|
Post by alec on Jan 15, 2024 14:03:21 GMT
Short post on the failures of the NHS regarding ongoing symptoms after Covid. I think this is likely to be a developing issue, and to be honest, one that shows the NHS at it's worst.
It's now established that acute Covid infection produces a range of long term symptoms in a large number of people, and while it still isn't properly defined, collectively this is commonly referred to as 'long covid'. Multiple studies have found that the risks of persistent symptoms rise progressively with each covid infection, so as time goes by, it becomes more and more likely than any given individual will experience or know someone experiencing prolonged symptoms. The WHO are warning governments that this is likely to become a very serious health burden, and so how your health system tackles this is going to become important.
In the UK we have a centrally directed health system under severe long term strain through underfunding. I'm now seeing a growing number of anecdotal reports, but also statements from publicly identifiable NHS doctors, which detail how NHS treatment for symptoms linked to covid are being routinely refused. One of the commonest, and most distressing, long covid symptom is POTS (postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome). It causes racing heart rate and palpitations, dizziness when standing up, and fainting, (quite often brought on by having a shower, as this seems to trigger an attack). POTS can be caused by several illnesses, and really needs to be checked out, as there are treatments. Drug treatments cost around £100 a month if purchased privately, but sadly what is increasingly happening is that consultant cardiologists are refusing referrals from GPs where Long Covid is mention. Patients can go and get tests done privately, at their own expense, but it appears that even with medical tests confirming the condition, many NHS trusts are refusing to prescribe the treatment needed.
I'm seeing a similar stories with MCAS (mast cell activation syndrome) another autoimmune disfunction that has several possible causes, but where some of the NHS MCAS specialists are declining to accept patients where covid is listed as a cause. It's a similar story with testing for microclots, where Germans and Americans can get tested and treated, but the NHS is refusing to do this for those with covid suspected as the cause.
Personally, I think this is pretty disgraceful. Even if you get a sympathetic GP, (not that common) they are having to game the system by avoiding any reference to covid as a possible cause. That's illogical, as we'll not understand the true impacts of covid if we are ignoring the impacts, but it's also potentially damaging for the patient.
I suspect that eventually, this will break through as a story, as with more and more people become caught up in the long covid backwash, the realisation that the NHS effectively abandons you is going to become more and more apparent.
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jan 15, 2024 14:08:34 GMT
...
The poll exposes the huge influence that Reform UK is set to have on the election result. The Right-wing party would not win any seats, but support for it would be the decisive factor in 96 Tory losses – the difference between a Labour majority and a hung Parliament.
There is also bad news for the Scottish National Party, which is predicted to lose almost half of its seats to Labour, retaining only 25. Cue a deal between Tories and Reform? Reform to stand down in some seats, as Brexit did last time, in exchange for what? Peerage for Tice perhaps?
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,281
|
Post by steve on Jan 15, 2024 15:04:32 GMT
mark61"I watched them jump in bed gleefully with the Tories and were happy to assist in imposing savage cuts in Public Services, supported by the rank and file membership" The problem with that comment is it's total bollocks. Liberal democrat membership in 2010 was around 66,000 it had fallen to just over 40,000 By 2012 " I waited 5 years for that Canvasser to come round again! (He didn't!) " Probably because he ceased to be a member in 2012!
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,401
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jan 15, 2024 16:13:37 GMT
You are assuming that people support PR for party political advantage. Several posters, me included, have said we support PR as a matter of principle, so that votes are correctly reflected. My personal view is that under PR the Conservatives would be in government most of the time, either as part of "grand coalitions" with Labour and perhaps the Lib Dems (so excluding the extremes of left and right) or as part of centre-right/right coalitions with Reform (or equivalent). The chance of the fractious, divided and mutually hostile LoC parties getting their act together to form a stable coalition seems the least likely option. Hmmmm. Broadly agree, but aren't we getting a bit ahead of ourselves here? In terms of how a representative voting system will likely change both voting and political party behaviour. It may transform turnouts and also break the demographic straitjacket that paralyses so much of our current politics. Gerontocracy banished. One of the traps we all fall into on this debate, especially gnarled and wizened old political fossils like most of us are on this site, is transfering trusty and comfortable political (alleged) verities on to a transformed electoral and constitutional world. Indeed. I didn't make it clear (because this is all hypothetical anyway), but I assume that a Labour Party that would enter into coalitions with the Conservatives would have shed its left wing into a new 'Socialist' party of some sort - probably along with me to be honest. Meanwhile, given PR, the wilder fringes of the Tories would have decamped to Reform, or whatever. Still, to get a LoC majority you would likely need the Lib Dems, Labour, the new Socialist party, the Greens (various branches), SDLP, APNI and perhaps the SNP and Plaid to support it and the chance of getting that lot to agree on anything seems pretty slim. Herding cats springs to mind. However, extreme right-wing measures would also struggle to get through such a parliament.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,401
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jan 15, 2024 16:25:51 GMT
The poll isn't a plot, but the misleading write-up by the Telegraph probably is.
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jan 15, 2024 16:43:00 GMT
Hmmmm. Broadly agree, but aren't we getting a bit ahead of ourselves here? In terms of how a representative voting system will likely change both voting and political party behaviour. It may transform turnouts and also break the demographic straitjacket that paralyses so much of our current politics. Gerontocracy banished. One of the traps we all fall into on this debate, especially gnarled and wizened old political fossils like most of us are on this site, is transfering trusty and comfortable political (alleged) verities on to a transformed electoral and constitutional world. Indeed. I didn't make it clear (because this is all hypothetical anyway), but I assume that a Labour Party that would enter into coalitions with the Conservatives would have shed its left wing into a new 'Socialist' party of some sort - probably along with me to be honest. Meanwhile, given PR, the wilder fringes of the Tories would have decamped to Reform, or whatever. Still, to get a LoC majority you would likely need the Lib Dems, Labour, the new Socialist party, the Greens (various branches), SDLP, APNI and perhaps the SNP and Plaid to support it and the chance of getting that lot to agree on anything seems pretty slim. Herding cats springs to mind. However, extreme right-wing measures would also struggle to get through such a parliament. Yes, the power-broking and establishment of a stable government would be challenging for a centre-left led coalition, but I think you may be underestimating the possible splintering on the right too when it becomes possible to vote for a party that meets more closely one's views on cultural issues like race, immigration, the EU, crime, social values, religion etc. etc God only knows what interesting parties emerge on that side of the political spectrum, in fact!
|
|
|
Post by alec on Jan 15, 2024 16:56:42 GMT
pjw1961 - "The poll isn't a plot,.." Agreed. It's more of a data presentation with charts.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,031
|
Post by neilj on Jan 15, 2024 17:00:43 GMT
Redfield Wilton
Labour leads by 19%.
Westminster Voting Intention (14 January):
Labour 44% (+1) Conservative 25% (-2) Reform UK 11% (–) Liberal Democrat 10% (–) Green 5% (–) Scottish National Party 3% (–) Other 2% (–)
Changes +/- 7 January
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jan 15, 2024 17:12:51 GMT
mark61"I watched them jump in bed gleefully with the Tories and were happy to assist in imposing savage cuts in Public Services, supported by the rank and file membership" The problem with that comment is it's total bollocks. Liberal democrat membership in 2010 was around 66,000 it had fallen to just over 40,000 By 2012 " I waited 5 years for that Canvasser to come round again! (He didn't!) " Probably because he ceased to be a member in 2012! [br I'm a bit with you on this, and Colin too, when I hear all this talk of unforgivable sell outs, treachery and betrayals. My knee jerk response to this sort of stuff is to hear the voice of the Far Left, who inhabit a world of sell outs around every corner. I immediately recoil. The Lib Dem party in 2010 was entitled to look at the Commons arithmetic and determine that an arrangement with the Tories, by some way the largest party having gained over 90 seats in the election, was the most stable and democratically credible thing to do. Should they have gone into formal coalition? Maybe not. Should the leading lights like Clegg, Alexander, Laws, Swinson have thrown themselves so enthusiastically into what became a de facto Tory administration? Definitely not and the party paid a heavy electoral and political price for them doing so. But this idea that a centrist third party like the Lib Dems has no right to be co-operating with a centre right party, even to the extent of helping them govern in minority, in a parliamentary democracy, is utter nonsense. This is where I sympathise with Colin's view. The Lib Dems aren't the personal possession of the Labour Party. Historically they have always had a strong anti-socialist tradition. Many of their voters would vote Tory as a second option rather than Labour.
|
|
|
Post by mark61 on Jan 15, 2024 17:44:01 GMT
My point being that the lib Dems are and were then a centre right party who I recall Positioning themselves otherwise in 2010 particularly chasing the student/youth vote, pretending to be something they patently were not , progressive. The proof of the pudding being in the eating shortly after the results came in. Don't get me started on their Bar-Charts!
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jan 15, 2024 17:48:54 GMT
I see that the MRP survey has Labour ahead in Wimbledon. Lab 33 LD 30 Con 24.
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jan 15, 2024 18:01:23 GMT
mark61 "I watched them jump in bed gleefully with the Tories and were happy to assist in imposing savage cuts in Public Services, supported by the rank and file membership" The problem with that comment is it's total bollocks. Liberal democrat membership in 2010 was around 66,000 it had fallen to just over 40,000 By 2012 " I waited 5 years for that Canvasser to come round again! (He didn't!) " Probably because he ceased to be a member in 2012! [br I'm a bit with you on this, and Colin too, when I hear all this talk of unforgivable sell outs, treachery and betrayals. My knee jerk response to this sort of stuff is to hear the voice of the Far Left, who inhabit a world of sell outs around every corner. I immediately recoil. The Lib Dem party in 2010 was entitled to look at the Commons arithmetic and determine that an arrangement with the Tories, by some way the largest party having gained over 90 seats in the election, was the most stable and democratically credible thing to do. Should they have gone into formal coalition? Maybe not. Should the leading lights like Clegg, Alexander, Laws, Swinson have thrown themselves so enthusiastically into what became a de facto Tory administration? Definitely not and the party paid a heavy electoral and political price for them doing so. But this idea that a centrist third party like the Lib Dems has no right to be co-operating with a centre right party, even to the extent of helping them govern in minority, in a parliamentary democracy, is utter nonsense. This is where I sympathise with Colin's view. The Lib Dems aren't the personal possession of the Labour Party. Historically they have always had a strong anti-socialist tradition. Many of their voters would vote Tory as a second option rather than Labour. The point is that the LDs are not to be trusted. They must be held as complicit in much of the human wickedness of the Tory years. Many of the most extreme policies occurred whilst the Coalition was in power - the massive jump in tuition fees being the obvious example. We also saw the NHS changes - eventually approved even by the likes of Shirley Williams. They were also happy to support proposals to make it prohibitively expensive for workers to take cases to an Industrial Tribunal - though fortunately the Courts struck down the measure. In practice,they were far from progressive.
|
|
Dave
Member
... I'm dreaming dreams, I'm scheming schemes, I'm building castles high ..
Posts: 818
|
Post by Dave on Jan 15, 2024 18:15:48 GMT
The point is that the LDs are not to be trusted. I've said before that I would vote Liberal if they were the best chance of unseating the Tory in my constituency. However fundamentally I agree with Graham's sentence above. The only thing that makes me feel they won't do another 2010 is that were they to repeat what they did back then, then this time there would be no coming back for them with loc voters. None of this gets away from the fact that the Liberals had every right to, with gusto and enthusiasm, team up with Cameron and co to wreak havoc on our society and it's poor and vulnerable. They absolutely did have that right. They just can't expect that those who remember what they did will not at the very least, be wary of them. Once bitten and all that. And I think they will understand that and that's what would stop them becoming a suburb of the Tory party again.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,281
|
Post by steve on Jan 15, 2024 18:16:24 GMT
"LDs are not to be trusted. They must be held as complicit in much of the human wickedness of the Tory years. "
Grow up how old are you!
I assume neither of us voted for either party in the coalition but as Crossbat pointed out it was the liberal democrats leadership choice to make.
You are correct much of the policy decisions particularly around " austerity " was wrong headed . But they had the odd positive approach. For example same-sex marriages were permitted by legislation passed in 2013
|
|
|
Post by athena on Jan 15, 2024 18:17:43 GMT
The striking feature of the map of that MRP prediction is that it highlights a demographic factor that's barely discussed on this forum: even with a whopping majority Lab would remain an almost exclusively urban party.
Lab is fond of citing the geographical and age limitations of Con support as evidence that the Cons are not a truly national party, but if that matters (and under FPTP I'm prepared to accept it probably does), then its own lack of rural support is just as damaging and worthy of concern, yet it doesn't seem particularly bothered. The Cons have been mocked for having SoSs for Scotland who didn't represent Scottish constituencies, but Lab's Shadow DEFRA SoS represents Croydon North.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,281
|
Post by steve on Jan 15, 2024 18:28:24 GMT
Personally I left the Labour party amongst other reasons because c I considered the then leader couldn't be trusted on brexit, electoral reform and cross party cooperation I think he made the Labour party a safe haven for antisemitism( though not personally antisemitic) and I think he was a Putin apologist. I think he diminished the possibility of getting a Labour government elected and on this I was proven right.
That doesn't mean I feel the need to slagg off the Labour party there are many decent well intended people in the party and the current leader is an honourable man.
I wouldn't have any hesitation voting for a Labour candidate in a constituency where they stood the most credible chance of winning against the Tories. They made a bad choice of leader that doesn't make the whole party beyond redemption
|
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,089
|
Post by oldnat on Jan 15, 2024 18:31:05 GMT
The striking feature of the map of that MRP prediction is that it highlights a demographic factor that's barely discussed on this forum: even with a whopping majority Lab would remain an almost exclusively urban party. Lab is fond of citing the geographical and age limitations of Con support as evidence that the Cons are not a truly national party, but if that matters (and under FPTP I'm prepared to accept it probably does), then its own lack of rural support is just as damaging and worthy of concern, yet it doesn't seem particularly bothered. The Cons have been mocked for having SoSs for Scotland who didn't represent Scottish constituencies, but Lab's Shadow DEFRA SoS represents Croydon North. Are you thinking of Wales & NI? The last MP, who was an SoS for Scotland, that didn't represent a constituency in Scotland was Arthur Balfour 1886-7.
|
|
|
Post by isa on Jan 15, 2024 18:36:41 GMT
Another day, another mooted Tory rebellion. It's Death Wish X. Considering what happened in last month's First Reading, perhaps that should be 'muted'.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,031
|
Post by neilj on Jan 15, 2024 18:42:29 GMT
Lee Anderson has signed the rebel ammendments on the Rwanda Bill Will Sunak have the bottle to sack him?
|
|
|
Post by isa on Jan 15, 2024 18:44:05 GMT
|
|
|
Post by robbiealive on Jan 15, 2024 19:02:28 GMT
Another day, another mooted Tory rebellion. It's Death Wish X. Considering what happened in last month's First Reading, perhaps that should be 'muted'. Ha ha, Just saw One Life, the film about N. Winton saving Czech kids. Traditional structure but had v good grim & funny moments, and good pace in a good weepie. Hopkins as ever is completely convicing. May hv said this before but one of the kids rescued was Karel Reisz, the director of two great but contrasting Brit new wave movies, Saturday Night & S Morning & Morgan, A Suitable Case for Treatment: the latter a favourite of mine tho not everyone's. Reisz course not notmentioned in film but brought home to me the many personal paths eradicated by people who murder chikdren. .
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jan 15, 2024 19:03:26 GMT
"LDs are not to be trusted. They must be held as complicit in much of the human wickedness of the Tory years. " Grow up how old are you! I assume neither of us voted for either party in the coalition but as Crossbat pointed out it was the liberal democrats leadership choice to make. You are correct much of the policy decisions particularly around " austerity " was wrong headed . But they had the odd positive approach. For example same-sex marriages were permitted by legislation passed in 2013 It was certainly the LD's choice to make - but having made it they have to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choice made. One of those consequences is that many LOC voters will not trust them again , and we continue to see that in much of the disaffected NOTA vote now being channelled to the Greens rather than the LDs.. Their Coalition record sstill hold them back and acts as a significant brake on any progress the party might otherwise make. I suspect that this will be more evident in the context of a GE than at parliamentary by elections and local elections.
|
|
|
Post by mark61 on Jan 15, 2024 19:07:52 GMT
@ Steve, your 'total Bollocks' response to my post makes a valid point that the Lib Dems lost 20,000 + members your implication being as I understand it that the vast majority who left were the Progressives who were unimpressed by the decision to join the coalition and the direction then followed, thus leaving the two thirds of the membership who either supported the decision or were happy to live with it. Logically a party moving to the right, a Party you left Labour to join.
Do you think this reveals a personal political journey? I make no criticism here, your choice is yours alone and The Lib Dems are not the Tories, far from it, if they became the official Opposition after the next election I would be delighted.
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jan 15, 2024 19:12:12 GMT
The striking feature of the map of that MRP prediction is that it highlights a demographic factor that's barely discussed on this forum: even with a whopping majority Lab would remain an almost exclusively urban party. Lab is fond of citing the geographical and age limitations of Con support as evidence that the Cons are not a truly national party, but if that matters (and under FPTP I'm prepared to accept it probably does), then its own lack of rural support is just as damaging and worthy of concern, yet it doesn't seem particularly bothered. The Cons have been mocked for having SoSs for Scotland who didn't represent Scottish constituencies, but Lab's Shadow DEFRA SoS represents Croydon North. In the latest analysis, 56 million people in the UK live in urban areas and 10 million in rural areas, so there is inevitably a numerical skew, for any party, that sees most of their supporters living in towns and cities. Self evidently, that's where the vast majority of people live. I would think too that demographically, politically and socioeconomically, rural dwellers wouldn't be a very representative slice of the UK population. Put another way, whilst not being exactly homogenous, they may have always been, and probably always will be, people with cultural and voting habits engrained for generations.
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jan 15, 2024 19:13:39 GMT
Personally I left the Labour party amongst other reasons because c I considered the then leader couldn't be trusted on brexit, electoral reform and cross party cooperation I think he made the Labour party a safe haven for antisemitism( though not personally antisemitic) and I think he was a Putin apologist. I think he diminished the possibility of getting a Labour government elected and on this I was proven right. That doesn't mean I feel the need to slagg off the Labour party there are many decent well intended people in the party and the current leader is an honourable man. I wouldn't have any hesitation voting for a Labour candidate in a constituency where they stood the most credible chance of winning against the Tories. They made a bad choice of leader that doesn't make the whole party beyond redemption I have never been a Corbynite and at no time felt he was suited to be a party leader. He does nevertheless care about others - particularly the less fortunate in the UK and elsewhere. He did succeed in shifting the Overton window to the Left - until Starmer colluded with Truss and Sunak to shift it back to the Right. Unlike the LDs he does not have on his conscience that he helped bring pain and suffering to millions least able to bear such burdens - and brought about the ongoing destruction of our public services revealed week by week.
|
|
|
Post by athena on Jan 15, 2024 19:19:17 GMT
The Cons have been mocked for having SoSs for Scotland who didn't represent Scottish constituencies, but Lab's Shadow DEFRA SoS represents Croydon North. Are you thinking of Wales & NI? The last MP, who was an SoS for Scotland, that didn't represent a constituency in Scotland was Arthur Balfour 1886-7.Tsk. Should have checked. Must be Wales. They've had some narrow squeaks with that role though and after the 1997 election they'll have had a Shadow SoS for Scotland who didn't represent a Scottish constituency (although my hazy memory suggests he might have been Scottish by birth) - that's probably what I was thinking of. Steve Reed can't even claim a rural upbringing or relevant occupational experience.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,401
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jan 15, 2024 19:29:44 GMT
The striking feature of the map of that MRP prediction is that it highlights a demographic factor that's barely discussed on this forum: even with a whopping majority Lab would remain an almost exclusively urban party. Lab is fond of citing the geographical and age limitations of Con support as evidence that the Cons are not a truly national party, but if that matters (and under FPTP I'm prepared to accept it probably does), then its own lack of rural support is just as damaging and worthy of concern, yet it doesn't seem particularly bothered. The Cons have been mocked for having SoSs for Scotland who didn't represent Scottish constituencies, but Lab's Shadow DEFRA SoS represents Croydon North. That underlies my oft expressed scepticism about the (other) MRPs that show Labour winning in lots of rural areas. Labour has few members in those areas , even fewer councillors, no tradition of voting Labour to draw on, little organisation and they don't feature in Labour target lists. I notice that even today's MRP has Labour winning Isle of Wight - whose council of 39 members includes a grand total of 1 Labour Councillor.
|
|
|
Post by Old Southendian on Jan 15, 2024 19:29:46 GMT
I think you may be suffering from self-deception there. As clearly significant as UKPR2 is, I don't see anything that could only have come from UKPR2 in that article. The most remarkable thing about this whole affair is how robust YouGov themselves have been in rubbishing the Telegraph's article. Nothing much I've seen elsewhere has said more than YouGov themselves have already pointed out. I'm sure most of you have read it already, but if not, go and read the "Notes on the Daily Telegraph’s analysis" here: yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/48371-yougov-mrp-shows-labour-would-win-1997-style-landslide-if-election-were-held-today
Clearly YouGov don't like their work being misrepresented by the Telegraph. Good on them.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,401
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jan 15, 2024 19:34:07 GMT
I think you may be suffering from self-deception there. As clearly significant as UKPR2 is, I don't see anything that could only have come from UKPR2 in that article. The most remarkable thing about this whole affair is how robust YouGov themselves have been in rubbishing the Telegraph's article. Nothing much I've seen elsewhere has said more than YouGov themselves have already pointed out. I'm sure most of you have read it already, but if not, go and read the "Notes on the Daily Telegraph’s analysis" here: yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/48371-yougov-mrp-shows-labour-would-win-1997-style-landslide-if-election-were-held-today
Clearly YouGov don't like their work being misrepresented by the Telegraph. Good on them.
They are a commercial organisation selling polling and market research. They need to protect their reputation for fairness and accuracy. I can't think they are too chuffed about being used in this manner by the Telegraph.
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jan 15, 2024 19:34:41 GMT
The striking feature of the map of that MRP prediction is that it highlights a demographic factor that's barely discussed on this forum: even with a whopping majority Lab would remain an almost exclusively urban party. Lab is fond of citing the geographical and age limitations of Con support as evidence that the Cons are not a truly national party, but if that matters (and under FPTP I'm prepared to accept it probably does), then its own lack of rural support is just as damaging and worthy of concern, yet it doesn't seem particularly bothered. The Cons have been mocked for having SoSs for Scotland who didn't represent Scottish constituencies, but Lab's Shadow DEFRA SoS represents Croydon North. That underlies my oft expressed scepticism about the (other) MRPs that show Labour winning in lots of rural areas. Labour has few members in those areas , even fewer councillors, no tradition of voting Labour to draw on, little organisation and they don't feature in Labour target lists. I notice that even today's MRP has Labour winning Isle of Wight - whose council of 39 members includes a grand total of 1 Labour Councillor. There are some areas where party politics rarely features in Local Government. I grew up in Pembrokeshire - a Labour-held seat 1950 - 1970 but which had very few Labour councillors at any tier of local authority.
|
|