Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Brexit

Westminstenders: Don't and Keep Living

999 replies

RedToothBrush · 23/10/2019 13:19

Status Recall as of approx 1

Johnson’s Withdrawal Agreement (The WA) :
Currently parliamentary session blocked in its current form due to being nodded through (government accept defeat without vote). It can not be represented to the house without changes (which the EU will not allow - unless perhaps it reverts back to May's WA) or a 'substantive change of circumstances' (eg another party says they will support it and there is reason to believe Johnson now has a clear majority).

The Withdrawal Agreement Bill (The WAB):
The withdrawal agreement bill is purely about how the WA will be carried out in UK law. It passed its 2nd reading which is merely a indication of interest of support for the bill. The next stage is where amendments can be made and this is most relevant to the political declaration which accompanies the WA settlement.

This however has hit a road block due to the government recklessly and foolishly trying to push such an important and far reaching bill through in a ridiculous time frame, which no one could possibly give proper scrutiny to.

If Johnson wants a deal in the best int3of the country its an essential part of the process regardless of which side of the fence you sit. Failure to spot problems could leave us shafted by other countries later down the line.

The timetable is now under review and negotiation with Corbyn.

The extension with the EU:
The EU president has signaled he would support an extension. This is in part because issues in London mean it is highly unlikely the EU will be able to ratify a deal by next Thursday even if they have an emergency meeting. It's in their interests to extend in some way.

Going along with the Benn Act is the politically least risky option, though France are making growling noises about it.

Two issues spring up with this. The first is the issue of the UK having no EU Commissioner after 1st Nov and the second is the EU budget runs until 31st Dec 2019.

The Queens Speech:
The government as it stands might struggle to pass the QS especially with the DUP off side. It failing to pass is, in some ways, a good thing for Johnson. The speech was essentially a manifesto and blocking it is a good electioneering strategy. It also puts pressure on the opposition for a Vote of No Confidence.

There are already rumblings following the passing of the 2nd reading of the WAB and the EU signally they are open to an extension that some in Labour (including crucially Corbyn) do think they must agree to a GE in the autumn.

A Vonc is still unlikely to happen until the EU formalise the extension and the EU are unlikely to do this until its clear what Johnson's next move with the WAB is. Johnson meanwhile doesn't want to agree to a longer timetable as that ruins his do or die speech and facilitates an extension. So expect some brinkmanship over timings here. We might not get a formal extension approved until the wire.

The GE:
All Brexit is currently about is manoeuvring to win the next GE. It must be seen in this context.

Polling suggests that an extension without the WA is bad for Johnson and he is likely to lose support to the Brexit Party. There is an ever shrinking likelihood of the WA going through before 31st Oct, if its not impossible already. Thus Johnson needs to see if he can get the WA through very quickly after an extension but before a GE.

This reasonably lines up with Labour's problems. Before the WA goes through a GE looks bad for them with them haemorrhaging support to the LDs and the the Brexit Party.

If they are seen to facilitate the WA passing before an election then there may also be a sense of betrayal amongst their majority remain supporters but it might let them off with the Brexit Party threat particularly in the Midlands.

Meanwhile the SNP have an increasing desire for a GE. They look like they will clean up in Scotland and it might be their last chance now to stop Brexit. Similar logic applies to the LDs.

Thus the chances of a GE shoot up once an extension is granted, but the Cons and Labour have a mutual self interest in getting a deal done ASAP before a GE in many ways.

This of course would probably suit the French and therefore the EU.

Which is why a deal before 15th Nov and by the 15th Dec, isnt unrealistic. A GE might come before Christmas but I think both the Cons and Lab have something of an interest in letting the dust settle and getting new messaging in to head off threats from the LDs and Brexit Party. I'd be more inclined to say a Feb election tbh.

Anyway things may have changed since I started typing this up given how quickly things are moving.

But despite the headlines that Brexit is in pergortory it is now slowly rolling forward and now has some momentum behind it.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
22
PigeonofDoom · 24/10/2019 07:31

The Lansley act was a complete disaster, I don’t even want to think about about how much money it has cost the NHS to basically make the service worst. Taking commissioning from NHS Trusts, with years of experience and established networks with research and giving it to GPs, which have none. Great idea Hmm Lansley is exactly the sort of dullard that would bimble his way through The Thick of It.
For their sins, labour did establish NICE, who have been very powerful in bringing down drug prices and are seen as a model internationally.

thecatfromjapan · 24/10/2019 07:50

You know, thanks to the other poster's question up-thread, I've been thinking back to when Red started these threads.

Do you remember how we were reeling from the onslaught of Leave trolls? With their fact-free (or outright untrue) propaganda nonsense?

And we had endless discussions about how this had happened, how it worked, the value of truth, the harm of propaganda, how fragile truth-based information and news were - and how vital?

And a style evolved on this thread. And it's a style based in ethics and hope.

Truth matters. Don't parrot propaganda knowingly. Look for the source. Analyse. Look for context and truth.

And bring that back here. If you can.

I still think that matters.

In fact, as time has gone on, I think it matters more.

That is a form of resistance - and a really important one.

Peregrina · 24/10/2019 07:52

My question would be, how has this additional NHS money been spent? If it's been spent on servicing the bureacracy of an internal market, then it won't be spent on patient care. I am not knocking administration because I think good, effective administration helps organisations run smoothly and efficiently.

The health service has never been my field of work, but education has, and there you can see unnecessary bureaucracy and tick box exercises which prevent money being spent on teaching and the children. A bete noire for me is the heads of Academy Trusts (who voted for these?), who are paid salaries of say £250,000 to look after nine schools, whereas a Local Authority Director of Education is paid something like £150,000 to look after 200 schools. The creation of these was the same sort of mindset which Pigeon is talking about - taking the decision making away from bodies who knew what they were doing, to give it to some other body, for reasons of ideological dogma.

NoWordForFluffy · 24/10/2019 07:57

That's a good question, @Peregrina. I think the NHS can be wildly inefficient in how it spends money, which is a big problem. But it's gone too far and gone on too long to rein it in and become efficient in those areas where it's not.

TrickOrTreaty · 24/10/2019 07:58
Halloween Smile
thecatfromjapan · 24/10/2019 07:59

Not sure it's inefficiency - think Peregrina's right with the Academies analogy - it's an ideological shift.

NotJustACigar · 24/10/2019 08:06

Tory spending on the NHS has been significantly lower than the average growth under the last Labour government (about 5.6 per cent a year in real terms). It is also lower than the long-term average growth rate that health budgets have enjoyed since the mid 1950s (4.1 per cent a year).

Spending on the NHS has to increase through time as we have a growing and aging population with complex health needs and a social care provision that isn't coping. Also new technologies that are expensive, changes in morbidity, etc.

So looked at this way, there isn't really any "extra money" that the generous Tories have given the wasteful NHS!!! We have to be really careful to look beyond the raw numbers and look at trends and demographics etc to understand why this isn't true. And I'm guessing we've all seen the result of the deceleration in spending - it's much more difficult to get doctors appointments now and much more likely to have operations cancelled for example.

mrslaughan · 24/10/2019 08:07

@thecatfromjapan - interestingly - there have been 2 articles in 2 days about the disinformation campaign particularly by Dinah ditch's number 10 ........ I am hoping (vainly) it may make a difference.

I think there is a lot of dishonesty in the way the NHS is managed and funded at government level. Bozo's big elections ring announcement about extra funding - in our trust meant that some interest payment - that was being charged on some earlier extra money - was forgiven. It's just scandalous. I have travelled a lot and but far the worse hospitals - in terms of crumbling infrastructure (seriously looking third world) are in our trust. My sister lives in a different trust and they have a whole lot of new hospitals and she never seems to struggle to get a dr's appointment.
It's just wrong - there should be parity in treatment across the country.

thecatfromjapan · 24/10/2019 08:08

Agree, Cigar.

And I'm quite sure the decline in life expectancy for some groups in the UK is linked to that.

PigeonofDoom · 24/10/2019 08:10

If you want good information on NHS funding then I strongly recommend the kings fund website, which is brilliant
www.kingsfund.org.uk/audio-video/how-does-nhs-in-england-work

From an on the ground point of view, we work with a lot of hospitals and see many issues around staffing and resources. Loads of areas are understaffed, not just nursing. IT and pharmacies in particular struggle to recruit to full staff levels. Many pharmacists are from the EU.....

Don’t even get me started on the complete mess that is electronic records. Another great idea from the tories- why bother setting up a centralised electronic system when we can let each trust build its own Confused

NoWordForFluffy · 24/10/2019 08:21

There IS inefficiency in places. Many massive organisations suffer with this (and I used to sell to the NHS, so know that they don't always buy at the most cost-efficient price. That is a fact, seeing as I have direct experience of it).

I'm not saying the whole system is inefficient, just that parts are, and that could be addressed.

thecatfromjapan · 24/10/2019 08:22

I was going to post earlier how corrosive it is to reduce politics to 'us' and 'them'; 'our side' versus them others'. And to introduce a notion of 'the ends justify the means' & an all-out war of propaganda and such fact-free statements as to verge on outright lies.

The process is incremental - but ultimately we all lose because it produces a sizeable section of the electorate who think all politicians are they same' & all are just criminals.

Ultimately, that disguises acts that are outrageous and just gives cover to actual break-the-law acts.

Already we have people who don't see why Johndon shouldn't have prorogued Parliament

Anyway, on that front, I would say save outrage for genuine line-crossing behaviour like this;

Westminstenders: Don't and Keep Living
thecatfromjapan · 24/10/2019 08:25

Antoinette Sandbach is tweeting that she has effectively been expelled by Twitter.

I'm off to find out more but will be happy if someone else does.

This really needs to shock us - we need to hold the line as to what normal politics is - and not allow ourselves to become desensitised or have our boundaries moved.

thecatfromjapan · 24/10/2019 08:29

It was yesterday.

And I missed it because I was at work.

Looks like more Cummings crap.

So - treat with caution.

But even proposing it is ... corrosive.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/brexit/10199083/brexit-philip-hammond-tories-barred/amp/?utmmedium=Social&utmmcampaign=sunpoliticstwitter&utmsource=Twitter&twitterrimpression=true

prettybird · 24/10/2019 08:31

It's a long time since I read the detail of it but iirc, one of the most insidious and invidious things about the Lansley Act wasn't the creation of the CCGs but it was the reduction in the legal responsibility for delivering NHS (on the Secretary of State for Health) services in England only to nothing more than emergency/A&E services ShockSadAngry

But I still don't think it was appropriate to call for the repeal for it in an amendment on a clause in the QS Confused

In terms of funding, the NHS, like education, the real measure should be per capita spending. I've not looked for those figures - but I have a strong suspicion that they wouldn't show the "above inflation" increases that the Government claims - especially if (as, iirc, they frustratingly did when I worked in the NHS over 25 years ago), they calculate the % increase after assuming a certain percentage of savings that the NHS has to make each year. So for example, that Full Fact article refers to the fact that NHS was also askedd_ Hmm several years ago to find £22 billion in savings by 2020, in order to keep up with rising demand and an ageing population.Confused And some of the increased costs are because of the Government's demands that they provide services ( beyond emergency services) 24 hours a day, 7 days a week - which is not necessarily the most efficient use of limited resources Confused

Mistigri · 24/10/2019 08:31

Many massive organisations suffer with this (and I used to sell to the NHS, so know that they don't always buy at the most cost-efficient price. That is a fact, seeing as I have direct experience of it).

Overall though the NHS is a highly efficient buyer forcing down prices to the extent that in (drug) shortage situations there are perverse incentives not only for drug manufacturers to divert supply elsewhere but even for wholesalers operating within the U.K. to reexport products.

It is naive to believe that large organisions always pay the best price and actually it's not necessarily even desirable - there are costs to driving prices lower, both in terms of the way the market operates (as above), and in terms of the organisational costs (staffing, negotiation time etc).

That's not to say that the NHS couldn't do better, but there is a good argument that the NHS would be more cost-efficient if it had a higher budget and spent a bit more.

Mistigri · 24/10/2019 08:33

I don't know if anyone saw this yesterday, but the WAB contains provisions to deport EU citizens; DExEu asked the home office to estimate how many and how much it would cost and apparently they refused.

NoWordForFluffy · 24/10/2019 08:34

I didn't sell drugs, I sold equipment. But I do see your point. It's a massive balancing act, ultimately.

NoWordForFluffy · 24/10/2019 08:36

I don't know if anyone saw this yesterday, but the WAB contains provisions to deport EU citizens; DExEu asked the home office to estimate how many and how much it would cost and apparently they refused.

WTAF?! That is outrageous (though not a surprise from this lot!). Why hasn't this been shouted about everywhere?

prettybird · 24/10/2019 08:37

but the WAB contains provisions to deport EU citizens; DExEu asked the home office to estimate how many and how much it would cost and apparently they refused.

That would explain the refusal of the FOI request about internment camps SadAngry

TheMShip · 24/10/2019 08:37

I think not only per capita funding, but scaled by population age distribution. People under 65 use relatively little of the NHS.

thecatfromjapan · 24/10/2019 08:39

And Mike Galsworthy on Twitter (@mikegalsworthy) is treating it as fake news:

'Stop it.

Name your ‘senior Tory source’ or it never happened.'

With Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon Conservative MP) stating it's news to him:
S_hammond

'this is news to me. No discussion on this.'

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/brexit/10199083/brexit-philip-hammond-tories-barred/amp/?utmmedium=Social&utmmcampaign=sunpoliticstwitter&utmsource=Twitter&twitterrimpression=true

Mistigri · 24/10/2019 08:41

WTAF?! That is outrageous (though not a surprise from this lot!). Why hasn't this been shouted about everywhere?

Because most people (not talking about people on here) either agree with the policy or don't care. And tbf it hasn't been given much airtime either, because journalists are busy gossiping about what "sources" say.

Peregrina · 24/10/2019 08:44

Another Windrush in the making.

NoWordForFluffy · 24/10/2019 08:45

They really aren't journalists, are they? Or certainly not 'investigative' in any way, shape or form.

This country (Westminster-driven / enabled) has gone to shit and Brexit has exposed it for the fucking nasty little fucker that it really is. I'm ashamed to associate myself with it. Grim.

Swipe left for the next trending thread