Redstarstranraer
-
Posts
296 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Redstarstranraer
-
-
Just now, doulikefish said:
Oh well never mind then
0 -
22 minutes ago, ICTChris said:
Reports that his colleagues were angered by the rumours that he was considering defection to the Conservative Party.
Apparently one MEP took off his jacket and asked Steven Woolfe "outside" during a meeting.For those interested the story that might have riled them is here:
ITV news have got an image of him collapsed inside the parliament building. Not posting that, if you want to see it not hard to find but got to say I find it a bit distasteful to put that in the public domain whilst the guy is potentially fighting for his life.
0 -
Follow
LBCVerified account@LBCUkip’s Jonathan Arnott on rows in party: “When you’re a true believer in something, you’re going to be passionate"
Unbelievable
0 -
Kay Burley claiming he was punched 'repeatedly', if true more of a sustained assault rather than someone just lashing out.
Mind you that's a claim from Kay Burley so it's probably nonsense.
0 -
3 minutes ago, Enigma said:
In a 'serious' condition after an 'altercation' at a meeting of UKIP MEPs.
Aye apparently punched by one of his colleagues and hit his head on the way down:
The favourite to become the next Ukip leader has collapsed outside the European Parliament amid reports he was punched by a colleague.
The Daily Telegraph understands that Mr Woolfe is suffering from bleeding of the brain after he was punched. One witness said he fell into a window after being punched.
Sounds pretty grim.
0 -
Here's the report itself if anybody else wants to wade through it:
https://www.sbs.strath.ac.uk/economics/fraser/20161006/Long-term-Economic-Implications-of-Brexit.pdf
0 -
The Scottish economy would suffer a severe shock if the UK has a “hard Brexit”, losing up to 80,000 jobs and seeing wages fall by £2,000 a head per year, an economics thinktank has warned.
The Fraser of Allander Institute (FAI) has told the Scottish parliament that entirely leaving the EU single market – known as a hard Brexit – would see the Scottish economy decline by 5% overall, or by £8bn within a decade.
The FAI’s study for Holyrood’s Europe committee forecasts that even in a best-case scenario, where the UK adopts Norwegian-style membership of the single market but remains outside the EU, the Scottish economy would lose up to £5bn in value over 10 years.
The institute, part of the University of Strathclyde, said its modelling suggested that up to 30,000 people in Scotland could lose their jobs while wages for those still in work would fall by about 3-4% or £800 to £1,200 a year.
Interestingly however:
Professor Graeme Roy, the thinktank’s director, said its forecasts suggested the UK’s economy would be even harder hit by Brexit because a far higher volume of its exports went into the EU, suggesting higher job losses and deeper cuts to GDP.
So the Fraser of Allander Institute predict that whichever model is eventually developed Brexit will have a significant and negative impact on the Scottish economy, interestingly partially mitigated by a predicted increase in net migration to Scotland...from the rest of the UK. To quote the report itself:
We find that Brexit has a negative impact on the Scottish economy, even under more optimistic assumptions about future trading arrangements. However, we also find that impacts on the rUK economy are more severe than those on Scotland. To a degree this acts to cushion the impacts on the Scottish economy as the shock induces net migration into Scotland from rUK.
There isn't actually that much good news here however, seeing as the rUK is supposedly our largest market, in that they are predicted to be entering an even worse recession than that north of the border. This surely would compound the negative impact on Scotland seeing as even if we were not directly as badly impacted as the rUK we would be even more reliant on trading with them (given the restrictions we'd suddenly face on trading with the EU) and they would be suffering an even more severe long term downturn in economic performance. This to me casts serious doubt on the argument Ruth Davidson and her ilk constantly deploy that although we do a lot of trade with the EU the UK is our more important trading partner and the more important union; if the rUK is going to be suffering an even worse recession than Scotland as a result of Brexit we will surely only therefore have a larger share in a diminishing market. That is before considering the potential benefits of remaining in the EU, and also being able to attract investment and workers from firms within the rUK who wish to remain within the single market.
Couple of stray observations.
The BBC report explains the disparity in severity of outcomes between Scotland and the rUK not so much through migration (and also minimises the relevance of volumes of trade) but by throwing in this:
"the financial relationship between Scotland and the rest of the UK dampens certain effects.
The report notes that "to a degree this acts to cushion the impacts on the Scottish economy"
Before the unionists on here get overexcited about 'subsidisation' or 'union dividends' the only thing I can find in the actual report remotely similar to the above is this:
Throughout all scenarios the estimated negative impact of Brexit on the rUK is greater than it is on Scotland, in terms of GDP, employment and other measures. This reflects, in part, the fact that rUK has greater exposure to EU trade than Scotland and complex inter-linkages between Scotland and the rUK which acerbate/dampen certain effects
I'd put that down as some rather creative interpretation of what the FAI said then in order to get a cheap plug for the union in.
Also the Scottish Tories' response to this is just laughable:
But the Scottish Conservatives said the report meant "the SNP's go-to excuse for Scottish economic under-performance has been completely blown out of the water".
Work that one out.
0 -
44 minutes ago, Bishop Briggs said:
James was declared the Leader at the UKIP conference. Even if UKIP has not filed the necessary documents with the Electoral Commission, she was still Leader. There is nothing in the constitution that to say that the Electoral Commission needs to be informed for a Leadership election to be valid. James needs to resign officially and then it is up to the NEC to appoint an interim Leader. Farage has no authority and is trying to grab back power temporarily.
Tell that to Paul Oakden. Glenn Campbell reporting on the BBC website that:
The chairman of UKIP, Paul Oakden, has confirmed that Nigel Farage is the party's acting leader.
Mr Farage said he would take temporary charge after Diane James unexpectedly quit after only 18 days in the job. But his leadership claim was disputed by Neil Hamilton, who is UKIP's leader in the Welsh Assembly.
Mr Hamilton said it was for the party's ruling body - the national executive committee - to make an appointment. Mr Oakden told the BBC News Channel he had spoken to a majority of those on UKIP's executive and they were "grateful and glad" to have Mr Farage in acting charge.
He said Mr Farage was "technically and legally" the leader because the appointment of Diane James had not been formally registered with the Electoral Commission. Mr Oakden said there would now be a fresh leadership contest, in which Mr Farage would not be a candidate, and that UKIP should have a new boss by the end of November.
Hamilton and his faction might be technically and legally correct, but seems that Farage has enough support for his 'power grab' to succeed unless they mount a legal challenge. Of course this is UKIP so there'll no doubt be another volte face by the end of the week. Seems Farage wants to handle the process of appointing his successor (again).
0 -
1 hour ago, Bishop Briggs said:
Farage is wrong and can only become Interim Leader if he is appointed by the NEC. Hamilton is correct as UKIP's constitution (http://www.ukip.org/the_constitution) states
"7.5 A leadership election shall be called:
a) in the event of the Party Leader's death, incapacity or resignation; or
b) on the passing of a vote of no confidence in the Party Leader by the NEC if this is endorsed by an Extraordinary General Meeting of the Party; or
c) upon the Party Leader's completion of his term of office.
Such election shall be held within 90 days of the completion of the Leader's term of office.7.11 Where a vacancy in the Party Leadership occurs unexpectedly, the NEC shall within fourteen days appoint an Interim Leader to lead the Party until a Leadership election takes place. Such Interim Leader shall have all the powers of the Party Leader under this Constitution as if he had been elected to that post."
Farage seems to be taking the line that Diane James (perhaps deliberately) never got around to completing the correct paperwork to become leader, hence technically he's always been leader and will continue to be until someone else is elected (and fills in the proper forms). He seems to be ignoring the fact he had resigned previously and evidently will try to argue he hadn't 'completed his term of office' due to the new leader not having been properly appointed. According to the Guardian his position will be that:
"he had spoken to the Electoral Commission, which confirmed he was technically still leader." Mostly on the basis that they don't seem to have updated their records to put James down as leader, regardless of what UKIP might have done internally.
Evidently the Hamilton faction is taking the line that he did step down and James was leader (or at least there was a vacancy), and that therefore the NEC should appoint an interim figure.
Interesting the constitution you've quoted says the NEC has to act and appoint an interim leader in 14 days, whilst entirely coincidentally some within UKIP want there to be a snap election of a new leader within exactly that period. Almost as if some inside the party want to either ditch Farage or avoid appointing anyone else to the leadership on a temporary basis and skip straight to getting their man/woman behind the desk, so to speak.
To add to the confusion Paul Oakden, the party chairman, has said that not only is Farage not leader but that there isn't currently even a vacancy:
Earlier Paul Oakden, the Ukip chairman, when asked who was currently leader of the party, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “In my mind it is Diane James; she has quit indeed, but that doesn’t mean she is not the leader until a new leader is appointed.”
But he said he would consult the Electoral Commission on Wednesday, adding: “If they still have Nigel Farage down as leader, that will make it a very interesting day for me, I suspect.”
So Farage is still leader and James never was leader. Or James is still leader and Farage has no authority. Or neither of them are leader and in fact there is a vacancy at the top of UKIP, and they need to appoint an interim leader. Or not bother and just have a snap election.
This has all the hallmarks of a mess that could lead to legal challenges, splits and the sort of political infighting that will chase away any potential big-money backers and lead them into a steady spiral into irrelevance. Of course they may somehow get their act together and find a figure that they can all unite behind, but at this stage that looks a tall order indeed.
0 -
Farage claims he is back, for now at least:
Speaking to the BBC, Mr Farage said would stay on as interim leader until a fresh election was held to find Ms James' successor.
"I keep trying to escape... and before I'm finally free they drag me back," he joked.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37561065
Being UKIP of course nothing is quite that straightforward, as at least one faction doesn't seem to want him back even on an 'interim' basis, what with Neil Hamilton having:
"contested that Mr Farage was interim leader, saying it was for UKIP's ruling body to appoint an interim leader and that he would like MEP Paul Nuttall to take on that role."
So they can't even agree on who might be temporarily in charge it seems. Hamilton may just have taken the huff after these comments from his former/current leader:
Asked about speculation that Welsh UKIP leader Neil Hamilton could be installed as interim leader by the party's national executive committee, Mr Farage said: "Really? Well we'll have to see about that won't we.
"I do not see any prospect of that horror story coming to pass," he said, adding that Mr Hamilton "doesn't do our public image a whole host of good".
At this rate they'll be lucky to last out the year without splintering.
0 -
1 hour ago, McSpreader said:
(More emotive pish , no wonder doctors have a god complex when they can do no wrong.......even when they do wrong........and getting more angry with every post. Typical blinkered leftie type post. )
1 hour ago, McSpreader said:(You raised the foreign aid budget as a subject not to be scrutinised.........I have never said I want foreign doctors out en masse, I've simply said that due to well publicised problems with foreign doctors , the training of more British doctors is a step in the right direction. It's incredible how you imbibe any statement that may be a tad contrary to your prejudiced opinion with a whole other set of standards. )
1 hour ago, McSpreader said:( And there we have it, you have obviously set up a new account, who is it Cream Cheese? Btw I can happily take insults I simply throw them straight back at ya! Not something you deal with particularly well, ha ha)
And you're shown up to be a petty ill-informed xenophobic cretin who thinks everyone who disagrees with you is a prejudiced leftie. They're all clearly seething, whereas the above post demonstrates your apparent zen like calm.
Basically you're the pub bore who can't see why anyone would have an issue with their 'common sense' opinions aside from 'political correctness gone mad'.
This isn't an alias. It just hasn't taken me very long to establish you're a vacuous simpleton. Deal with it. Ha ha.
0 -
She is citing personal reasons, although without any specifics, but the main reason she's come up with is:
"it has become clear that I do not have sufficient authority, nor the full support of all my MEP colleagues and party officers to implement changes I believe necessary and upon which I based my campaign."
Sounds like a party in turmoil, once again. Interesting to see if they can drum up a leadership candidate, apart from Nige, who they are all prepared to fall behind. Not sure any of the names floated about have 'sufficient authority' within the party to stave off a split, or potentially splits.
0 -
3 minutes ago, Terry_Tibbs said:
What is your source for foreign NHS staff being removed from their jobs and the country? As far as i'm aware the policy is to recruit fewer overseas doctors, in the future, not to ditch the ones who are already here.
Earlier the thread I posted a few. Hunt himself has talked about the NHS down south being 'self-sufficient' in doctors by 2025 which can be taken several ways. It may or may not mean a clear out of the foreign staff. He could mean a gradual phasing out of foreign staff but as has been widely discussed that simply isn't possible by training new British doctors in that kind of timescale, if it is possible at all with the numbers he's talking about.
Theresa May herself has made more concrete statements about the foreign doctors only being here on an 'interim basis' until the new doctors come on stream, which strongly implies her aim is to remove them as soon as she is able.
“Yes. There will be staff here from overseas in that interim period – until the further number of British doctors are able to be trained and come on board in terms of being able to work in our hospitals."
0 -
10 minutes ago, Terry_Tibbs said:
You're forgetting the fact it's not fair to plunder poorer countries for their doctors and nurses that they invested in. Why not train up a British citizen to do the job? If our education system isn't capable of producing the doctors and nurses we require there is something wrong.
You're forgetting the quite aside from the proposed removal of foreign staff the NHS in England, where these changes are mooted, can't apparently fill 10% of its vacancies as things stand and are also facing the prospect of around 10% of the doctors they do have retiring within 5 years. Training to be a doctor takes a minimum of about 10 years and Jeremy Hunt is only proposing to start training an extra 1500 a year by 2018.
It isn't that British citizens aren't capable of training to be a doctor it's that the proposals brought forward won't train enough new doctors quickly enough for the NHS to be 'self-sufficient' in terms of producing doctors for decades, if at all. I've already said in earlier posts I have nothing against training more doctors here, but getting rid of foreign doctors will exacerbate a shortage that already exists and is being done for purely ideological reasons, not practical ones.
In that context I struggle to believe the 'train up our own' brigade would be happy sending these medics back to their own countries and creating a recruitment crisis within the health service out of genuine concern for the state of the third world's healthcare situation.
And this concern really doesn't wash with the large numbers of doctors who work here who come from EU countries just as prosperous as our own.
0 -
2 minutes ago, WILLIEA said:
This bit here. There are stringent language tests in place but inevitably in any large enterprise some mistakes will slip through. There have been cases of NHS staff with poor language skills causing distress to patients, but it is a minuscule %.
What is disgusting and despicable in the scenario we have now is the thousands of NHS staff who have been working so hard and contributing so much to this country being made to feel unwelcome and insecure. A disgraceful and shameful state of affairs.
As for training enough home grown NHS staff by 2025! Not a fart in a hurricanes chance.
( This from one who was pretty much a Tory until 23rd June )
Yes it's true as you say a minuscule number of foreign doctors have been disciplined for having poor English skills. Worth noting that, unlike some folk seem to think, the NHS does actually have testing in place to try and filter out those doctors, including from other EU countries, who have inadequate English language skills. I haven't the exact figures to hand but something like 40% of applicants from the EU are knocked back on this basis, so the idea that medics with an unworkable command of the language are rife in the system is just untrue.
Of course making sure a foreign doctor has adequate knowledge of English is just common sense that nobody would question, not even limp-wristed foreigner lovers.
Worrying that the government in Westminster think this an appropriate way to treat highly-skilled, valuable workers who are unquestionably vital to the safe running of our NHS and will be for the foreseeable future seeing as there simply is no way they can be replaced in anything like the proposed timescale. God knows what their attitude will be to other migrant workers on this evidence.
0 -
1 minute ago, McSpreader said:
I don't quite know how you equate not being allowed to take strike action to slavery. That's emotive pish!
I think tantrum is the perfect word for a very well paid group of employees who have been offered a massive pay rise but want even more money for working at the weekend. It's utter bollocks. I'm self employed and I don't get extra pay for working at the weekend so why should they? People get ill 7 days a week so the NHS should be operational 7 days a week but Junior doctors want their cake and to eat it all paid for by the taxpayer. What is pish is their alleged concern for patient safety. Total red herring. What about the care and safety of those whose appointments, procedures and operations were cancelled because junior doctors reserve the right to go on the lash on the weekend?
As for the new contract, they have agreed to 99% of it and what you don't realise is that any employer can legally impose a new contract on it's employees at any time so long as they are involved in a consultation exercise. I believe that has been done in this case.
And there we have it, as predicted.
The NHS is operational 7 days a week, in case you haven't noticed. Don't see many hospitals shut on a Sunday. Now you're doling out the emotive pish right left and centre, invoking poor benighted patients sacrificed at the altar of doctors getting hammered at the weekend. Junior doctors have every right to time off like any other employee, if the Westminster government want to provide the same levels of service across the full week they should resource it properly, not try to bully and cajole NHS staff into working longer hours or to take away weekend rates of pay they've enjoyed for years. Routine procedures were cancelled during the strike, not life-saving care, so patient safety wasn't compromised. But you know that and are just railing at them because they have better terms and conditions than you do, as you've admitted yourself.
Don't tell me what I do or don't realise.
8 minutes ago, McSpreader said:Of course, if someone disagrees with your opinion they are moronic.....of course!
2 hours ago, McSpreader said:I have to say this moronic 'daily mail reader' drivel is tiresome
Ahem.
11 minutes ago, McSpreader said:You are very good at apportioning opinions on people to suit your prejudice. You make it sound as if the 'foreign aid budget' is some sort of sacred cow that is so venerated and holy that it would be a blasphemy to even discuss it. It's taxpayers money and we have a right to know how it's being used. The fact that the vast majority of it is not used as aid but as a sweetener to facilitate our Gov't's foreign policy preferences may not matter to you but it does to many others. Foreign aid is sent to countries with space programmes ffs. and to tax havens.........Its a £14 billion a year budget but I guess to someone like you who is frightened of his own shadow, we daren't question it in case we upset a foreigner, god forbid.
Twice now you've accused me of being 'prejudiced' for daring to have an opinion other than yours. I raised the sodding foreign aid budget but of course I'm too scared to discuss it.
What it is or isn't spent on actually isn't at issue here, it's the MORONIC insistence of folk like you that all this money is pissed away and therefore shouldn't be spent rather than attempting to redirect it to better ends. Whilst at the very same fucking time insisting you want foreign doctors out of the NHS (the very same doctors who are a bit suspect in quality terms apparently) to benefit these same third world countries. I'm pointing out how your concern for international development rings false. And indeed the mask has slipped already.
What's with all this 'frightened of your own shadow' and 'limp wristed' pish?
You sound like a real internet hard man.
18 minutes ago, McSpreader said:Again , confusing your own prejudices with facts. Everyone except you is a xenophobe, right? Or maybe we just don't see foreigners as some special, privileged group and don't feel it necessary to imbibe them with the same god like status that you do.
And, of course every foreign health worker is perfect, speaks amazing English, has fantastically transferable skills, is not problematical in any way, is far better than any British worker and has sunshine radiating from his/her arsehole.
Again bringing out this ridiculous prejudice nonsense. Not everyone except me is a xenophobe, only those like you who out themselves as such. I don't see foreigners as a special privileged group, or as 'gods', I just see them as no better or worse than British workers. I'm not claiming they're perfect, just not inferior, as you seem to be claiming.
You really are one of the worst posters on this forum. You seem a petty minded, jealous, spiteful, xenophobic would-be bully that likes to dole out the insults but can't take them back, and hilariously claims everyone who doesn't agree with you is 'prejudiced'.
0 -
It's official now anyway:
Rumours now that after she was elected she decided she actually didn't want the job and claimed she would only sign the papers to become leader 'under duress'.
Reports are either that she's quit due to her husband being ill or that she suddenly, upon winning the leadership contest, had doubts about whether or not she actually wanted to be leader. That or an alleged altercation at a station with a member of the public soured her to being the public face of UKIP.
The truly bizarre suggestion being floated is that because she didn't properly complete the paperwork to formalise her position as leader Farage is still technically in charge.
Worse shambles than the Labour leadership situation, and that's saying something.
0 -
10 minutes ago, McSpreader said:
Calling that right wing drivel is drivel. Soldiers and policemen can't strike and that isn't considered drivel. I'll bet you a pound to pile of sh*t that those thousands of patients in England who had their appointments, procedures and operations cancelled during the last junior doctors tantrum wouldn't call it right wing drivel either. I'm the sort of person who would ban them from striking but fully endorse the rights of people who aren't Soldiers, policeman or junior doctors to organise representation within the workplace and to undertake strike action if necessary so you got that wrong.
Why just junior doctors then? Why not anyone who works for the NHS? It is absolute right wing drivel. NHS staff aren't the slaves of the public, and shouldn't have their rights curtailed or forced to accept changes to their terms and conditions without having the right to industrial action that other workers enjoy. The fact that soldiers and policemen can't strike is neither here nor there. By that logic nobody should have the right to strike. Calling their dispute a 'tantrum' is just ridiculous; if they imposed a new contract on you not to your liking you wouldn't term any dissatisfaction with it a 'tantrum'. You don't speak for the patients who had appointments, procedures or operations cancelled and don't know whether or not they'd back the idea of such action at all. Funnily enough most media reports, including from outlets not overly sympathetic to industrial action, showed high levels of public support for the junior doctors' action. And don't come back with the 'they have a responsibility for patient safety' pish as during the dispute cover for emergency and critical care was provided.
15 minutes ago, McSpreader said:I have to say this moronic 'daily mail reader' drivel is tiresome. The readership of that paper is less than 1.5 million. In your world it must be about 24million......therefore your reference to that newspaper is more left-wing drivel.
I fully accept that you may have developed your moronic views without having ever read the Daily Mail. It is however a newspaper that represents the worldview (alongside the Express and Telegraph) of a significant section of the British public.
17 minutes ago, McSpreader said:You're statement that people aren't concerned with the effect on the third world is simply your blinkered opinion because it doesn't fit in with your prejudice.
Excuse me for finding your sudden po-faced patronising concern about the third world as unconvincing as that of Jeremy Hunt. Especially in the context of it being wheeled out now by the same sort of folk who want the foreign aid budget slashed as 'charity begins at home'.
19 minutes ago, McSpreader said:However, I agree that people would rather deal with nurses and doctors that can speak English in a way they understand, especially important for the elderly and those with dementia. That isn't prejudice it's a basic fact of life, however uncomfortable that may be for the middle class, smug, morally self elevated, limp wristed lefties that form the bulk of the chattering classes.
I've already made it clear that I find it ridiculous that more than 35,000 doctors are employed by the NHS who can't speak understandable English. To get employment in the NHS you have to possess a working knowledge of English. That's a basic fact of life, however uncomfortable it might be for the middle class, smug, pompous swivel eyed loons that pretend to care about what goes on in the third world when basically they just don't like foreigners.
0 -
37 minutes ago, McSpreader said:
Good that we are training more doctors . I'm sure it's hard to argue against that . Not convinced that putting a date on replacing foreign doctors is sensible but I agree that replacing them is very sensible as many have poor language skills and are not as well trained as we should expect. Also, I have always been uncomfortable with the sheer arrogance and exploitative nature of denuding second and third world countries of their health professionals.
I also like the idea of tying in junior doctors to the NHS for a given minimum period of time. ( I would make it 10 years) After all British taxpayers fund a significant part of their training and are therefore entitled to have that investment realised. We should also ban junior doctors from taking industrial action.
Aye around 37,000 doctors in the NHS (in England alone) have poor language skills and are poorly trained. Sure that argument holds up to scrutiny. If they were incompetent or unable to communicate with patients they wouldn't have been hired in the first place.
Not buying this ridiculous concern for the state of third world healthcare that Jeremy Hunt and his acolytes have suddenly discovered either. It's not that your average Daily Mail reader doesn't like dealing with a doctor with a foreign accent but that they actually are deeply worried about healthcare in the Philippines and Pakistan. Implausible.
An argument can certainly be made for ensuring newly trained doctors spend a period working for the NHS, but that alone won't either replace the numbers of foreign doctors, the around 10% of doctors about to retire or fill the 10% of positions within the NHS in England that are actually already vacant. Basically increasing the number of trainees is a bit of a no-brainer; there ought to have been no question this was required. The problem they have is that this was required just to stay still in terms of staffing, without evening considering the new drive for 'self-sufficiency'.
Banning them from striking is just right-wing drivel. Let's face it the sort of people who advocate that wouldn't let anyone strike if they had their way. Usually on the basis that they have a shite job with shite terms and conditions so everybody else should get as bad a deal as them.
Think it's time some folk faced up to the fact that the NHS in England is a shambles. A shambles that a purge of foreign doctors in the name of some kind of nativist autarky isn't going to help.
0 -
2 hours ago, iknowwheremaddieis said:
So why is training our own doctors and being able to rely on British doctors a bad thing?
Nobody is saying training our own doctors is a 'bad thing'. As it stands the vast majority of doctors in the NHS are British. Nobody here has argued that having British doctors is a 'bad thing', or is complaining that when they go to see their GP or a doctor in a hospital he/she might be British rather than a foreigner. So all in all a pretty absurd statement.
The point is a large proportion of doctors (and other staff in the NHS) are foreigners, both from inside and outside the EU. If they are all told, as seems to be the suggestion, to sling their hook by 2025 there will be a shortage of staff in the health service. The NHS has only been (actively) recruiting from overseas because of a shortage of qualified Brits to fill their massive list of vacancies, not out of some bizarre preference for foreigners over folk born in the UK. It's all very well and good saying 'we'll just train our own' but neither Theresa May or Jeremy Hunt can simply create tens of thousands of doctors by decree. They can fund more training places, but this isn't some Soviet-style command economy where they can actually direct school leavers to take up those places. Airily promising that 'Brits will do it' doesn't guarantee the requisite number of UK school leavers will suddenly want to embark on one of the longest, most intensive and, most importantly, expensive degree courses on offer to them, or that a suitable number of qualified school leavers will exist to take up these places. Or that they will all successfully complete their training in the required numbers and then want to work for the NHS when qualified. It's also absurd to think that the number of staff removed from the NHS because of such a measure would be balanced out by trying to force medical graduates to stay in the UK. That's just a gimmick.
In terms of the numbers being quoted at present it's been stated about a quarter of NHS doctors are from overseas. Hunt supposedly wants to increase the number of places on medical courses by 'up to a quarter'. That's only a potential 1,500 extra doctors a year, and the extra doctors won't start to be trained until the 2018/19 academic year. It takes about 5/6 years of study and about another 5 years of clinical training to fully qualify as a doctor. Laughable to think that would be enough to actually replace all the foreigners by 2025 then.
The same holds true for nursing and all other auxiliary staff. Worth noting as well with their onslaught against junior doctors the Tories have managed to make entering the profession the least attractive it's been for decades just at the time they supposedly want to embark on a major recruitment drive. Hard to see why a lot of overseas staff would stick it out now to 2025 if they've essentially been told that's the cut off date and after that they can get out. Taking up any post here will be much less attractive if it is only ever going to be an 'interim' appointment, pending a suitably qualified native taking over.
This is what Brexit could lead to, a drastic reduction in the potential pool of qualified staff in industries and services which require a highly-skilled workforce without any guarantee we will be able to retrain or re-skill the UK workforce in order to fill the shortages thus created. Everyone wants British school leavers to get high-skilled, well-remunerated work, including in the health service, but at present there is little realistic likelihood of the UK being able to produce enough doctors to satisfy demand. Certainly not by 2025, if ever. This holds true for large sectors of the economy, not just the NHS.
It's ridiculous to tell highly-skilled professionals who have made their life here and contributed immensely to society to sod off just because they're foreigners. Especially ridiculous to put an arbitrary date on when they have to get out without any realistic hope of being able to replace them by that date. By all means put incentives in place for British schoolkids to want to be doctors and a system of education in place that helps them to be able to achieve the standards required to be doctors. If there is a shortage of qualified staff available in this country by all means increase the number of trainees and start planning for the future to help reduce that shortfall. Saying that within a decade all the foreigners should get out and after that, even if we can't find a Brit to do the job, we aren't going to hire foreigners is just stupidity.
0 -
1 minute ago, Dee Man said:
FWIW, I agree.
Who was the reporter?
Matthew Lindsay, think he's meant to be 'Chief Football Reporter', but then everyone at the Herald seems to be Chief Football Reporter.
0 -
I didn't say that was what was said, I said it was insinuated.
I found the tone of the piece to be a bit off. I didn't say I objected to the general sentiment but it would have been better, in my opinion, for the journalist to put forward his thoughts on the general significance or otherwise of football in the grand scheme of things and then deal with the details of the match, not clumsily try to sew them together.
What happened on the pitch is entirely removed from what happened outside the ground. By all means say 'when you think of a human life football isn't that important'. Everyone can agree with that. I'm not comfortable with 'compared to a human life that particular refereeing decision was unimportant'. You may disagree but to me that insinuates the decision ought not to be mulled over in the usual fashion. That part of the article to me seems somewhat inappropriate.
0 -
Don't know if this has been discussed elsewhere, if so apologies in advance.
Read this in the print edition of the Herald earlier. Actually think the headline was different to that which they've used online:
Now I don't know if the Rangers or Partick players could possibly have known about the bus crash before the game kicked off. On balance I think it unlikely but I don't know for definite. It seems indeed from this article nobody was aware of what exactly had happened until after the game had finished. Ultimately though what happened in that accident was a human tragedy that had no real relation to anything that happened on the pitch on Saturday afternoon one way or another and ought to be respected as such. The actual action on the pitch was just a game, to be taken as seriously as any other football match, and to be considered in a footballing context and no other.
Consequently I find the tone of this match report to be so misguided as to be somewhat offensive.
The part of the article I have a particular issue with is language such as the below:
THE outcome of a mere football match, concerns at the performance of a team and unhappiness felt at certain unpunished challenges all seemed so utterly trivial.
The resentment which the Partick players felt at referee Stephen Finnie and his assistants failing to spot two separate fouls by Rangers centre half Philippe Senderos in the first half suddenly appeared inconsequential.
Others may disagree but I find this bizarre and completely inappropriate. The article at length, and quite rightly, points out how meaningless football and everything that goes with it is compared to a human life. That is something I think anybody would agree with. The death of a Rangers fan on his way to the match is evidently deeply unfortunate and a terrible loss for his friends and family. The game however went ahead with all parties apparently unaware of this human tragedy and it ought to be treated in the same manner as any other football fixture on that basis. If Partick felt aggrieved by a refereeing decision that resentment is just as consequential as that felt by any other set of supporters in any other game on Saturday. They ought not to be told they can't complain about what happened in the game because a fan unfortunately died in an unrelated incident.
By all means the journalist should point out in circumstances like these that football, in the grand scheme of things, is only a game and isn't anything like as important as a human life. Insinuating we can't discuss or be indignant about the detail of the match as football supporters is I think entirely inappropriate.
0 -
Warbs starting to admit his side are pish:
Mark Warburton says his goal at the start of the season was simply to be "highly competitive" in the Scottish Premiership and Rangers have done that.
"What I said at the start of the season, and I was very, very clear, was that we'd be highly competitive," the English manager told the media.
"You guys said about challenging Celtic and challenging Aberdeen."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/37514660
So by highly competitive he meant bang average. Funnily enough earlier this year his idea of what 'highly competitive' might mean seemed to be somewhat different:
“My expectation is that we have to go into that league and be highly competitive. I view highly competitive as that we’ve got to be a very, very tough team to beat and to break down and that we go into games expecting to win them...
“...It would be totally ignorant to say anything other than that but our job is to close the gap. How well we close that gap will be about how competitive we are but Rangers will never go into that league satisfied with being third or fourth.”
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-manager-mark-warburton-im-7689869
Or indeed:
“We have to win the league, that’s what we have to do,” he said. “To get into the Champions League you need to win the Premiership title, it’s that simple. Do that and you’re in the qualifying rounds. ‘Are we ready to win the title?’ is the obvious question.
“We’ve got to make sure we’re more than highly competitive."
I suppose technically he can say, from what I can see anyway, with some degree of honesty, that he never actually did say they would challenge for the league. He may have been happy for his players to say that, and for the fans and media to assume that's what he meant by 'highly competitive', but they all took him the wrong way.
Turns out he actually meant they wouldn't even compete with Celtic. Or even be anywhere near Aberdeen. Other folk said that, respectfully. He just meant The Rangers would be mid-table. That sort of highly competitive.
0
What it is or isn't spent on actually isn't at issue here, it's the MORONIC insistence of folk like you that all this money is pissed away and therefore shouldn't be spent rather than attempting to redirect it to better ends. Whilst at the very same fucking time insisting you want foreign doctors out of the NHS (the very same doctors who are a bit suspect in quality terms apparently) to benefit these same third world countries. I'm pointing out how your concern for international development rings false. And indeed the mask has slipped already.
UKIP
in The Politics Forum
Posted · Edited by Redstarstranraer
It's ok, noted medical expert Roger Helmer reckons he'll be alright, panic over.
Neil Hamilton on the BBC news saying it was Woolfe who 'picked a fight and came off worse'.
Kay Burley had her sources talking about him being 'punched repeatedly', Robert Nisbet has different sources apparently: