24-April 2023 : LAB 44% / CON 29% / LDEM 11% / GRN 5%

[Mr Poppy]

and just FWIW, whilst EC's model has some issues at a seat specific level then IMO their overall numbers come fairly close and more importantly it is a free online tool that anyone can use to run different "plausible scenarios"

Using R&W latest VI %s then EC's central "prediction" is

CON: 188
LAB: 380
LDEM: 23
(allowing it default for Scotland)

but with a higher LDEM% then IF we see 50% tactical voting in LAB, LDEM and Green the "prediction" (change to above)

CON: 126 (-62)
LAB: 430 (+50)
LDEM: 46 (+23)
(difference being minor shifts in Scotland - where tactical voting is different but can't easily stop EC doing whatever does in Scotland)

www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&scotshow=Y&CON=29&LAB=41&LIB=16&Reform=5&Green=4&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=50&TVLIB=50&TVReform=&TVGreen=50&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=17.7&SCOTLAB=30.3&SCOTLIB=8.3&SCOTReform=2&SCOTGreen=2.7&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=37.7&display=AllChanged®orseat=%28none%29&boundary=2019nbbase

Click on above to get the first set of numbers and then edit with 50% tactical voting for LAB, LDEM and Green to get the second set.

PS For a 3rd set of "plausible scenario" numbers then also put 50% tactical voting into CON and RUK, which then gives (changes v second set of numbers)

CON: 155 (+29)
LAB: 408 (-22)
LDEM: 39 (-7)

Obviously the biggest assumption being R&W's poll is unlikely to be the same as the results of GE'24. However, what the above waste of 3mins of my time shows is that 'Tactical Voting' could make a significance difference but unless CON % goes up significantly into GE'24 then LAB will win a significant majority with a "possible" range of 380-430 seats depending on the amount of tactical voting.

Fairly close to my model but I can also put in "-ve" tactical voting (eg LDEM resurgence is skewed to places where they'll split the ABCON vote and unwind some of the historic tactical voting). That could make 20-30 seats difference (+ for CON, - for LAB). Hence on R&Ws latest VI then LAB would likely win 360-430 seats IMMHO.

[statgeek]

Slightly disappointing polling. But I suppose, in every part of the world there's a percentage that will get pissed for any old reason, so it would have been nice to see the "Yes I will" split into "Was having pissup anyway." and "Decided to go Out for Once.", just to see the real results.

[pjw1961]

A couple of points from the R&W. Firstly, the Sunak effect seems to be fading, worrying for the Tories since they have staked a lot on the 'new broom' argument. 33% approve (-2) and 40% disapprove of his performance - net -7. For Starmer, 38% approve and 28% disapprove - net +10. Starmer leads Sunak as 'best PM' by 41% to 35%, a increase of 2 points due to slippage on Sunak's part.

Secondly, I hoped to find something in the regional cross-breaks to indicate whether there is a Lib Dem revival in the South West underway (as I suspect) but the London one* is so bonkers as to put me off relying on anything they say too much. The most that can be safely gleaned is that the Lib Dems are polling better than they were in the South and South West, while Labour is well ahead all over the North, as one might expect. For what it is worth (i.e. not much) Labour lead the SNP in Scotland 35% to 31%.

(*The cross break in Labour dominated, highly remain-ish London is: Lab 28%, Con 27%, Lib Dem 26%, RefUK 11%, Green 5%!)

[pjw1961]

May 8, 2023 16:59:07 GMT statgeek said:

Slightly disappointing polling. But I suppose, in every part of the world there's a percentage that will get pissed for any old reason, so it would have been nice to see the "Yes I will" split into "Was having pissup anyway." and "Decided to go Out for Once.", just to see the real results.

I attended one yesterday and I'm a republican. It was a family gathering; churlish not to attend. 

[Danny]

May 8, 2023 16:01:29 GMT Mr Poppy said:

Labour 41% (-4)
Conservative 29% (+1)
Liberal Democrat 16% (+4)
Reform UK 5% (-2)
Green 4% (–)
Scottish National Party 3% (+1)
Other 1% (–)

Notable change in bold
redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voting-intention-7-may-2023/

I wouldnt trust one poll without confirmation. However what it suggests is that now voters have had a think about thow to vote in the locals, it has also informed their view on how they may vote in the next election. A number of people have spotted their best bet to defeat con is lib not lab. Moreover, they might like the idea of lab not having a majority.

[Mr Poppy]

EC do IMO understate LDEM's potential seats a bit but at the other extreme this model overstates their potential IMO - although LDEM folks will like it (and for johntel then the historic seat of Mole Valley does turn Orange in EM's "nowcast") 

NB Whilst the difference in CON seats between EC and EM's models isn't that much it masks two notable differences. EM shows LDEM taking a lot more CON seats than EC's model (some of which I'd certainly agree with: St.Ives, Guildford, Esher and Walton, etc) but CON keeping a lot of the seats that EC's model thinks will turn Red (eg Devon Central which was mentioned earlier, along with a lot of seats in Anglia - that I'd agree with)

Folks can argue the toss for specific seats but with a GE still probably 18mths away and noting that is well past beer o'clock then that's it from moi ce soir. 

[pjw1961]

A couple of snippets on the local elections worthy of note:

(a) It has been pointed out that it is now possible to travel from Dover to John O'Groats without needing to pass through a Conservative controlled council.

(b) A new candidate for the most popular councillor in Britain has emerged. There was a remarkable 53.4% turnout in Great Yarmouth, Fleggburgh ward and Cllr Adrian Thompson was elected with the following result:

IND: 1,110 (94.6% (+10.5))
CON: 37 (3.2% (-8.9))
LAB: 26 (2.2% (-1.6))

[oldnat]

May 8, 2023 8:46:05 GMT pjw1961 said:

May 7, 2023 23:49:39 GMT oldnat said:

1) Practical advantage to Scotland: the advantages of wider federal structures have just been amply demonstrated by the UK's exit from the EU and its impact on trade. Erecting borders within the boundaries of the current UK area will inevitably make all of us poorer.

Besides that, morally, it would be sad to see yet further sub-division of humanity into competing penny-packets on the basis of largely notional differences.

2) your last paragraph does not follow. You advocate the existence of an entity called Scotland as an independent nation state on a particular set of borders, regardless of other factors. I am not calling for the existence of a permanent 'nation state' on the current UK boundaries. For one thing I strongly favour a united Ireland, but more significantly, I said I would be happy to see it disappear into the sort of Federal European Union that so scares Jib and Mercian. 

The stronger argument against a federal Britain (or federal British Isles, as I am happy to include all the polities you mention, if they were to be interested) is the one Hireton mentioned, i.e. realistically there is no chance of it happening. However, were it possible, I would certainly favour it over the creation of yet another set of competing nationalisms. 

1) We both agree that states co-operating in a federal structure is a sensible arrangement (assuming that none of them is overwhelmingly dominant - a pint with which I expect you disagree). Hence, why we both support being in the EU. You fail to explain why being in a federation that is part of a wider federation is necessarily the best option. It may be that people prefer that option. For example, only about a third of Bavarians support the idea of independence, but then they are the 2nd largest Land in Germany, and Nordrhein-Westfalen isn't so large as to determine German policy in its interest.

The EU is a federation of states (the antique term "nation state" is either meaningless or tautological). You want the UK (or rather GB) to be the single member state. I want Scotland to be a member state in its own right.  That both of us would be happy for our preferred member state to be part of an increasingly Federated EU means that there is little difference in our views - in contrast to your attempt to paint some enormous ideological difference. Your UK/GB wouldn't "disappear" in such a union. It would simply pool more of its sovereign powers with other members. Precisely the same would happen to Scotland as a member state.

With the 4 freedoms in place, there is no reason for the component parts of GB (I note that you wish to see the departure of NI from the UK) to become poorer by being individual EU members, any more than Portugal and Spain are poorer because they are not part of a single Iberian state.

Your "moral" argument seems very weak. To have validity, you must consider that (disregarding the morality/immorality of their state actions), it is "more moral" to have one legal jurisdiction covering England & Wales than for GB to have 2 different legal jurisdictions. Similarly, 20th century GB was "more moral" than the 21st century version which divides this section of humanity into operating under increasingly different laws. It is "more moral" for Scotland and NI to be removed from EU membership against their wishes, and for at least some of us to be part of that much wider and valuable union, than it was for the Norwegians to have the choice on membership, as opposed to having Sweden decide for them.

2) I don't "advocate the existence of an entity called Scotland as an independent nation state" The term "nation state" is a silly one, and it might be noticed that, in this discussion one of us  frequently talks about "nations" - and it isn't me!

Of course, I don't consider that you have more in common with Britain First than with social democrats or greens in Iceland. I was simply pointing out the foolishness of your argument as applied to me. If one allegation is true, then so is the other. The pretence that it is somehow different because I prefer my state to be a "new" one is, of course, equally applicable to you as you wish your "new" state to be GB as opposed to UK.

I'm always happy to discuss the most useful governance and co-operation arrangements for the territories that affect us all - Europe, this archipelago, the current UK - but let us concentrate on those complex issues, and not crude stereotyping of imagined ideologies.

[oldnat]

May 8, 2023 8:56:46 GMT Danny said:

May 8, 2023 8:46:05 GMT pjw1961 said:

1) Practical advantage to Scotland: the advantages of wider federal structures have just been amply demonstrated by the UK's exit from the EU and its impact on trade. Erecting borders within the boundaries of the current UK area will inevitably make all of us poorer.

Against this, you can see the draw of london as the capital city of the nation. This effect happens in all nations. If you arent yourself a nation, then you miss out. Instead of clustering around Edinburgh, everyone departs for London. You lose national centres.

Why do so many of you have this obsession with "nations"? It's not a term with a specific meaning, and doesn't necessarily involve sovereignty and statehood. London is something more than just a capital city, though, like New York (not a capital) it is one of the world's "global cities".

You are right about the importance of having centres of power, round which economic growth develops a pulling power. Although the areas round Edinburgh have developed enormously, that can have a negative effect elsewhere if uncontrolled. It's not of much greater benefit to Aberdeen or Inverness if folk have to move near to Edinburgh, than if they have to move to London, NY or Brussels.

[Mr Poppy]

Someone else has updated their model using the latest R&W (one poll caveat, etc, etc). Quick eyeball suggests its pretty close to what I reckon if a GE was held y'day and national %s as per R&W. Some of the "unlikely" LAB gains from CON seen in EC's model stay CON and some of the "likely" LDEM gains that EC don't show look "reasonable" as well. Obviously a few seats that are very close in any model and GE is still likely 18mths away but I'm interrupting beer o'clock to bring you:

[neilj]

Interesting analysis of the effects of tactical voting

[alec]

No papers this time, but as it's a bank holiday, some thoughts on what 'living with covid' really means.

I think it's going to feel different depending on what kind of country you live in. There are two stories that caught my eye today. In the UK, the Times is reporting that following covid, the welfare bill related to sickness and ill health is forecast to rise to £1.9bn a week. Checking the figures, this looks like the prediction for 2027/28, but running through the numbers is interesting. In the decade from 2010/11 welfare costs rose from £52.4bn to £64.3bn, an increase of 22.7%. However, as a share of GDP, it barely budged - up from 2.4% to 2.5%. By the end of the current year it is forecast to be £78.7bn, a rise of 22.4% in just four years, with nearly all of that coming this year, following the first year of 'let it rip' covid policy. Interesting, the share of GDP is also up sharply, from 2.5% to 3.2%. The forecast is for this to just keep on rising.

Not all of this will be due to covid, but a great deal of it will be. So I think in western countries we're going to see increased taxes to pay for some pretty hefty costs. I would argue that if we're going to shovel an extra 0.7% of GDP into sickness related welfare benefits, it would be better spent on better air quality and other infection prevention measures.

The other story is from CNN's Philippines desk. They are currently experiencing another covid surge, with cases doubling in a week (not yet on Our World in Data). There is some speculation that this is a new variant, but that's yet to be confirmed, and the Philippines are reasonably well vaccinated. What is notable is that 21% of their hospital bed capacity is currently taken with covid patients, including 19% of their ICU beds, and there is no clear indication of how long this wave has to go. Only 9 covid deaths reported this week, but the health system is completely clogged up already.

There is a lazy assumption in places like the UK that 'living with covid' is fine, because not many are dying, we have a health system that can cope with the peaks, and the overall impacts of the disease are 'mild'. The disability welfare budget is telling us something different, so for us, the impact is going to be more about the ongoing drain on public resources, among other things, but less the dramatic collapses in healthcare we saw at times in the last three years. However, for poorer countries with less developed healthcare systems, these impacts are very real and direct, and pose a major threat to economic and social stability. On a global scale, living with covid means consigning many individuals in all countries to long term disability, and many poorer countries to falling standards of healthcare, and all the suffering that will bring.

At some stage, we will collectively decide that these costs are not worth it, and we'll recognise that the relatively easy steps needed to drive covid into decline are well worth the effort, but in the meantime it's sad to see so many people committed to fairness and liberal politics stand by while we allow these impacts to fall on those least able to bear them, here and abroad.

[Mark]

Just heard the new government plans for GPs on Channel 4 news, which seem to amount to...

1. Brand new telephone systems so that instead of getting 'engaged, you'll get through and be put in a queue.

Isn't this what happens already in most places? Certainly it is in my own GP practice...and indeed my Dad's

2. More receptionists trained, who will, in turn train others.

Ermmmm....the last time I looked, it wasn't the receptionists who actually saw and diagnosed the patients, but, GPs. Didnt hear anything in this about more GPs

3. Patients with more serious conditions fast tracked to get seen sooner/same day.

see my respons to point 1

We are being governed by clowns.

[Danny]

May 8, 2023 18:35:18 GMT alec said:

No papers this time, but as it's a bank holiday, some thoughts on what 'living with covid' really means.

Oh look, another covid post! o lest have some fun then, since you do like your jolly japes.

I think it's going to feel different depending on what kind of country you live in. There are two stories that caught my eye today. In the UK, the Times is reporting that following covid, the welfare bill related to sickness and ill health is forecast to rise to £1.9bn a week. Checking the figures, this looks like the prediction for 2027/28, but running through the numbers is interesting. In the decade from 2010/11 welfare costs rose from £52.4bn to £64.3bn, an increase of 22.7%. However, as a share of GDP, it barely budged - up from 2.4% to 2.5%. By the end of the current year it is forecast to be £78.7bn, a rise of 22.4% in just four years, with nearly all of that coming this year, following the first year of 'let it rip' covid policy. Interesting, the share of GDP is also up sharply, from 2.5% to 3.2%. The forecast is for this to just keep on rising.

You are quite right to point out that by a number of measures the conservative government has under funded the NHS throughout its rule. Many people would therefore find it unsurprising that a correction is needed. The bottom line is that the numbers of old people in the UK have been rising, which of course must also mean number of their deaths has been rising, but the cost of maintaining the same level of medical services must also necessarily rise. Only it has not kept up. We have justb seen a spate of wage demands in the UK which is not simply about current inflation, but falling wages since this government took office in 2010. Demands to restore income levels amongst medical staff stand at around 30-40% rises. Yes, thats quite a big hike. It would seem the NHS has increased staffing, though to a significant extent empty posts are cancelling out nominal new appointments, but this has been funded by slashing wages.

Not all of this will be due to covid, but a great deal of it will be.

Frankly it would be more accurate to say, none of this is due to covid. It simple mathematics based upon demographics and pay levels.

So I think in western countries we're going to see increased taxes to pay for some pretty hefty costs. I would argue that if we're going to shovel an extra 0.7% of GDP into sickness related welfare benefits, it would be better spent on better air quality and other infection prevention measures.

And there we have a really big problem. If you did institute such a scheme it would have to be in addition to all the extra money needed by the NHS, not instead of. Because if it was instead of then we really would see all the pensioners going untreated, and frankly the NHS collapsing. Its absurd to argue this would be better, even if air quality had some effect. Which it will not, and there is no real evidence it could have any significant effect.

What is notable is that 21% of their hospital bed capacity is currently taken with covid patients, including 19% of their ICU beds, and there is no clear indication of how long this wave has to go.

yawn. Its inevitable that if 20% of your population has covid, then 20% of people getting sick with something lse such that they will be admitted to hospital, are also going to have covid. Covid was always a damp squip. Government action was based upon the worst possible outcome, and such an outcome never happened anyway. it was completely wrong. Hastings had covid winter 2019 and didnt even notice! A vast amount of money was wasted on lockdown, which would have been much better spent on anything, including the main activities of the NHS or buying more ammunition and tanks just in case a war with Russia might soon break out.

There is a lazy assumption in places like the UK that 'living with covid' is fine, because not many are dying,

As to that, last i checked the death toll for 2022 wasnt that much less than 2020. Especially if you consider improvements in treatment were stated to have halved or better the death rate. Plus those dying were in many cases already moribund. The actual mortality from covid has always, always been exaggerated. You continue to do this, and have by now a very long track record on here of rpredicting imminent disasters fro covid which just do not happen. so why do you persist? The politicians have for the most part all accepted this is absurd.

for poorer countries with less developed healthcare systems, these impacts are very real and direct, and pose a major threat to economic and social stability.

Other countries have always had more problems with such as HIV and malarie than covid. South Afric never bothered vaccinating 2/3 of its population because there was really no point when they had more important and more cost effective uses for the money. Covid is not their problem.

[Danny]

May 8, 2023 18:44:44 GMT Mark said:

Ermmmm....the last time I looked, it wasn't the receptionists who actually saw and diagnosed the patients, but, GPs. Didnt hear anything in this about more GPs

Was that a long time ago you last looked? nowadays the receptionsit's job is to put you off and tell you talking to a GP is impossible. They do have some discretion however and if you make enough fuss, like threatening to go to casualty instead, then they may put you in queue to speak to a GP.

We are being governed by clowns.

Well there are simply not enough GPs. Given that, they have to ration their time for patients. Thats the reality of what GPs have to do in their surgeries. Government's input into this should be to either reduce overall demand (maybe make patients pay for appointments? Allocate them 1 a year? ) or to ensure there are more GPs. The shortage of GPs was obvious in 2010 when this government took over, and they have had plenty of time to solve it. If they wished they could simply pay GPs enough so that we attracted in more from abroad, but they have instead cut their wages.

So no, not clowns. People who believe its better to leave the GPs to ration demand as best they can because they are not willing to pay more to provide more. And yet these same people spaffed a trillion pounds on lockdown which accomplished little.

The last labour administration was steadily expanding NHS funding to match rising demand. Con have a deliberate policy of not doing so. Just let nature take its course, demand in the end is managed by people dying sooner.

[Danny]

Some interesting news in todays ISW report on the Ukrainian war.

It seems Prigozhin's recent public appeals have compelled the russian defence ministry to promise him more ammunition. Prigozhin has changed his rhetoric, from one where a victory at Bahkmut would be a stepping stone to expanding further into Ukraine. To one where he argues the battle has become a 'meat grinder' eating up Ukrainian forces and preventing them attacking Russian positions elsewhere. So i guess, he is portraying himself and his men as the heroes taking the brunt of the fight on behalf of all Russia.

ISW do not comment on the real strategic implications of this. One interpretation is that the Russian army has sought to quietly rid itself of Prigozhin by letting his forces be shot to pieces and so has starved it of munitions. Another interpretation is that Russia has a real shortage of munitions, which is why it has rationed the supply to him. In the former case, Prigozhin remains as a rival for power in Russia who has won the next round. In the latter however, he might be significantly damaging the Russian war effort, if the meat grinder is in fact working the other way around, and Russia is running out faster than Ukraine.

As i keep mentioning and of course so does Ukraine, this is now a war of attrition. To win Ukraine needs more munitions than Russia. it will only get them if the west provides. And the west seems to have done little to increase munitions manufacture. All we have done is supply from stock, and our stocks were frankly smaller than russias.

But this has been going on for a year already. Its the same as Sunak saying conservatives are going to do this and that which they have plainly not done for 13 years so far. There is no need for the Uk to have a housing shortage or a GP shortage, or indeed a teacher shortage...had the government set about solving these on taking office. Just so, we could by now be supplying Ukraine with what it needs...had we actually tried to do so.

Of course brexit has screwed the Uk economy which can only be resolved by rejoining. No politicians seem willing to do that.

[mercian]

May 8, 2023 6:39:12 GMT catfuzz said:

Is it me, or is it a bit melancholy that one of the best things we can say about politicians in the country is that one of them can hold a sword for 50+ mins?

I really long for a day I can be proud of something the government has actually implemented well for the benefit of the populace.

How about giving every household £400 towards fuel costs? Seems pretty good to me.

[Danny]

May 8, 2023 19:41:38 GMT mercian said:

I really long for a day I can be proud of something the government has actually implemented well for the benefit of the populace.

How about giving every household £400 towards fuel costs? Seems pretty good to me.

Of course, the more properties you own, then the more £400 handouts you got. Not to mention that the poorest on prepayment meters get charged more for their electricity as a matter of policy.

[mercian]

May 8, 2023 7:17:00 GMT catmanjeff said:

I'd thought I'd share this.

I asked the AI in Bing to write a short poem about Keir Starmer:

"He leads the Labour Party with a vision
To win the next election and govern
He was a lawyer and a prosecutor
Now he's a politician and a leader

He fights for justice, human rights and peace
He wants to end austerity and increase
The public ownership of rail and utilities
The freedom of movement within the EU countries

He faces challenges from left and right
He tries to unify his party and unite
The voters who are tired of Brexit and Covid
The workers who are struggling to make a living

He is Keir Starmer, the knight of the realm
He is Keir Starmer, the man at the helm"

As Johnson said of a woman preaching "It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all.""

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

While on the subject of footie, it was heartening today, to see my team secure a place in the play-offs at the last minute by a single point. (Despite not owning their own ground etc., and despite the disruption earlier in the season as their landlord Wasps went under).

PUSB

in other news, after Mr Poppy ’s heads-up a little while ago (thanks muchly Trev for that), braved the threat of Covid and went to see Rosie Holt on tour, which was worth going to see

[oldnat]

Regardless of whether the Met's actions were appropriate or not, will this do their reputation more harm than arresting innocent people?

[jib]

May 8, 2023 19:32:26 GMT Danny said:

Of course brexit has screwed the Uk economy which can only be resolved by rejoining. No politicians seem willing to do that.

Let's just be clear what the steps to rejoining involve:

1. A Government is elected on unambiguous manifesto that it wishes to hold a referendum on rejoining
2. Referendum is held to agree to opening rejoining terms with the EU Federal Superstate
3. Terms are agreed and put to a "final say" referendum.

[jib]

May 8, 2023 20:15:01 GMT oldnat said:

Regardless of whether the Met's actions were appropriate or not, will this do their reputation more harm than arresting innocent people?

Sorry, but that poster is an anarchist disruptor.

The Police often have very tough work to do, and here we have an example.

Those dogs were a danger, it's a distressing outcome but the only one. 

[mercian]

May 8, 2023 15:17:40 GMT crossbat11 said:

May 8, 2023 14:17:09 GMT shevii said:

crossbat11

Cup final tickets on here starting at £662 for the City end

www.fanpass.co.uk/tickets-fa-cup-final-manchester-city-v-manchester-united-5540

I'm sure you can do your own search and how dodgy these sites may be but not like you don't have the money :-)

Thanks. Somebody else mentioned this site to me but, as yet, I haven't had a closer look.

I'm still holding out for something a little less pricey and, as is often the case with these sorts of things, I'm very much reliant on a lot of grace and many favours. There are some irons in the fire but I haven't ruled out breaking Mrs H's piggy bank to finance a black market purchase! The devil drives when needs must, after all.

My warmest iron in the fire is my financial adviser. He is Mr Contacts in many ways and has some pretty high profile sporting clients, including pro footballers.

The only catch is that he is an avid Birmingham City fan. My pension is in his hands too!!

Shame Brighton didn't make the Final. I'd befriended a couple of BHA season ticket holders at the quarter final against Grimsby. They very kindly sorted me a ticket for the semi final against United at Wembley. They might well have been my saviour for the final but, alas, it wasn't to be. An all Mancs Final now. Drat.

I blame both Danny Wellbeck and Solly March!

You could always mug a tout outside the ground?

[oldnat]

May 8, 2023 18:44:44 GMT Mark said:

Just heard the new government plans for GPs on Channel 4 news, which seem to amount to...

1. Brand new telephone systems so that instead of getting 'engaged, you'll get through and be put in a queue.

Isn't this what happens already in most places? Certainly it is in my own GP practice...and indeed my Dad's

2. More receptionists trained, who will, in turn train others.

Ermmmm....the last time I looked, it wasn't the receptionists who actually saw and diagnosed the patients, but, GPs. Didnt hear anything in this about more GPs

3. Patients with more serious conditions fast tracked to get seen sooner/same day.

see my respons to point 1

We are being governed by clowns.

You missed out "underfunding and thus letting pharmacies in England close, so not available to relieve pressure on GPs". (see the end of the article for an alternative approach)

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-65481473

[oldnat]

May 8, 2023 20:21:00 GMT jib said:

May 8, 2023 20:15:01 GMT oldnat said:

Regardless of whether the Met's actions were appropriate or not, will this do their reputation more harm than arresting innocent people?

Sorry, but that poster is an anarchist disruptor.

The Police often have very tough work to do, and here we have an example.

Those dogs were a danger, it's a distressing outcome but the only one. 

I didn't suggest that the Met's actions were inappropriate. I wondered whether killing dogs would cause more harm to the Met than arresting people (who weren't a danger).

EDIT : Incidentally what on earth is an "anarchist disruptor"? What offence has he committed - or is "conspiracy to cause a public nuisance by disrupting anarchy" now an offence in E&W? 

[Danny]

May 8, 2023 20:16:29 GMT jib said:

Let's just be clear what the steps to rejoining involve:

1. A Government is elected on unambiguous manifesto that it wishes to hold a referendum on rejoining
2. Referendum is held to agree to opening rejoining terms with the EU Federal Superstate
3. Terms are agreed and put to a "final say" referendum.

Under the Uk system of supeme sovereignty, all that is required for the UK to join the EU is for parliament to pass the necessary legislation, and its done. In fact that could probably be done quite simply by revoking all the legislation used to leave, which would legally put us straight back in.

Yes of course the EU would have to agree. But all this stuff about referenda is nonsense, there is no need at all to do any of that. Thats the beauty of an unwritten constitution.

[Danny]

May 8, 2023 20:21:00 GMT jib said:

The Police often have very tough work to do, and here we have an example.

yeah they have to rush off to rodger some more corpses.

[oldnat]

For those who block the Trevs, or normally skip by their posts (like me)

[oldnat]