to play devils advocate - change UKIP for the “the Greens” (ie an benefit for the planet, pro- environmental bias party) would we still be so upset by the above comment?
I am not suggesting lunatics holding power is a good thing but if it wasa force for good not evil how bad is it?
Oh, we’re talking about Brexit and the ERG now?
17.2 million people voted for Brexit, the lunacy was thinking MPs still had a choice about it after the referendum.
Yes yes. But enough about RAFAC, what about uk politics?
Christ, this thread is a bit shouty…
Tis only politics!
The real lunacy was not deciding what Brexit looked like before implementing it; which rules to keep, which laws to shred, how close a relationship was desired.
This permitted a small, shouty group to portray their rather extreme and economically damaging interpretation as the only viable option.
Don’t forget that David Cameron literally gave a referendum on EU membership because of the threat of losing a seat to UKIP.
Smaller parties not being able to gain a foothold is exactly my problem with the current system.
Undesirable doesn’t come into it. People should have engaged representation for the nuances of political views (or you get the main parties co-opting them and giving them much more legitimacy and authority).
I mean look at the greens. They are absolutely shafted by the current system. They’ve legitimately raised the concern that they will never meet their political aims through political means because they will never get the representation their vote share should command. As a result, fewer people vote for them because it’s seen as a “wasted vote”. They point at the Lib Dems as the classic example. The third major party stands no chance of implementing their policies because they’re blocked by the narrative that the leader of the opposition IS the opposition.
Edit: The point here being the greens will argue that there literally isn’t time to waste in enacting their environmental policies. If ever there was an argument for moving outside the political system, perceived existential threats probably count!
And insisting people remain within the political system holds little water if it’s clear the system is rigged against them. Not everyone has the same chance.
Tangent: Political donations should also not exist. The state should fund all established parties, to remove the power of rich individuals on our political system.
The UK already funds the opposition parties through the system of ‘short’ money based on a proportional basis of votes gained.
No argument there. This is down to Cameron’s arrogance: thinking he could win a referendum after a joke renegotiation that delivered nothing like what had been promised.
A counter-argument would be that too much effort was expended trying to undo a democratic decision rather than trying to shape the form of Brexit. This ‘all or nothing’ approach by the remainers meant that when they didn’t get their ‘Peoples’ vote’ it was already too late to implement May’s extremely soft Brexit.
Cameron and Osborne refused to undertake any pre-referendum planning because in their hubris decided that they would win easily, well that worked out well. Cameron was onto a loser either way.
Parliament approved the referendum result and the subsequent Article 50 ratification by a majority in the House of Commons of 2 to 1. The Parliamentary shenanigans afterwards including the Benn Act and a biased Speaker in the shape of Bercow to derail a decision of the people was a disgrace to the standing of Parliament in the eye of the people.
Johnson when he took over as PM had to remove by a vote the Fixed Term Parliament Act to call a general election which Parliament allowed to happen, then he called the election and won an 80 seat majority on the basis of the party manifesto. We left the corrupt edifice and less than three months later the world came to a stop with Covid and then the Ukrainian war. Government had different things to think about at the time.
There politicians acting against the will of the people such as Hammond Soubry Sturgeon Gauke who tried an end run around Parliament’s decision, it was almost treasonous. And, members of the civil service also have questions to answer over their acts and omissions as well.
Just gonna leave this here.
I specifically remember every Brexit leader and their dog assuring us “nobody was talking about no deal” and that we held all the cards.
On that basis, it should have been “awesome deal what we was promised, or remain”.
It’s good to see how well the NHS are dealing with their additional £350m/week too, isn’t it?
You mean the billions poured into an unreformed system that has a habit of neglect in killing or injuring I ts patients.
Read the:
Ockendem Report
Kennedy on Bristol, Mid Staffs, and Patterson
Hope Hospital neurosurgical unit
East Kent maternity deaths
Gosport
Tameside
North Manchester maternity unit
To name but a few.
You mean that NHS and I worked In it for 38 years.
Plus the slogan was could not would.
They’re getting a lot more than an extra £350m a week, but the problems with the NHS are too fundamental for any affordable level of additional funding to fix.
Since 2008.
Unless the NHS is totally reformed it will be just an ever-increasing money pit. The easy option is to:
1 Make all NHS hospitals and care partners fully independent and freestanding, they either do well or fail, but that is a management problem not a governmental one,
2 All healthcare is free at the point of need.
3 The government only commissions healthcare.
4 That even if you pay NI and/or taxes there is an accommodation cost for a hospital stay, those under 18 or receiving state support are exempt.
5 All person attending a healthcare facility must prove entitlement to healthcare unless it’s an emergency.
Trouble is, it’s only true if you take into account the additional money made available to cover Covid.
Once you look at the forecasted budgeting, it’s even below a £300m/week increase and only represents an increase per year budget increase of roughly 0.2% when inflation is running at roughly 7.5%, leading to a significant real-terms cut in available budget. My maths may be slightly out on this point, but the trend is correct.
The links provided by yourself and Bob show that the existing increases are part of a continuing trend and therefore cannot accurately be accredited to any so-called Brexit dividend.
I would hate this as a reality. You’d have patients self-discharging themselves to save costs then be back in hospital much sooner as a result.
Also what happens if you don’t claim benefits but cannot afford it? Destroy yourself financially like in ‘merica?
That’s without even thinking about long-term terminal illness…
It’s called “Tories”.
I’m just joshing you.
Or am I?
Hospitals for years have discharged patients too soon and had them bounce back, mainly due to bed pressures.
As in hotel type costs such as x amount capped at 30 days. If you’re in hospital you’re not spending the money at home eating etc.
Long-term terminal illness is already covered for thing like prescription charges, strangely you can have an organ transplant but without diabetes or other hormonal disease you pay prescription charges, if you have a Cystic Fibrosis and have a lung transplant you have free prescriptions as the disease comes in two parts, lung and pancreas and very few Cystic don’t have the Pancreatic component.
Those who receive state pension already lose their pension to a great extent if they are in hospital long term. Selling of their property to pay for care is not new and start as far back as the 60s.