Westministenders: Boris and The By-Elections

[RedToothBrush]

You lot post too fast!

A50 has made it out of the Commons without any amends. Its on its way to the Lords, but this week is half term, so in theory not much going on (in the UK at least). It hit the Lords on the 20th where it might not get such an easy ride. The Lords will not (and CAN NOT) stop brexit or frustrate it. But the numbers are in perhaps more favour of amendments if they choose to go that way, than the Commons. This would throw the bill back to the Commons. This is pretty reasonable.

In the meantime its 12 days to go until the Copeland and Stoke Central By-Elections.

Leave.Eu think UKIP have Stoke in the bag. They think there will be a 33% turnout. I think a turnout that high is the land of fantasy. Paul Nuttalls who was at Hillsborough is now a devout Stokie who has lived there all his life. Except of course he isn't.

Copeland looks like it will go Conservative. Its theirs to throw away. It would be the first victory for a sitting government in a by-election since 1983 if they make it. They intend to use a victory as another argument for a 'mandate'. But have they managed to drop a nuclear booboo?

One more Question. What are the chances of this thread making it to the 23rd?!

corcory you've just gone down the well trodden path of most Leavers round here- your arguments don't stack up so you strop off.

These threads have always had blusterers who've popped up here and flounce to the pub thread when challenged then pop up again when the conversation has moved on.

So howabout, unlike most leavers who felt concessions won by Cameron didn't go far enough, for you they went too far?

How about, the other alternative (as has been discussed before here) is to build more housing and more importantly allow councils to provide more housing instead of having most housing constructed by a very few developers who intend to maintain their profits and land banks.

If housing hadn't outstripped wages by such a significant amount, in work benefits would be much less necessary except for childcare tax credits. The need for I work benefits seems to be an example of a broken system - it was a labour sticking plaster to avoid dealing with the fundamental inequalities.

As with all things in the DC / TB / EU project compromise that ended up bad for everyone.

Housing is part of the problem certainly but not the whole story.

As with all things in the DC / TB / EU project compromise that ended up bad for everyone.

You're going to have to spell it out. What exactly was your issue with the DC negotiations? It must have been a big issue, that you remember accurately, if it swung you from voting remain to voting leave.

Going back to house of lords discussion. I was going to suggest Ros altmann as someone to write to as I follow her on Twitter. She is a conservative (remainers) but writes mostly about pensions.

Saw this article (warning DM link - I think this is money is part of the mail) thought it was interesting
www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-4215448/Ros-Altmann-perils-speaking-Article-50.html

Housing is an example of the fact that living costs in the uk are very high - mostly transport, housing and childcare and have also been dodged or deliberately made worse (to appease another group) by successive governments of all colours.

Not just talking about health tourism which I have heard estimated at between £0.5 bn and £1.8 bn this week but also the impact of sustained uncontrolled, unplanned, unmanaged and uncosted EU immigration.

It does seem the more you pick at Leavers reasons, even after 7 long months, the more apparent it becomes that they're nothing to do with being in the EU or not.

If the government had the appetite to do do, they could have changed things long ago.

Think I'll go back to the rugby. French half of DH is maintaining a diplomatic silence.

Not just talking about health tourism which I have heard estimated at between £0.5 bn and £1.8 bn

And what percentage of the NHS budget does that represent.

And more importantly, in the grand scheme of Brexit costs, what does that cost represent?

in the grand scheme of Brexit costs

Ah but what price freedom and sovereignty? (Not that there will be any cost)

The proportion of EU nationals in the staff of the NHS is higher than that in the general population. Ending FOM brings no benefit.

Corcory, I am trying to have a civilised discussion with you. Please just address the logical consequences of my argument - I don't think I've sworn at you yet or attacked you personally? If you feel differently, please let me know.

Slightly away from current discussions but something that has intrigued me for a while- why is it that there is such a high proportion of Scottish Leavers in this section of MN when Scotland was majority Remain.

I reckon over half the Leavers still on these threads are Scottish.

Noted Summer, thanks for that. If anyone else has recommendations please say :)

It is a curiosity, bear. I suppose it could be that people generally feel the need to get things off their chests on here when they are in a minority or unheard in real life. Leavers in England and Wales perhaps don't feel quite the same need to justify their views.

Well there are 1million of us Bear! Cecil, I would have a civilized discussion with you but when Bear comes on in her demanding tone and then accusing me of 'flouncing off' just because I stated that I didn't like it.
We have had months of Bear going on like this and it's so wearing. This is after all only a mumsnet forum!

corcory, feel free to ignore me.

Please don't use me in an attempt to refrain from answering other's questions.

The immigration levels could have been planned. Apart from anything else the government could have looked at the levels of immigration after the Second World War from the Caribbean, Africa and India/ Pakistan. This wasn't expected to be much and was far more than expected.

Perhaps they could have seen which, if any, of those pull factors remained, which areas of the country were most likely to be affected, how much capacity was reported in the NHS, education etc and provided some additional funding from the increased immigration tax take to address some of the issues.

One of the notable elements facing the NHS was that hospitals were expected to work to 95% capacity - it is now 100%. If there isn't 5% slack in the system, it collapses at certain times of year. Again, this was known in the 80s, but has been forgotten by the politicians.

The percentage I have seen for health tourism is 0.25% of the health budget (not sure if that was just NHS England or UK wide).

But health tourism goes two ways: UK citizens going abroad to be treated (eg for dentistry, due to waiting lists in England).

In the interests of full disclosure, I have been a health tourist myself, albeit intra UK . I needed my wisdom teeth taken out, but the waiting list where I lived in England was over a year although the same dentist was able to do it straight away if I went private, so I came back to Scotland and had them taken out here.

Technically, NHS Scotland should have claimed from NHS England, but I doubt it did so.

Thanks Bear

Listen, we were asked to leave or remain. Nothing else.

Corcory, we Remainers have been saying that for more than 7 months now. I have lost count of the number of Leavers who try to pretend that the options were clear, and that e.g. leaving the Single Market was most definitely part of the deal. We have consistently asked what Leavers were voting FOR. We then get told that no one really believed the claim about the £350 million a week for the NHS. Then it was 'Sovereignty' which we have now been told that we had all along, but 'it didn't feel like it'! So I don't think it's legitimate for you to try that claim on us.

I will accept that you are unhappy with the immigration rules and feel that they are discriminatory, which you have consistently argued, and I would suspect that many Remainers would share your opinion. But this comes back squarely to Theresa May and her policies when at the Home Office; some of her behaviour has been downright cruel, so it's no use blaming the EU for that.

For those talking about people who come in under FoM and then claim health care, it has been shown time and time again that the people coming tend to be younger and fit and make relatively few demands on the health service.

The maximum official figure for deliberate health tourism is 280m which equates to less than 0.25% at current pre 22bn strip out levels.

Even if it were as high as 1.8bn it's still less than 2% of budget.

There are bigger inefficiencies that would be better tackled im sure