Very true, 'a little learning is a dangerous thing'.... when it comes without experience
Westminster Politics 2024-2029
- Thread starter Pexbo
- Start date
Very true, 'a little learning is a dangerous thing'.... when it comes without experience
Yep, my point was more a general one against the 'too young to be an MP' argument, rather than defending this particular silver spoon fed dweeb. I think parliament should be more diverse, and more representative of the electorate across all demographics... age group, ethnicity, class etc.
Oh, definitely. 100% agree with you there. I wish a PM would have the guts to create some form of youth political council so that we stop the conveyor belt of posh gits being the only folk who get anywhere in politics.
Is this guy a real person or are we on the next level of messing around now? What’s wrong with his head?
That didn't take long 
Has anyone in this thread - given the various ideas of fees for accessing NHS services and A&Es, etc - or elsewhere proposed a premium, subscription type model similar to how Spotify is set up? As in a basic level for everyone for free, and a paid model that gets subscribers guaranteed services?
I'd be happy to pay extra to the NHS in return for guaranteed GPs appointments - or even just knowing someone would answer the phone at the surgery - as well as dental work. And I'd much prefer to have money go into the NHS than to some private company making shareholders rich. A system where 40% of money paid in was spent on the 'premium' service, with the other 60% funding the core NHS services could be an idea? Or am I talking bollocks?
I'd be happy to pay extra to the NHS in return for guaranteed GPs appointments - or even just knowing someone would answer the phone at the surgery - as well as dental work. And I'd much prefer to have money go into the NHS than to some private company making shareholders rich. A system where 40% of money paid in was spent on the 'premium' service, with the other 60% funding the core NHS services could be an idea? Or am I talking bollocks?
Cos feck the poor
The NHS should stand against health inequality wherever possible while improving overall outcomes. I'd be very uncomfortable with the idea of people receiving tiers of service.
The reality is we are in a similar situation now with some able to pay for private treatment and health outcomes so much better in particular regions, but I don't think we should bake it in to the provision of public healthcare.
This
Not really what I was going for!
In that idea, though, the poor would benefit more from people paying into that system than even the people that would be paying into it.
And people already pay for private healthcare that relies heavily on NHS resources in terms of doctors and facilities. Wouldn't a plan like that curtail that and free up capacity for all users?
I was obviously aware that was a possibility, but as a spitballing type of idea, why do you think it wouldn't work?
I'm against the NHS becoming a tiered system, so I'm not advocating that kind of approach, it was more I was wondering if it had ever been suggested as a model here or abroad.
If it's a choice between my daily 20 hours of listening to Taylor Swift on spotify and the NHS then I guess I'm gonna die.
Surely this can't be real?
Surely this can't be real?
Still not as good as his "up the ra" one.
Surely this can't be real?
It must be AI, surely
The whole point of NHS is it's supposed to be for everyone irrespective of status, if you bring in a tiered system then it's no longer what it's supposed to be, people who can pay will get a better service and those who can't are fecked.Not really what I was going for!
In that idea, though, the poor would benefit more from people paying into that system than even the people that would be paying into it.
And people already pay for private healthcare that relies heavily on NHS resources in terms of doctors and facilities. Wouldn't a plan like that curtail that and free up capacity for all users?
I was obviously aware that was a possibility, but as a spitballing type of idea, why do you think it wouldn't work?
I'm against the NHS becoming a tiered system, so I'm not advocating that kind of approach, it was more I was wondering if it had ever been suggested as a model here or abroad.
IMO, the UK needs to have a frank disussion about what the NHS should and shouldn't do, the current expectations are far removed from the original set up and the country can't and never will be able to afford or fund it properly.
How would it not still be for everyone with that kind of system though? Nobody would be fecked, everyone would still be guaranteed at least the levels of service they currently have, and as the health service would have more money to work with, wouldn't it mean that service could actually improve? It'd also stop private care taking NHS doctors and specialists out of the system to work on the side, and stretching their resources, wouldn't it? And make private health care less appealing across the board?
As you say, with the way it currently is, aren't all options worth a discussion?
Supporting a European nation from an illegal invasion isn’t a worthy cause?
I know you should be able to do both but (a) where has your rage been since the policy was introduced and (b) the man’s been in office for 6 days FFS!
If you can pay to see a GP quicker than someone who can't afford to, that's unfair. The NHS was set up on the principle that nobody should have to worry about their healthcare, it's literally the jewel I'm the crown of the British state and the number one target for multinational healthcare corporations for that very reason. It's one of the few reasons to be proud to be British and people just want to feck it and it's founding principles off. How about it just gets the appropriate levels of funding?
yeah. and it’s not the victorian era. we don’t need families with 5 children.
I understand and fully support those principles, and at no point have I said we should feck it off, or privitise it, but we've seen where 14 years of Tory government has left it. The idea I suggested we debate the merits of would bring more money into it, not less.
We've already in this short thread seen pages of posts by people saying that the GP care that we all took for granted in 2005 has all but disintegrated. The opportunity to see your local doctor relys on ringing a landline repeatedly between 8:59 and 9:27, only to hear the engaged tone. Eventually you get through and they tell you to go through the same ordeal the following day.
So yes, it should be free, but it should also work. A free health care service that doesn't work for anyone is no better than no health service at all. Should we be considering anything short of privitisation that might bring it back to a state where it does provide the care we all need? It used to be the pride of the country, but that was before austerity brought it to it's knees.
Yes we should but asking people to pay and therefore get preferential treatment isn't the answer, you're effectively turning part of the NHS into a business rather than a public service. Also where does it stop, do you move up the waiting list for that hip op quicker if you pay? Do you get the more expensive drugs if you pay etc.
It's been shown time and again that the minute you start charging more people begin to avoid healthcare. What we need to do is firstly pay GPS properly so we don't keep losing them to better paid, less stressful jobs in other countries, the same for nurses and junior doctors and start actually valuing the health service. If it needs more money, raise NI, tax sugar, tax fatty foods, focus on prevention rather than reactive medicine. But keep it free and equal for all.
Good points, and I'm not sure what I'd even suggest you'd get for your cash as a 'subscriber' in such a model.
But I suppose the frustration on my part is that I'd like to do more to help it, and would be glad to put more money in. And, as someone with a bad phobia of hospitals and medical procedures, I'd like to make any future treatment as comfortable as possible... But I'm also very anti private health care, because it is essentially jumping the NHS queue anyway, as you are normally treated by NHS staff on and NHS facility, but the money goes to a corporation.
Tbf, we already have that in place. People can pay for private healthcare. I have it through my employer. I see a GP online inside an hour or so. I get referrals or prescriptions based on that.
Anyone advocating for a two tiered system can just pay for Vitality or similar. I HATE using my private healthcare but I do of course. It’s incredible overseas too.
I feel like you've identified the real solution in this post without even noticing. Cancel austerity, not the NHS.
Private healthcare should be banned from NHS facilities. That would help with capacity issues.
Agreed.
But I suppose there is the fear that staff would then leave to focus entirely on working in the private facilities, as working for both on one site is surely a perk for them in the current system?
Yes. If you couldn't already tell from my decade+ posting in these threads, I'm not a fan of it.
Sadly, it seems Labour are fine with it.
I wonder if that covers the recently green-lighted Rosebank project? I remember Starmer saying they wouldn't reverse the decision back when it was announced.
Ironically, those NHS hospitals which have private wards on their sites almost always funnel this significant extra source of income in its entirety straight back into their NHS budgets.
Rather than creating capacity issues (it is, at most, generally one ward in the hospital), it actually often creates a pretty good income for the hospital, by the same set of doctors who are already working at the trust and employed by them.
One of the hospitals in our sector did exactly that during Covid because they needed all of the side rooms, never managed to clear the ward sufficiently to return it to a private ward and have lost a pretty reasonable income stream because of it, one which they desperately need.
As across much of the rest of the country, capacity issues are often created by frankly ridiculous social issues which should not require an inpatient bed in an acute hospital.
If you cancel austerity, you can start paying healthcare professionals what they're actually worth, still not as much as private but enough for them to feel valued. I have a lot of doctors in my family, a number of them have worked for the NHS and would never work for the private sector because they are fully being the NHS as a concept. I have another doctor uncle who moved to the states to work, he's the type of guy who likes to complain about paying half a million in taxes at parties.
Yes, labour are fine with it and it disgusts me. We shouldn't be falling into their trap of thinking there's no other option than austerity and selling the last great British institution.
That didn't take long
But we do. The population is aging we need people who are younger to pay for the services oaps no longer pay for.
Reports Ed Miliband ordered 'immediate North Sea oil ban' 'fabrication', says UK Government | STV News
If I understand this correctly it seems like it won't affect already existing licences, only new ones.
UK ministers preparing king’s speech containing at least 30 bills
Exclusive: Programme to include devolution, housebuilding, crime, transport, AI and green energy
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ing-kings-speech-containing-at-least-30-bills
The government is preparing a packed king’s speech containing at least 30 bills, including sweeping plans on housebuilding, green energy, crime and voter registration, the Guardian has learned.
Labour ministers have drawn up plans for a busy legislative programme focused on delivering the priorities set up in the party’s manifesto.
The speech, which will be delivered by King Charles on Tuesday at the state opening of parliament, is being finalised but is set to include a democracy bill to introduce automatic voter registration. It may also fulfil Labour’s manifesto commitment to lower the voting age to 16.
The speech is also set to include legislation to boost housebuilding and a “take back control” bill devolving powers over energy, transport, skills and planning to mayors and councils. This is expected to include powers to reinstate cancelled bus routes and set affordable fares.
A race equality bill enshrining equal pay rights for ethnic minority staff is likely to be included.
---
There is stuff being reported I am not very keen on, but there is a lot of positives in this first batch of legislation too.
Exclusive: Programme to include devolution, housebuilding, crime, transport, AI and green energy
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ing-kings-speech-containing-at-least-30-bills
The government is preparing a packed king’s speech containing at least 30 bills, including sweeping plans on housebuilding, green energy, crime and voter registration, the Guardian has learned.
Labour ministers have drawn up plans for a busy legislative programme focused on delivering the priorities set up in the party’s manifesto.
The speech, which will be delivered by King Charles on Tuesday at the state opening of parliament, is being finalised but is set to include a democracy bill to introduce automatic voter registration. It may also fulfil Labour’s manifesto commitment to lower the voting age to 16.
The speech is also set to include legislation to boost housebuilding and a “take back control” bill devolving powers over energy, transport, skills and planning to mayors and councils. This is expected to include powers to reinstate cancelled bus routes and set affordable fares.
A race equality bill enshrining equal pay rights for ethnic minority staff is likely to be included.
---
There is stuff being reported I am not very keen on, but there is a lot of positives in this first batch of legislation too.
That's a shame.