Thread 44 Sunak: Hung parliament and Rishful thinking.

[DuncinToffee]

prevoius thread
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5066068-thread-43-sunak-seriously-scapegoating?page=40&reply=135107360

The Times is obsessed with this issue.

Was it last weekend or weekend before The Times gave over a chunk of the front page to an interview to Akshata Murty? No specific reason. Just going wherever Downing Street is leading them.

Most Trusts give TOIL, if anything at all & when those staff are using their TOIL, what then?
My DD rarely ever got her TOIL, there wasn't the staff to cover.

There isn't the money to pay OT, even at 1.0 instead the normal 1.25 or 1.5 rates.

So we want to improve NHS workers mental and physical health but we'll make them work 50 or 60 hours a week???
The work is stressful enough with adding in extra shifts and even more weekend hours.

The problem with using the Private Sector and staff doing more hours, is it then becomes the norm, with no incentive to recruit more workers/making it harder to get them too as they know they'll be working long hours.

Not against using the PS at all but it really does have to be time limited and Streeting has to give a plausible answer to where and how he intends to recruit more staff, without taking them from the Developing world (as Lab have no intention of any form of FOM with the EU)

the cost of implementing post-Brexit border arrangements will cost at least £4.7bn after repeated delays in implementing new controls, according to a report by Parliament’s spending watchdog

x.com/pickardje/status/1792443229620593022?s=46&t=Uw4lJNwxFZFnX0Xs3doHYg

The report said: “The repeated delays in introducing import controls, and difficulties forecasting requirements, have resulted in government expenditure on infrastructure and staff that were ultimately not needed.”
“Late announcements about policy and uncertainty about the implementation of controls have also reduced the ability of businesses and ports to prepare for changes.”

It's apparently going to be 'the world's most effective border'! I guess that might be because it will put businesses off using it. Hurrah!
We seem to have money to burn.

@Alexandra2001 isn't that getting into the weeds slightly? I work on the NHS in a MH trust. We already use the private sector to maximum capacity in our area so couldn't do more - indeed since pretty much all it's delivery is long-term inpatient care it wd be the opposite of the outcome we want.

But whether for pay or some reasonable likelihood of restructuring and more staff in the medium term even I would consider overtime I n the short term to move through the ridiculous backlog of patients waiting first assessment on our waiting list. I think most of my colleagues would. When I can't sleep those are the ones keeping me up.

Obviously surgery and a lot of other hospital trust care is different. Particularly as they are pretty much at capacity with urgent care. But a lot of the demands for details here seem like a double standard. As far as I can tell the Tories have no plan whatsoever beyond allowing services to deteriorate year on year.

Personally I think it's right that a spouse shouldn't have the right to prevent someone from transitioning if they want to. At that point, the relationship is over in any case, and it also sets dangerous precedents if one party is permitted such control over the other.

Stripping out time consuming and expensive bureaucracy is also a good idea.

This isn't going to cost Labour any seats, that's wishful thinking.

£4,7bn!

but woke lanyards

Makes the £500 million paid to Fujitsu seem paltry.

The government’s main post-Brexit scheme for helping traders move goods from GB to NI will have cost more than £500m in its first four years.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqvvdp6d7z7o

As I say we are burning through money - just in areas that functioned fine 8 years ago.

Meanwhile

https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/05/16/rwanda-human-rights-watch-researcher-barred

But it’s a safe country. Sunak says so.

Who needs Human Rights anyway

If we haven't enough planes for a D-Day jolly (possibly the reason we haven't had an election yet ?) how on earth will we have any for Rwanda ?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ck772z2832go

@blossom

‘It certainly won’t be on an issue that barely registers on most people’s radar.’

🤷‍♀️ And therein lies Labour’s problem.

Serious question here: do we need gender recognition certificates any more?

The GRA was put in place as a way to circumnavigate gay marriage (before that became legal). However, if Labour is committed to single sex spaces and accurate sex reporting, what's the point of the certificates? Transitioners are protected from discrimination under the Equalities Act. You don't need it to change a passport or driving licence. Why not scrap it completely?

You’re going to have to explain that I’m afraid.

Re Peach Schnapps - aren't our army meant to be in short supply with the apparent threat of Russia and potentially ME? Do we really think sending 1.6k of them to find bits of rusty metal in the sea full of e-coli is a great use of funds?
Surely far less people care about that than Labour confirming they will respect single sex spaces and possibly be stopping kids having irreversible operations?

Glad it's not just me!

Not again.

Well said

I think there was an error in the quoted post, and I reckon it was meant to read ' it will be an issue that won't register on most people's radar'. Which is accurate, most voters care more about the NHS, the environment, sleaze, education and the economy.

@TheABC

‘if Labour is committed to single sex spaces and accurate sex reporting, what's the point of the certificates?’

Please may you link to where

’Labour have committed to single sex spaces and accurate sex reporting?’

Not weasel words. But a clear defined commitment.

A short explanation will do

I agree.
I think the spouse should be able to request an annulment more cheaply than divorce though.
It must be such a horrible situation; then again many of us find the person we were married to wasn't who we thought.

It is the only think Elphicke said that gave me a glimmer of sympathy for her.

No I meant that if Labour doesn’t get a majority It certainly won’t be on an issue that barely registers on most people’s radar. I should possibly have said because of, rather than on. It made sense to me when I wrote it and still does.

Tell you what. Why don't you AS one of the eleventy billion threads about Labour's position and read for yourself? It's been covered extensively and on this thread we prefer not to get into it as it's basically everywhere else on the site.