Brexit Deal

[allandwf]

I'm good with choice. When Mrs C was in need last year the local hospital was not great. Bart's OTOH were cracking.

Our local BUPA is also superb.

C

I also did not realise that BUPA paid you handsomely for not using them! Not really the point but helpful.

 

[Geo]

Can I just add one point on NHS healthcare, as speaking from experience. I/we had private health care, however our local NHS Hospital was a leader in the field of what we required, and so we decided to utilize them. The level of care was excellent, I cannot and would not fault them. I would prefer to have the choice.

Allan, it’s the same one I worked for. I have no criticism whatsoever about the quality of the service the patient receives, as I personally have had excellent service from them. My gripe is with the waste of money that happens due to bad management.

 

[CatmanV2]

I also did not realise that BUPA paid you handsomely for not using them! Not really the point but helpful.

They do indeed. Or I suspect, more accurately, your insurer pays you....

C

 

[CatmanV2]

Did anyone see what Boris did this afty with that reporters phone and the pic of the boy with pneumonia at LGI

Interestingly this now appears to be not what it was portrayed as in its entirety. Not sure if the reality is much better, but I shall leave everyone else to DYOR.

C

 

[allandwf]

They do indeed. Or I suspect, more accurately, your insurer pays you....

C

Not sure, claims went direct to BUPA., and were paid from them. No doubt they will sort it out amongst themselves .

 

[CatmanV2]

Not sure, claims went direct to BUPA., and were paid from them. No doubt they will sort it out amongst themselves .

Ahh yes. Of course. Our insurer was BUPA as well

C

 

[Oneball]

Not directed at any candidate in particular; when Boris, Jeremy etc have a photo op at a particular business, Red Bull F1 for example is that because that business supports that candidate?

I only ask as most of the companies I’ve worked for have specific rules against that sort of thing.

 

[Zep]

And some of his media and opponent alleged lies are arguably not lies, just his version of the truth, eg there will be no Customs checks in the Irish Sea. As I understand it, there will definitely not be any EU forced checks on goods coming to the UK across the Irish Sea. And going the other way, the withdrawal agreement says there MAY be checks in certain circumstances. However, this is is not absolute and is to be negotiated as part of the future trading relationship. Clearly, he does not want this and will negotiate hard to avoid it. So does that make it a lie for him to say, in his view, there will be none?

Article 5(1) of the Withdrawal Agreement states:

No customs duties shall be payable for a good brought into Northern Ireland from another part of the United Kingdom by direct transport, notwithstanding paragraph 3, unless that good is at risk of subsequently being moved into the Union, whether by itself or forming part of another good following processing.

Article 5(2) of the Withdrawal Agreement states:

1. For the purposes of the first and second subparagraph of paragraph 1, a good brought into Northern Ireland from outside the Union shall be considered to be at risk of subsequently being moved into the Union unless it is established that that good:

(a) will not be subject to commercial processing in Northern Ireland; and
(b) fulfils the criteria established by the Joint Committee in accordance with the fourth subparagraph of this paragraph.

So to suggest there will be no checks on good entering NI from GB under this agreement is not true because there needs to be a mechanism for establishing that the good complies with subparagraph (a) or (b). Now there may well be a fairly loose criteria established by the joint committee under (b) however by definition that mechanism will need to be some form of declaration and there will also need to be a system of ensuring that that mechanism isn't being abused which will be.....drum roll please.....a form of physical check.

Now, Johnson said that under his agreement there will be no checks between GB and NI. Is that what the agreement says? No. Does that make it a lie? It probably makes it an exercise in semantics, like the one he did when he was challenged about his statements on a certain bus. I am happy to shorten that to the word lie. You might not be, but in the end I will bet you a signed fiver that checks will happen.

As for 50,000 more nurses, 20,000 of which are already nurses already working in the NHS. Another bit of sleight of hand because they count nurses that might leave without policy action, but do not count the number of nurses that might join without policy action. An incredibly creative and disingenuous use of the figures, which again I am happy to characterise as a lie.

This is only two examples of Johnson's penchant for policy sleight of hand - actually lets just call them big fat whoopers. I am no snowflake, but I can read. I don't care about his jolly japes (which have evaporated haven't they?), I do care about not having the wool pulled over my eyes. For many this election is about choosing which flavour of dog **** sandwich you want to eat, this is one of the reasons why.

 

[CatmanV2]

Not directed at any candidate in particular; when Boris, Jeremy etc have a photo op at a particular business, Red Bull F1 for example is that because that business supports that candidate?

I only ask as most of the companies I’ve worked for have specific rules against that sort of thing.

Certainly I would have expected it to be approved by the relative department. I think assuming support however, may be overstepping the mark.

C

 

[CatmanV2]

As for 50,000 more nurses, 20,000 of which are already nurses already working in the NHS. Another bit of slight of hand because they count nurses that might leave without policy action, but do not count the number of nurses that might join without policy action. An incredibly creative and disingenuous use of the figures, which again I am happy to characterise as a lie.

I really don't get why people struggle with this, but there we are.

BTW it's 'sleight'

C

 

[Zep]

I really don't get why people struggle with this, but there we are.

BTW it's 'sleight'

C

Pedant

 

[CatmanV2]

Pedant

Because I can tell the difference between 'new' and 'more' or because I can spell?

C

 

[empzb]

Following on from my earlier comments.

What really ** me off was; If I managed to save money on my budget, my boss would tell me to spend the savings to ensure that the departments overall budget would be cut the following year. The guy that was in my post before me, used to buy the most ridiculous things just to burn excess money. At least when told, I expanded our workshop facilities to make things marginally easier to run our service. But being realistic, a lot of the stuff we purchased was not really required.

Another thing that got my goat was the number of junkets a close knit bunch of middle and upper management went on. These trips often took them to far flung destinations and would frequently be extended by adding one or two weeks holidays, having had the air travel paid by the government.

Why stop now; NHS Tayside has gone through more extremely highly paid useless executives than I care to remember over the years, and when they are found lacking, they got huge golden handshakes instead of getting kicked out. They should have been made to pay back some of the money they were paid in the first place.

Regarding the lack of nurses, there is something wrong in the system when NHS trained nurses leave, sign up on a nursing agency then get re-employed in the same department and get paid a higher rate. Bearing in mind the nursing agency is also getting paid for supplying them. I’m in no way having a go at the nurses, they are brilliant, but boy is there something wrong with the system that allows agencies to profit the way they do.

If the NHS was a private business, it would have collapsed years ago.

Rant over!

Just to add, I've worked for a number of 100 and 250 companies and all of this still happens. Theres an argument that abusing shareholder funds that way for the sake of budget management is a bit shady, but then what do they all care - and if shareholders dont know and just see some kind of return it's all fine...

 

[Zep]

Because I can tell the difference between 'new' and 'more' or because I can spell?

C

How about both!

 

[Oneball]

Certainly I would have expected it to be approved by the relative department. I think assuming support however, may be overstepping the mark.

C

So do we reckon it’s just considered fair and good play in a very English* sort of way to let which ever party wants to come and bumble around your business with a bunch reporters in tow?

* other kingdoms and principalities are available.

 

[CatmanV2]

So do we reckon it’s just considered fair and good play in a very English* sort of way to let which ever party wants to come and bumble around your business with a bunch reporters in tow?

* other kingdoms and principalities are available.

It may just be that there's no such thing as bad publicity.

C

 

[allandwf]

It may just be that there's no such thing as bad publicity.

C

That may not be the case after this election!

 

[CatmanV2]

That may not be the case after this election!

I don't profess to understand publicity at all

C

 

[Nibby]

For many this election is about choosing which flavour of dog **** sandwich you want to eat, this is one of the reasons why.

79, 83,87,92,97,01,05,10,15,17 it's always been the least worse option, it's nothing new.
Rod Liddle nails it.

 

[Corranga]

Bit late to the party, but the BBC now reporting on the lies pushed by political parties.

It concentrates on Facebook ads, so still a long way to go - we need more articles like this getting out there - we really need them to be about the toxic red tops though, who spread lies far and wide.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-50726500

Most interestingly:
- for the Conservatives, it said that 88% of the party's most widely promoted ads either featured claims which had been flagged by independent fact-checking organisations as not correct or not entirely correct.
- for Labour, it said that it could not find any misleading claims in ads run over the period.