"When the issue is right"

Wow, Azzy is even worse than me....

This strike, same as tube drivers and teachers, is about money. I'll never have respect for them again. My wife is a teacher and she refused to strike as she (and her entire school of teachers) felt that the education of the children was more important than their pension contributions. It would have been better for the doctors to turn up to work, do the 3-4,000 surgeries they had to cancel, then finish work and say to the cameras 'some things are more important than money'.

They'd have public support forever and the moral high ground for the rest of the dispute.

The imposition makes no sense to me - only 20 out of 200+ CEO's of trusts supported it, and already two of those twenty have said they actually don't - why not carry on negotiating?

When you impose a contract doesn't that mean you have to sack then re-engage people? (Sure I've read that somewhere)

Junior doctors cycle around enough that most will be on this contract sooner or later.

Id actually support junior doctors more if they just said they wanted more money to work weekends than hiding behind excuses.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:You're hilarious sometimes.

The word "market" can have multiple meanings and in the shoddy context you placed it in before, one of them could have been in the purely capitalist sense, thus suggesting that the NHS should be privatised.

I didn't actually say the NHS 'was' a market, you interpreted that.  I pointed out that BMA, like all Trade Unionists, didn't want their labour market (and it is a market) to operate freely.

You do realize that this is the whole purpose of having a union, surely.

Allowing labour markets to operate completely freely leads to the exploitation of workers at the benefit of their employers. That is fact and there are literally thousands of examples of this.

But the NHS comes back to the tax argument. Pay more, receive more. Keep it public, don't charge.

In Jersey, we have to pay to see a GP. Luckily, I can afford it but there are many that can't. Consequently, our A&E is under great strain because many of the poor can't afford to see their doctor. Not to mention the added effect of diseases such as cancer going undiagnosed because people can't afford to see their GP.

The UK has to avoid situations like these at all cost.

Azzy wrote:This strike, same as tube drivers and teachers, is about money. I'll never have respect for them again. My wife is a teacher and she refused to strike as she (and her entire school of teachers) felt that the education of the children was more important than their pension contributions. It would have been better for the doctors to turn up to work, do the 3-4,000 surgeries they had to cancel, then finish work and say to the cameras 'some things are more important than money'.

They'd have public support forever and the moral high ground for the rest of the dispute.

This is ridiculous logic.

So doctors should continue to work stupid hours while feeling unappreciated and exploited by their own government. That would be great for patient care.

By your logic, any strike is unjustified. So then employers can just impose whatever they want and workers should just suck it up and accept it because the job itself is the most important thing. More money then ends up in the pockets of the few, the workers are worse off.

Pr4wn wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:You're hilarious sometimes.

The word "market" can have multiple meanings and in the shoddy context you placed it in before, one of them could have been in the purely capitalist sense, thus suggesting that the NHS should be privatised.

I didn't actually say the NHS 'was' a market, you interpreted that.  I pointed out that BMA, like all Trade Unionists, didn't want their labour market (and it is a market) to operate freely.

You do realize that this is the whole purpose of having a union, surely.

Allowing labour markets to operate completely freely leads to the exploitation of workers at the benefit of their employers. That is fact and there are literally thousands of examples of this.

Except the vast majority of employees operate outside the protection of a Trade Union............and we have labour and human rights laws to prevent ACTUAL exploitation........and a correctly functioning market isn't easily abused. TUs do the abusing - train drivers on £60-70k packages based on minimal skills and limited working hours? THAT is market abuse.

I'm not saying that all unions are absolutely correct in their practices and what they do.

But surely you can concede that, if done properly, unionism is a fantastic thing for any population.

Look at the zero-hours mess at the moment.

No. TU in the 21st century are a filthy disgusting disgrace which hide being 'societal good' when in fact they do NOTHING to benefit society and exist for the SOLE benefit of their members.

Basically they are every bit as bad as the worst corporations - they just have a better PR model.

No better example than the RMT - went on strike because a driver was fired for TWICE turning up drunk to work. DRUNK. TWICE!! In the depths of the recession one teachers union balloted to strike for a 10% pay rise. Another went on strike in 2014 based on a 2012 ballot which garnered only 22% support. Trade Unions are serial market abusers and everyone else in this country would benefit from their wings being severely clipped.

It's the hypocrisy that sickens me.

Pr4wn wrote:

Azzy wrote:This strike, same as tube drivers and teachers, is about money. I'll never have respect for them again. My wife is a teacher and she refused to strike as she (and her entire school of teachers) felt that the education of the children was more important than their pension contributions. It would have been better for the doctors to turn up to work, do the 3-4,000 surgeries they had to cancel, then finish work and say to the cameras 'some things are more important than money'.

They'd have public support forever and the moral high ground for the rest of the dispute.

This is ridiculous logic.

So doctors should continue to work stupid hours while feeling unappreciated and exploited by their own government. That would be great for patient care.

By your logic, any strike is unjustified. So then employers can just impose whatever they want and workers should just suck it up and accept it because the job itself is the most important thing. More money then ends up in the pockets of the few, the workers are worse off.

Doctors don't have to work stupid hours. They do so because they get paid handsomely for working unsociable hours. I have two fully qualified doctors in the family, and one surgeon, and none of them have ever been forced to work hours they didn't want to.

Not every strike is unjustified. If social workers went on strike due to serious allegations of child abuse not being taken seriously, that would be understandable. But don't pretend this doctors strike is anything other than a money-grab. If an employer says 'your job pays this', and you don't like it, they should be free to find someone else who does want that job. Most of the doctors I see at hospitals are Sri Lankan, I'm sure there are plenty more out there.

Pr4wn wrote:I'm not saying that all unions are absolutely correct in their practices and what they do.

But surely you can concede that, if done properly, unionism is a fantastic thing for any population.

Look at the zero-hours mess at the moment.

Zero hours can be a very good thing. Where I work there are students supporting their living costs through zero-hours evening work; families supporting their kids where one parent does the occasional shift to earn a few extra quid; our own staff topping up their salaries by working some evenings. They can be of great benefit to those who want to be on them.

Zero hours have a place. But equally are open to abuse. There's a balance to be had but we're not there (and neither Unions or Corporates will get us there).

-------

https://www.606v2.com/viewtopic.forum?t=63030