Rayvin

Rabid pillocks Also, what kind of fucked up spelling of pacify is that?

As I said, he did alright today. ewerk, why is soft Brexit impossible? If what we're all saying about how a rerun of the referendum would turn up a different result is true, surely soft-Brexit allows for the kind of compromise climb down from the brink that we could all get behind. Yes, it's effectively the same as remaining in the EU, but they could come up with all kinds of reasons about how this is actually still taking back control for the benefit of the pillocks.

Also agree with this. I would suggest that they make soft brexit the focal point as well, given that the Tories can't.

This I agree with, but they've missed the boat on demonstrating that they're different on Brexit now. The Tories have played both sides of the referendum debate and effectively captured the whole debate. Labour needs to think ahead and be creative about how to bring the people who voted out, back into the fold. Corbyn has moved the party far left enough to do this, but he hasn't conveyed his message well enough. He may never be able to, they may need someone else. As an aside, I wonder how the PLP took the Trump election They're so far behind the times I suspect it was a bit of a shock.

They're need a turnout of more than what the referendum netted to make that count though. Which they very likely wouldn't get...

Exactly.

Labour need to win back the people who just delivered Brexit though... Opposing Brexit confirms them as the party of the middle class, for the middle class. Identity politics and good old middle class values aren't going to get them back into power.

I was thinking more that private sec. managers are needed rather than private medical consultants. People whose rewards can be tied to KPIs like efficiency, patient satisfaction and cost saving. I'm sure this happens. The question is, why isn't it happening in a way that is helping? From talking to this friend of mine, I was certain that I could make a pitch to this hospital, as a management consultant, that would save them money. What barrier comes up between people who understand processes and management well enough to help, and those in the NHS who need to sort their shit out?

Was Essembee being facetious...? isn't Khazri one of his Mackem Galacticos? Which I've always assumed was an ironic statement, but you can never be sure with this lad.

I was thinking something similar just before, although that's a long game to play. They wouldn't get their 'I told you so' moment for some time. And would people even care then? In my head they need to play a clever game that involves being coy about the whole thing, half in and half out. They can't go all in otherwise they won't be able to criticise, but somewhere in between the two positions could let them have their cake and eat it. Or it could make them look indecisive. It's not an easy position to play, but it's a better one than Theresa's. She has to go balls deep into Brexit

I mean the poisoned chalice of delivering Brexit - But yes, I probably should have expanded. There's no way May can deliver Brexit while keeping enough people happy, and while preserving the economy; so whoever carries it out, is fucked. I'd prefer the Tories to 'deliver' it rather than Labour, actually. Corbyn losing would see him off altogether but my views on this have changed since his re-election. In a Trump election landscape we don't have time to wait for the Tories to fuck up and for people to head to Corbyn, we need the left to start building a new framework for winning people back in that doesn't look like what Blair did. I thought we had another four or five years

Corbyn did well at PMQs today (though not amazing, as ever). What worries me though is how utterly out of her depth May seems to be. She had nothing of any substance to say whatsoever when challenged. I genuinely don't think she knows what she's doing. I suspect the reason she hasn't called a GE is because she'd probably win it - and winning it would be political suicide.

It is nice to see that some sectors of the media establishment are starting to confront the message behind Trump now, rather than the man himself. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/16/globalization-trump-inequality-thomas-piketty Rising inequality was always the issue in my view, especially in an austerity ravaged economic landscape. The people needed to send a message, the message is sent and, fortunately, appears to be received. Now we just have to endure 4 years of Trump and hope that this gives the left enough time to put together something coherent as an alternative.

Fully agree, but do we want regulation for this? Shouldn't people have some personal responsibility for their lifestyle choices? I know this debate exists now as we're all paying for it anyway, but I feel like it'd be more pronounced if people were 'actively' paying for health insurance rather than effectively doing it passively through PAYE.

Interesting and sensible. Is it politically achievable over here? Presumably the barrier is that it's just too hard a sell for one of our two relevant parties?

Also true But hey, it's the Guardian.

I'd say no but then those people are probably shelling out a lot more than we are anyway, on NI. Also, if we end up doing this, and people are effectively covering their own premiums, if someone is willfully fat, a smoker, eats poorly, does drugs, enjoys base jumping, etc - all manner of potentially life shortening issues, do they get a higher premium? They probably would do, I expect.

I agree, if the issue is people getting bent out of shape about insurance then yes, that's pointless. Assuming of course that those who can't afford insurance are still covered.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/nov/16/train-bosses-investigate-alleged-racist-announcement-over-tannoy Unfortunate to see this coming from Newcastle. Just one pillock but it's made national news (in the Guardian).

If that happens there'd be hell on. Although it does have a socialist flavour to it which leaves me rather conflicted.

I still can't make up my mind if Trump never expected to win, and therefore never expected to have to live up to his promises (and is therefore scrambling around for anyone at all to help him, abandoning his rhetoric all over the place), or if he is quite as two faced as it seems...

But the state acts as a go between which theoretically protects it from the private interests of a select number of shareholders.

The NHS sorely needs private sector thinking from the albeit limited discussions I've had with friends who work in it. One of my mates heads up a radiology department in his hospital, and the number of inefficiencies he has to deal with day to day are staggering. He was telling me about how consultant radiographers are supposed to audio record their report on each case they look at so that a machine can type it up for them later. Instead though, most of them refuse, and insist on dictating the notes to a typist. While this is latter option is about 25% quicker at the time of processing the report, it requires the consultant to re-read each report at a later date, before it is issued. So in reality it takes up more of the consultant's time (despite looking quicker initially), causes up to two weeks of delay in the report being issued to the patient (versus 1-3 days) and costs more (for the typist). That kind of thinking can only happen because the management structures aren't strong enough to exert control over the consultants in this case and force them into line. This is just one hospital but I can't imagine the experience is unique. You would hope that we could reform it without privatising it through the use of consultants, except that they seem to be more interested in buttering their bread in the long run - and so their solutions are not often the best ones.

Great line. The MSM doesn't have fake narratives, they have very real narratives. They're just not all encompassing and often hypocritical. Agree that nothing is real

Yep just found it. Fair enough.