Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[SteveM70]

I agree. But those are human judgements and therefore difficult to encapsulate into any hard-and-fast law. And if you are OK to allow those, then I guess you're not after all proposing a ban on MPs accepting any hospitality at all - because you recognise that there are reasonable exceptions.



I'd agree with the principle that MPs shouldn't be accepting any hospitality that's intended to (or likely to) sway their judgement in matters of public policy. I think that drawing a line between that kind of (corrupt) hospitality and stuff that's actually innocent is difficult though.

At the end of the day, any business taking a minister or MP to dinner / the opera / Wembley / the horse racing etc isn’t doing it for altruistic reasons, it’s doing it because it believes it can gain from it.

Every company I’ve worked for has a ban on accepting hospitality from suppliers and potential suppliers, and government should be the same. Buying me tea and a cake at a meeting in a hotel was fine, taking me to the football wasn’t

 

[Enthusiast]

So what? Maybe he genuinely feels that he would like to help out the NHS while being an MP.

But he has a full time job for which he's paid £86k pa. I've held jobs where I was paid near enough the equivalent to an MP's salary and there was no way I would have had time to "help out" the NHS or anybody else.

As @takno has said, he was probably one of the "Cameronite" Tories who believed, rightly or wrongly, that the Cameron-Osborne approach to the economy was the right one at the time. Perhaps he's now changed and realised it was a mistake.

That may well be so. But there have been three General Elections since he became an MP. Each one brought a considerable change of approach and each gave him the opportunity to jump the Tory ship if he did not like the way the wind was blowing. Nobody can suggest that the Tory package on offer in 2019 was anything like that offered in 2015.

It just sounds like you have sour grapes about the defection.

I have a general belief that an MP who loses the whip or resigns from the party under whose banner he was elected should stand down, force a by-election and stand under his new incarnation. The overwhelming majority of votes cast in a Parliamentary election in the UK are based on party grounds; it is unusual for an individual to attract votes. That belief holds good for any MP. Other than that I have no feelings one way or the other on his defection and certainly none of the "sour grapes" variety. The only thing I will say is that I don't quite see the point of Dr Poulter's defection. This Parliament has only a few months to run, much of which will be taken up by the summer recess and the conference season (if it lasts that long) and Dr Poulter has said that he will not seek re-election. I suppose at least during the remaining time he has left in his seat he will have ample time to help out the NHS.

I think it's you who are jesting here. This sounds exactly like something a Government minister would say! £3000 each may sound a lot but it's presumably not enough. To me it seems that the NHS does need more funding, why else is it in such a state? Your comment about it being "short of the organisational ability..." just sounds to me like blame-deflecting Government propaganda.

I'm not jesting by any means. In the couple of months after last Christmas Mrs Enthusiast had the misfortune to have to seek medical attention for a fairly serious problem. I have a log of the various interactions between her and the health service and it makes for pitiful reading. I accompanied her on most of her appointments to various hospitals and clinics and the service provided at most of them can only be described as shambolic (and that's being kind). Eventually, because of untold delays and various other administrative cock-ups problems, she had to ditch the NHS and have the matter treated privately (which was accomplished in about ten days at a cost of slightly more than the £3,000 per year the NHS has allocated for every member of the population). We're lucky, we have the cash to do that. Many people don't.

The NHS has no shortage of either money or people. The problem it has is that many of the people it employs (and hence a lot of the money it spends) contribute little or nothing towards healing the sick. In fact, contrarily, many of them actually hinder that aim. So to answer your question, it is in a state because it is thoroughly disorganised. Reorganising many of its functions does not require shedloads of cash. It simply needs people with the skills to do so and who will discard remarks such as "that's how it's always been done." As an example, it is little wonder the NHS bangs on about missed appointments. It steadfastly refuses to inform patients of their appointments via e-mail or text (despite holding contact details to enable them to do so). Instead it insists on informing them of their appointments - determined unilaterally with no consultation with the patient to confirm they are convenient - only by letter. Incredible as it seems to their staff, letters are often delayed or lost entirely - a problem Mrs E suffered twice during her unsuccessful attempt to get the NHS to address her problem.

To change something like that requires very little money and certainly no permission or input from government, yet the benefits to both the service and its patients would be enormous. Of course there are many more serious and complex problems than that but the government does not run the NHS; it simply provides it with funding. Money has been poured into the NHS. In real terms its spend has increased by 27% between 2015/16 and 2022/23 and in addition to that £47bn and £40bn extra funding was provided in the two years of Covid. Yet outcomes for patients have deteriorated in that time, indicating that there are serious underlying problems that will not be cured by pouring ever larger sums of cash into its coffers. It isn't more money or staff the NHS needs. It needs to utilise what it has more efficiently and the current plethora of highly paid directors, managers and administrators seem unable to do that.

So I don't quite know what Dr Coulson means when he says he cannot look his NHS colleagues in the eye because I believe the problems the NHS faces are not those which can or should be cured by government. You only need to experience some of its shortcomings to realise that.

 

[Silenos]

Indeed, why would the UK accept asylum seekers deported from Ireland when those people entered the UK from elsewhere in the EU in the first place?

Why would France accept asylum seekers deported from the UK when those people entered France from elsewhere in the EU in the first place?

 

[The Ham]

Doubtless those here who defend the right of asylum seekers to roam the World looking for the perfect country to settle in will be horrified at and wanting to protest about the Irish Government's proposals?

I think that is perfectly reasonable to protest against the Irish government's proposal, however as a British citizen it could be seen as me not wanting them here (which is you've read any of my posts would be clear isn't the case, but that wouldn't be obvious if you just saw me at such a protest).

As such, I doubt that you'd get many actually protesters - and probably a fair number would be there because they didn't want the asylum seekers here.

The NHS has no shortage of either money or people. The problem it has is that many of the people it employs (and hence a lot of the money it spends) contribute little or nothing towards healing the sick. In fact, contrarily, many of them actually hinder that aim.

Do you have any data to show that an unreasonable percentage of people contribute little or nothing towards healing the sick?

Even if you do have data implying that, how many of those are cleaners (who keep the hospitals clean), catering staff (who ensure that people have a healthy diet, and therefore directly contribute towards people getting better), porters (who do lots of tasks which frees up medical staff to do other tasks - do you really want a surgeon having to get stuff from stores before being able to carry out surgery or having to get a patient from the ward to theatre) or many of the other roles which allows doctors, nurses and other frontline staff to make people better.

Headlines like "42,500 managers in the NHS" may make you think you're right, however that's only part of the answer, in that there's a need to understand what percentage that is, it's it's 15% you've probably got a point (spoiler it's less then that).

 

[43096]

It steadfastly refuses to inform patients of their appointments via e-mail or text (despite holding contact details to enable them to do so). Instead it insists on informing them of their appointments - determined unilaterally with no consultation with the patient to confirm they are convenient - only by letter. Incredible as it seems to their staff, letters are often delayed or lost entirely - a problem Mrs E suffered twice during her unsuccessful attempt to get the NHS to address her problem.

And if a hospital tells you they will send a latter to your Doctor, that's exactly what they do. Someone types out a letter and puts it in the post. No, they can't update your NHS patient record themselves (but I can see at least some of the same record on an app on my phone). No, they can't send it electronically. It's entrusted to another of the great useless British institutions, Royal Mail. How much money is ****ed away just with this letter sending shambles?

 

[Falcon1200]

Why would France accept asylum seekers deported from the UK when those people entered France from elsewhere in the EU in the first place?

Because France is in the EU where Freedom of Movement exists. And in any case, asylum seekers in Ireland would not be deported from the UK.

 

[bahnause]

Because France is in the EU where Freedom of Movement exists.

As EU citizens, all nationals of the Member States of the European Union have the right to move freely within the European Union and to enter and reside in any EU Member State

 

[Yew]

Headlines like "42,500 managers in the NHS" may make you think you're right, however that's only part of the answer, in that there's a need to understand what percentage that is, it's it's 15% you've probably got a point (spoiler it's less then that).

I'd say that if anything the problem is the opposite, lots of NHS "magagers" are former doctors, who don't specialise in efficiently running organisations, and whos primary contribution seems to be to resist anything that a non-doctor suggests on principle.

 

[takno]

I'd say that if anything the problem is the opposite, lots of NHS "magagers" are former doctors, who don't specialise in efficiently running organisations, and whos primary contribution seems to be to resist anything that a non-doctor suggests on principle.

I'm not sure there is a significant path to management for doctors at all. Why would anybody do it when the wages for doctoring are usually rather higher?

 

[ainsworth74]

Do you have any data to show that an unreasonable percentage of people contribute little or nothing towards healing the sick?

Even if you do have data implying that, how many of those are cleaners (who keep the hospitals clean), catering staff (who ensure that people have a healthy diet, and therefore directly contribute towards people getting better), porters (who do lots of tasks which frees up medical staff to do other tasks - do you really want a surgeon having to get stuff from stores before being able to carry out surgery or having to get a patient from the ward to theatre) or many of the other roles which allows doctors, nurses and other frontline staff to make people better.

Headlines like "42,500 managers in the NHS" may make you think you're right, however that's only part of the answer, in that there's a need to understand what percentage that is, it's it's 15% you've probably got a point (spoiler it's less then that).

It does seem as if, ironically, there's an increasing argument to be made that the NHS is in fact undermanaged, that it may well need more managers rather than fewer and that clinicians would be able to deliver more efficient care if they had less administration and management to worry about it (because it was being done by administrators and managers)!

That being said I wouldn't just throw money at hiring more managers, it needs to be thought through a bit more than that but I do suspect that fixing the NHS might require more management. Perhaps controversially!

 

[AM9]

It does seem as if, ironically, there's an increasing argument to be made that the NHS is in fact undermanaged, that it may well need more managers rather than fewer and that clinicians would be able to deliver more efficient care if they had less administration and management to worry about it (because it was being done by administrators and managers)!

That being said I wouldn't just throw money at hiring more managers, it needs to be thought through a bit more than that but I do suspect that fixing the NHS might require more management. Perhaps controversially!

It seems that a view being expressed in some recent posts on this thread is of the same flavour that 'more bobbies on the street will solve the rise in crime' or even more contentious, 'more front line railway staff will make the trains run better'.
The issue is that with large organisations, the logistics of running the organisation is often much more influential on actual performance than the visibility of front line staff.

 

[JamesT]

It seems that a view being expressed in some recent posts on this thread is of the same flavour that 'more bobbies on the street will solve the rise in crime' or even more contentious, 'more front line railway staff will make the trains run better'.
The issue is that with large organisations, the logistics of running the organisation is often much more influential on actual performance than the visibility of front line staff.

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/insight-and-analysis/data-and-charts/key-facts-figures-nhs has a chart showing there are more doctors and nurses in hospitals in the NHS in England since the Conservatives gained power in 2010, yet I think the consensus here would be that the NHS has gone downhill.

 

[AM9]

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/insight-and-analysis/data-and-charts/key-facts-figures-nhs has a chart showing there are more doctors and nurses in hospitals in the NHS in England since the Conservatives gained power in 2010, yet I think the consensus here would be that the NHS has gone downhill.

More doesn't necessarily mean enough. Particularly when GPs are rather thinner on the ground. In many cases A & E are becoming the primary care operation, hence the excessive waiting times.

 

[takno]

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/insight-and-analysis/data-and-charts/key-facts-figures-nhs has a chart showing there are more doctors and nurses in hospitals in the NHS in England since the Conservatives gained power in 2010, yet I think the consensus here would be that the NHS has gone downhill.

Noteworthy that the number of doctors listed in that chart excludes GPs. I don't have the GP numbers to hand but the drop there seems to cancel out the hospital-based rise quite substantially. All of this "real terms" stuff of course also has to be played out against a substantial increase in the population, and in the elderly and sick population in particular, and a catastropic drop in the level of primary care which is leading to people presenting later with more complex problems.

It's also perhaps unclear whether these figures include staff who were imported to the NHS from other bodies. It also doesn't tell us much about what has happened to the number of paramedics, therapists and other non-doctor-and-nurse staff. Finally it doesn't cover whether the nurses in particular have the same qualifications and levels of experience, particularly where Brexit and the cuts to nursing training have presaged a wholesale switch in where nurses are sourced from.

The NHS is worse because, compared to the population and country at large, it's smaller and worse-staffed. It also doesn't help that the probably-too-small number of remaining managers aren't able to keep up motivation in the face of a relentless assault from the government.

 

[AM9]

The NHS is worse because, compared to the population and country at large, it's smaller and worse-staffed. It also doesn't help that the probably-too-small number of remaining managers aren't able to keep up motivation in the face of a relentless assault from the government.

It's true to say that by default, the NHS workforce probably feels less motivated with Conservative governments that have right from the beginning, had less commitment to the principles of the health service, (it actively opposed it's creation in the '40s but Nye Bevan proved that a majority of the electorate thought otherwise). The general apathy the Conservatives show for the NHS is only temporarily shelved when there is an opportunity to use it for electoral gains.

 

[najaB]

Doubtless those here who defend the right of asylum seekers to roam the World looking for the perfect country to settle in will be horrified at and wanting to protest about the Irish Government's proposals?

Nope. It's perfectly consistent with the idea that people have the right to make an asylum application in the country that they feel they will be safest in, and of that country to remove them if their application is unsuccessful.

Note this is completely different to our government's Rwanda plan which, if it's ever fully implemented, will see both successful applicants and those whose applications are denied sent to Rwanda.

 

[Enthusiast]

The NHS is worse because, compared to the population and country at large, it's smaller and worse-staffed.

But that doesn't stack up. The Kings Fund report says this:

Between 2012 and 2022, the number of doctors and nurses rose while the number of managers is broadly similar (doctors increased by 31 per cent and nurses by 16 per cent between March 2012 and March 2022).

During that time, the population increased by only 5.8%.

That report also shows that the UK spends only a fraction less (of %age GDP) than many comparable countries and more than some. These include Spain and Greece, both of which I have required medical attention. The difference between what I received in those countries and what I might expect in the UK is considerable. The Spanish hospitals in particular which I experienced were a world apart from their UK equivalents.

It also doesn't help that the probably-too-small number of remaining managers aren't able to keep up motivation in the face of a relentless assault from the government.

In what way is the government relentlessly assaulting the NHS or its staff (unless they are being injured by the large bundles of fifty pound notes being thrown at it)? You only have to spend a little time in an NHS hospital or clinic or even simply dealing with its bureaucracy to discover that it is hopelessly inefficient and disorganised. The job of curing those deficiencies rests with its directors and managers.

The one aspect of the NHS which I do believe the government should take steps to address is the provision of primary healthcare. The GP service is an outdated principle which was fine when Dr Finlay knew all his patients personally. It doesn't work any more. Particularly since the pandemic, for many people access to a GP has been virtually impossible. Thanks to Mr Blair paying them twice the money for half the work, a huge number of them now work only part time. My surgery has eight doctors listed on its website, which might just be enough if they all worked full time, but alas only one of them does. This is a ludicrous situation which makes any sort of continuity for ongoing problems virtually impossible. GPs have now become basically a dispensary for painkillers, antibiotics and other drugs that have been prescribed for long-term treatment or clearing houses to direct patients towards specialist NHS treatments. The GP service in its current form is unfit for purpose and it needs abolition and replacement by something which works. However, any government proposing such a move (or any other necessary and radical NHS reform) would be met with howls of opposition.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Nope. It's perfectly consistent with the idea that people have the right to make an asylum application in the country that they feel they will be safest in, and of that country to remove them if their application is unsuccessful.

Note this is completely different to our government's Rwanda plan which, if it's ever fully implemented, will see both successful applicants and those whose applications are denied sent to Rwanda.

I don't believe it is that different. As I understand it, the Irish Government are proposing to deport people who have arrived from the UK back to the UK without considering any asylum claim. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/ireland-asylum-seekers-sunak-eu-b2536159.html

On Sunday, Mr Harris said Ireland would not “provide a loophole for anybody else’s migration challenges” and asked his justice minister to bring forward emergency legislation to allow asylum seekers to be sent back to the UK.

But the move could spark a diplomatic row as a government source has now said any attempts to return the asylum seekers to Britain would amount to a grave double standard given that the UK is not allowed to send migrants who cross the English Channel back to France.

Note that the report specifically says they will allow asylum seekers to be sent back, not people who have had asylum claims denied.

 

[najaB]

Note that the report specifically says they will allow asylum seekers to be sent back, not people who have had asylum claims denied.

Fair enough. The article I had read said "failed asylum seekers".

 

[Enthusiast]

Nope. It's perfectly consistent with the idea that people have the right to make an asylum application in the country that they feel they will be safest in,...

I'm glad you mention that simply as an "idea". For, as far as I can see, that's all it is (and I don't know whose idea it was). That said, it seems to be an idea that enough people have promulgated so that it has eventually gained traction. This article, for example, specifically states that, according to the UN Convention, asylum seekers have the right to claim asylum in any country they choose:

Claiming asylum in the UK – the facts

People arriving in the UK have the right to claim asylum - however, the process is complex and the law around asylum seekers changes regularly. We cover what it means to be an asylum seeker and how claiming asylum in the UK works – including the latest changes from the Nationality and Borders...

www.rescue.org

Whilst I cannot lay claim to having read every word of every article of the convention, I have read quite a bit of it and I can find no reference to that freedom of choice. I can certainly quote Article 31, which restricts action for "illegal entry or presence" to those "arriving directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened." I should have thought that provision was unnecessary if asylum seekers had the right to wander around until they reach the destination of their choice. But I know that various courts have interpreted the Convention to say the complete opposite to the wording in A31. Quite why they should when A31 is about as unambiguous as it can be, I don't know, so perhaps somebody can help me out a little.

Note this is completely different to our government's Rwanda plan which, if it's ever fully implemented, will see both successful applicants and those whose applications are denied sent to Rwanda.

Successful applicants who apply for asylum in the UK will not be sent to Rwanda. Only (a very few) of those whose claims have not been assessed will be sent there. Their claims will be heard in Rwanda by the Rwandan authorities and if they are successful they will remain in Rwanda. It is not clear what will happen to those whose claims are unsuccessful.

 

[bahnause]

A lot about article 30/31 it is explained here:

Safe countries only?

 

[ainsworth74]

Successful applicants who apply for asylum in the UK will not be sent to Rwanda.

How do they get to the UK to make their application?

 

[Falcon1200]

As EU citizens, all nationals of the Member States of the European Union have the right to move freely within the European Union and to enter and reside in any EU Member State

If there are no border controls between EU member states, all, whether EU citizens or not and regardless of how they entered the EU, are able to move 'freely within the EU'.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

A lot about article 30/31 it is explained here:

Safe countries only?

I'm afraid, to my mind, that article (https://freemovement.org.uk/are-ref...-asylum-in-the-first-safe-country-they-reach/) doesn't help. It merely asserts that refugees are under no obligation to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach, but doesn't provide much evidence to back up that assertion. Indeed, it even quotes Article 31, "The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1,", without acknowledging that that word, directly (which I've bolded), appears to contradict the idea that the convention intended refugees to be able to travel anywhere, because it implies that countries can impose penalties on asylum seekers who have not come directly from the country in which they face persecution.

The article does correctly point out that, at least in Europe, if all refugees claimed asylum in the first safe country, that would place an undue burden on those countries that are geographically closest to the places asylum seekers tend to originate from, but that's not a legal or moral argument - it's more an issue of practicalities.

The article also somewhat misleads to the extent that it makes a big thing of claiming that lots of poorer countries outside Western Europe host many more asylum seekers per head of population than the UK does, but it neglects to point out that most of those countries typically do so by confining asylum seekers to refugee camps, separated from the rest of the population and with no chance to gain a residence permit and live a normal life in the way the UK and most Western European countries do for people granted asylum. Comparing how many people the UK grants asylum to (and with it a permanent life in the UK) with how many people - say - Turkey - forces to live in refugee camps until such time as they can return home is not at all comparing the same thing!

Oh and I realise this is inadequate proof-reading rather than a fundamental argument, but:

We’re a small island situation to the far north east of the European continent

Really? That statement doesn't exactly inspire confidence in a published article.

 

[takno]

If there are no border controls between EU member states, all, whether EU citizens or not and regardless of how they entered the EU, are able to move 'freely within the EU'.

There are border controls between Ireland and other EU states, and a fair number of spot checks at for example, the Danish borders. In any case, whether they can get across borders isn't really the point - they don't gain any free movement rights, and cannot work, claim benefits or in many countries get accommodation. We've got more effective "free movement" rights in the EU given that we can travel there visa-free, but it still wouldn't be practical to head over there and try to set up a new life.

 

[sor]

If there are no border controls between EU member states, all, whether EU citizens or not and regardless of how they entered the EU, are able to move 'freely within the EU'.

in terms of literal freedom of movement maybe, but I think the OP was pointing out the right to live and work - which the EU describes as "freedom of movement"

There are border controls between Ireland and other EU states, and a fair number of spot checks at for example, the Danish borders. In any case, whether they can get across borders isn't really the point - they don't gain any free movement rights, and cannot work, claim benefits or in many countries get accommodation. We've got more effective "free movement" rights in the EU given that we can travel there visa-free, but it still wouldn't be practical to head over there and try to set up a new life.

although we will some differences as the new EU entry-exit system comes in, as Irish citizens won't have to subject themselves to the new controls (nor need an ETIAS authorisation) whereas British citizens will.

 

[bahnause]

If there are no border controls between EU member states, all, whether EU citizens or not and regardless of how they entered the EU, are able to move 'freely within the EU'.

I don't understand this whole obsession with borders. Schengen does not mean that there are no more controls. Schengen means that the external borders will be better protected and that cooperation between police authorities within the Schengen area are strengthened and there are more powers to carry out checks inside.

 

[nw1]

although we will some differences as the new EU entry-exit system comes in, as Irish citizens won't have to subject themselves to the new controls (nor need an ETIAS authorisation) whereas British citizens will.

Which nicely illustrates one of many reasons why Hard Brexit is an act of self-harm...

But of course it won the Conservative Party a couple of elections, so for them it's a resounding success!

 

[bahnause]

I'm afraid, to my mind, that article (https://freemovement.org.uk/are-ref...-asylum-in-the-first-safe-country-they-reach/) doesn't help. It merely asserts that refugees are under no obligation to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach but doesn't provide much evidence to back up that assertion.

It's quite simple. There is no law that forces a refugee to apply for asylum in a particular country. If there were, there would be less discussion. I'm not going to waste my time trying to prove a negative either. If you have evidence: Share it. But the current practice has also been deemed correct by courts in several countries. Articel 31 doesn't even touch the subject of asylum claims, it regulates non-penalization for irregular entry.

There are plenty of independent sources which also judge this practice to be correct. The first safe country principle is recognised internationally as a feature of the common European asylum system (referring to the Dublin convention on how refugees are dealt with across the EU) which the UK is no longer party to after Brexit.

Remember when Robert Jenrick was lying being wrong live on TV, claiming asylum seekers should seek asylum in the first safe country according to the "Refugee Convention" (or whatever he meant...)? Not even Downing Street agreed with him.

 

[Busaholic]

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/insight-and-analysis/data-and-charts/key-facts-figures-nhs has a chart showing there are more doctors and nurses in hospitals in the NHS in England since the Conservatives gained power in 2010, yet I think the consensus here would be that the NHS has gone downhill.

The number of over 65s in England and Wales increased from 9.2 million in 2011 to 11.1 million in 2022, while the population of England alone increased from c52.6 million to c56.5 million between 2010 and 2021, just quoting easy-to-find official statistics, so the consensus here would seem to be soundly based on fact and experience rather than briefings from Conservative Central Office or its puppets in the Dailys Mail and Telegraph.