The I cant believe it’s not politics thread.

[urban.spaceman]

 

[Ric Flair]

On 28/10/2022 at 10:44, Fazzer 7 said:

Combination of factors. Perceived underfunding is part of it, but it's how that funding is spent which is key. Only last week I read the NHS is currently budgeting for 90 billion pounds worth of negligence claims. If that is correct that is not governments fault.

One of the current traumas is the bed blocking by elderly patients who can't be discharged due to a lack of care provision. Why, one big factor is that around 40k care staff left last year because they didn't want to be forced into mandatory covid vaccinations.

 

Anecdotally, I have tried this week to make an appointment to see my GP. I was told there weren't any face to face appointments with her available within the next 30 days, but I could have a phone appointment with another doctor next week. In the next breath when asking about an aspect of my blood test result, the person on the phone said that "my doctor wasn't in today which was a surprise because I thought she was coming in to do some covid jabs". Wtaf. GP's prioritising covid jabs over patients who want to be seen. Is it because they get paid extra I wonder?! 

So I'm afraid I am a bit cynical of how the NHS is run and I make no apologies. That said things have worsened in the last few years that much is clear.

That £90bn negligence provision is now nearly £130bn as at 31st March 2022, caused by a change in the treasury discount rate and other assumptions and is not something to hang your hat on. 

 

I could bore you with what that figure represents but the way in which negligence is managed within the NHS, its indemnity and not insurance and as a not for profit organisation there's absolutely no chance that figure would be monetised.

 

The actual cost out the door each year is between £2.5-3bn but the true cost of harm is around £8bn. The way in which the lower figure is what's paid out each year is down to protecting the public purse and rather than paying out huge lump sum settlements to cover the ongoing care costs for injured parties, the costs are calculated and paid annually on high value claims for the rest of the injured parties life.

 

The number of reported claims hasn't particularly risen in recent years (they have done in the past) but damages and costs are going up because of damages inflation each year. Whether claim numbers will rise because of the pandemic and/or the knock on effect of back logs of treatment remains to be seen because although these are all terrible situations to be in, they aren't necessarily clinical negligence either.

 

Also due to the nature of how claims are settled where there's often a significant lag between incident occurring and claim being reported and either repudiated or settled means such predictions to the change in landscape quite difficult to predict.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[urban.spaceman]

 

[st albans fox]

2 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

 

Very likely that she clicked on a text message telling her that she needed to register for a covid test or that she had won the lottery …

[urban.spaceman]

[Wymsey]

Who on earth would by willing to pay £1.50 for reading such rubbish?..

Edited 30 October 2022 by Wymsey

[Dames]

I see the Head of the supposedly impartial Civil Service is at the centre of another cover up scandal that benefits the Conservative party.

 

We deserve better.

[Dahnsouff]

Sunak must go to COP27, no excuses, do not care who your election backers were (O&G heavy *cough* *cough*) and don’t forbid  King Charles from going either ffs

 

EDIT So irritated by this, I just emailed Theresa May (my MP) and expressed my dismay at

• Sunak not going to COP27
• The ridiculous prohibition of the King attending

Edited 30 October 2022 by Dahnsouff

[leicsmac]

36 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Sunak must go to COP27, no excuses, do not care who your election backers were (O&G heavy *cough* *cough*) and don’t forbid  King Charles from going either ffs

 

EDIT So irritated by this, I just emailed Theresa May (my MP) and expressed my dismay at

• Sunak not going to COP27
• The ridiculous prohibition of the King attending

What possible reasoning could there be behind both Sunak not going and and furthermore King Charles be dissuaded from going?

 

Surely it isn't something so merely cynical and short-sighted as pressure from corporate backers in fossil fuel companies?

[Dames]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

What possible reasoning could there be behind both Sunak not going and and furthermore King Charles be dissuaded from going?

 

Surely it isn't something so merely cynical and short-sighted as pressure from corporate backers in fossil fuel companies?

Its an attempt to appease the right wingers that might have been considering joining or voting for Reform UK. 
 

As usual its a short sighted strategy to grab a headline or two. 

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Dames said:

Its an attempt to appease the right wingers that might have been considering joining or voting for Reform UK. 
 

As usual its a short sighted strategy to grab a headline or two. 

I would suggest that surely no-one can be that short-sighted and self-interested.

 

Sadly, empirical evidence proves to the contrary.

[Dames]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

I would suggest that surely no-one can be that short-sighted and self-interested.

 

Sadly, empirical evidence proves to the contrary.

Exactly. The Tory Party has proven exactly this in the past 6 years, even more so the past year. 

[Dahnsouff]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I would suggest that surely no-one can be that short-sighted and self-interested.

 

Sadly, empirical evidence proves to the contrary.

It’s almost like the Sunak backers for his election had a strong oil and gas background……

Edited 30 October 2022 by Dahnsouff

[Mike Oxlong]

25 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

What possible reasoning could there be behind both Sunak not going and and furthermore King Charles be dissuaded from going?

 

Surely it isn't something so merely cynical and short-sighted as pressure from corporate backers in fossil fuel companies?

Didn’t fancy a rowing boat to Sharm and back ? 

[Dahnsouff]

30 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

What possible reasoning could there be behind both Sunak not going and and furthermore King Charles be dissuaded from going?

 

Surely it isn't something so merely cynical and short-sighted as pressure from corporate backers in fossil fuel companies?

Not sure it will be a good look when the intergalactic maid turns up and discovers we crashed the species for short term fiscal benefit

 

On another note - I hope you and yours are ok after the horrific situation in Seoul. 

[Otis]

Perhaps he thinks the commitments made at COP26 25 24 etc are sufficient doesn't want to commit to more measures only a year later, at this time which will makes this country poorer whilst the big polluters do nothing and laugh at us.

*waiting for a certain poster to comment, "no one will be laughing in 30 years when we're all under water".

[leicsmac]

49 minutes ago, Mike Oxlong said:

Didn’t fancy a rowing boat to Sharm and back ? 

....could you unpack this one for me a bit, please?

 

41 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Not sure it will be a good look when the intergalactic maid turns up and discovers we crashed the species for short term fiscal benefit

 

On another note - I hope you and yours are ok after the horrific situation in Seoul. 

Nah, we've talked about this before - viewing figures for "Terran Shore" have never been higher in over twenty colonised solar systems as the season finale approaches.

 

NB. Thankfully, everyone I know is safe and well and I thank you for asking.

 

34 minutes ago, Otis said:

Perhaps he thinks the commitments made at COP26 25 24 etc are sufficient doesn't want to commit to more measures only a year later, at this time which will makes this country poorer whilst the big polluters do nothing and laugh at us.

*waiting for a certain poster to comment, "no one will be laughing in 30 years when we're all under water".

At least have the testicular fortitude to @ me next time

 

The argument that "other countries are doing nothing so we should too" (even if that were entirely accurate, which it isn't) as well as "it costs too much" are both logically flawed, for reasons covered extensively on here before.

 

If Sunak and the other powers that be think as described here, then they're simply wrong.

[st albans fox]

Tbh, PM’s and kings making noises at COP27 isn’t what matters. It’s what we do. It’s not like we aren’t attending as a nation. 
 

we hosted COP26 and we need to make sure that commitments made there are acted upon. 
 

the policies that the govt engages with are what matters - sunak made noises about no more wind farms in the summer - he has to show his colours on this now he’s in situ 

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Tbh, PM’s and kings making noises at COP27 isn’t what matters. It’s what we do. It’s not like we aren’t attending as a nation. 
 

we hosted COP26 and we need to make sure that commitments made there are acted upon. 
 

the policies that the govt engages with are what matters - sunak made noises about no more wind farms in the summer - he has to show his colours on this now he’s in situ 

This is also true. Talk is cheap.

 

However, taking the events seriously by sending the highest-level representation is one small means to ensure that action takes place.

[kenny]

5 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Tbh, PM’s and kings making noises at COP27 isn’t what matters. It’s what we do. It’s not like we aren’t attending as a nation. 
 

we hosted COP26 and we need to make sure that commitments made there are acted upon. 
 

the policies that the govt engages with are what matters - sunak made noises about no more wind farms in the summer - he has to show his colours on this now he’s in situ 

In fairness, more wind farms aren't the solution as they don't provide consistent power unless significant storage is an option.  We need to be looking at other sources, such as modular nuclear and tidal.

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, kenny said:

In fairness, more wind farms aren't the solution as they don't provide consistent power unless significant storage is an option.  We need to be looking at other sources, such as modular nuclear and tidal.

Yes. A suite of solutions is called for rather than one magic bullet - fast breeder, thorium fission, wind, hydro, solar and tidal.

 

Until we get fusion working, that is.

[Otis]

22 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

If Sunak and the other powers that be think as described here, then they're simply wrong.

So, if you think previous COP 1-26 commitments don't go far enough, then I'm interested to know what you think countries should commit to & what "penalties" they should receive if they don't meet agreed conditions. 

[st albans fox]

7 minutes ago, kenny said:

In fairness, more wind farms aren't the solution as they don't provide consistent power unless significant storage is an option.  We need to be looking at other sources, such as modular nuclear and tidal.

Appreciate the wind farm element but more of them are a part of the solution 

 

agree that tidal should be something we exploited many years ago …..it’s guaranteed reliable and 100% predictable 

 

maybe they all believe that fusion will come riding to the rescue within the next two decades ……

[kenny]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Yes. A suite of solutions is called for rather than one magic bullet - fast breeder, thorium fission, wind, hydro, solar and tidal.

 

Until we get fusion working, that is.

I take you have seen the solar farm project being adopted in Morocco? My wife has been involved in the infrastructure UK end and that seems like a good idea until Putin cuts the cable.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Otis said:

So, if you think previous COP 1-26 commitments don't go far enough, then I'm interested to know what you think countries should commit to & what "penalties" they should receive if they don't meet agreed conditions. 

A solution that results in a halting of increase of global carbon emissions that will result in a global temperature increase of less than 2 degrees C compared with the 1850 baseline. I would prefer 1.5 but I'm pretty sure that ship has sailed.

 

To be honest, the agreements made at the previous COP meetings should be enough to attain this, it's that countries simply aren't sticking to the timeline.

 

Regarding penalties...there's no human governing authority with the power or inclination to enforce them, so the subject of discussing them is rather moot. Of course, the Earth will, in time, take that role. And the penalties it will inflict, on everyone in general and those in vulnerable areas in particular, will be very, very harsh. We're beginning to see that already.

 

1 minute ago, kenny said:

I take you have seen the solar farm project being adopted in Morocco? My wife has been involved in the infrastructure UK end and that seems like a good idea until Putin cuts the cable.

Saharan solar farms are a good idea, yes.

 

Of course there will always be nutters driven by self-interested geopolitics, but the ideas themselves must be implemented regardless. Not doing so leads to unacceptable future cost.