National News Rishi Sunak

[MustardYellow]

Extremists at marches - well there's a first Like I said, it's a minority and no I haven't seen the footage, I don;t really wish to, but wouldn't condone it for one minute, just like I wouldn't condone any extremist dickhead spouting hatred. For balance, have you seen the footage of all those peaceful protestors, from both "sides" of the argument who are marching for peace and a ceasefire? Guess that doesn't get people all hot under the collar, so doesn't make such good news, even if it is equally legitimate. Have you considered that you're simply consuming the media that is being pushed to you? And maybe compare that to the fine upstanding citizens who arrived in central London a few summers ago to "protect are monuments", who turned out to be a bunch of nationalist pissed up thugs threatening violence and trying to kick off with anyone that looked like they "wanted some"?....and then there's the folk marching in protest at the "Muslamic rayguns" (at least I think that's what he said - look it up!) a few years back. The point being, there are dickheads on all sides of all arguments and it is really easy (and desirable for some "media outlets") to focus on those because it makes good copy, but in reality it distorts the truth....and makes it really easy for echo chambers to exist for "like minded people" to get ever more lost in. Protests are though becoming more and more angry as more people become entrenched and more people consume more media that confirms their beliefs or bias...and so the spiral goes on.

As Ste said, that is one bizarre comparison on the houses!

You think people think they're saviours - that's your perception, your opinion. It's how you chose to view them and maybe, just maybe, you are subconsciously doing that for some reason. Maybe because it's easier to mock/pour scorn/call them fools, than it is to admire what they are trying to do and the attention and focus they are bringing to some dire situations and human suffering, the like and magnitude of which we will probably never see in this country. Therefore it is only natural for many that as the 7th (depending on who you ask) richest nation on the planet, many see that we have the means to help those or aren't so well off in the world.

Again, not wishing to patronise, but it very much sounds like you feel you've got the world worked out at 20 and that you'll always feel the same about stuff. Good to know you're own mind and all that, but I think the majority of older denizens on these boards might beg to differ. Hopefully you've got a long innings ahead of you and you'll try to keep an open mind along the way!

I'd say I'm open minded. I'm always open to new ideas, opinions etc and quite happy to be wrong! I've changed loads of my opinions in the last 10 or so years. I've listened to lots of different arguments on both sides of the Gaza/Israel situation and I've formed my opinion based on that. As I say, I'm not that strongly invested that I'd ever do anything about my opinion (march, donate etc) but I have an opinion nonetheless. Rather than spend £75 to get the train to London on a Saturday to hold up a sign and walk around for a bit, I'd rather go out for lunch with my family, or spend the day with my girlfriend.

When I say I don't 'care' about things, I use the word a bit loosely. There are things that I do care about and situations I can sympathise with, but I choose to not let them bother me. I prioritise other things.

I think people think they're saviours because why do they believe it's their job and responsibility to solve the worlds problems? I work with someone who spends his life fighting for 'social justice', yet he's a man in his mid 40's living in a small 4 bedroom house with 6 strangers with no kids, no girlfriend, limited contact with his family (because they cut him off because of how he treats them), self-confessed loneliness and an admitted general unhappiness about where he is in his life - what's happening in Gaza should really be the least of his concerns!

 

[Marston Road yellow]

If I start to consider the political thinking behind giving money in aid that also starts to stack up to me.

If you have a country with civil war that has had a famine and thousands of people are on the move what’s the quickest way to stop them being refugees and coming here in small boats?

Protecting them Feeding and sheltering them where they are.

Personally if I was starving I’d move heaven and earth to get food ( just ask my kids if there’s a bounty in the fridge) and that has to be first step. Supporting people in a country so that they stay and have a successful and free life there.
(see I’m not actually pro immigration)

Making other countries better is good for us.

Israel and Gaza is an absolute clusterf**k created by leaders who do not care about people.

It’s bigots and egos proving that they are stronger and neither the Israeli government or hamas has been seen an anything other than a dreadful light.

People protest because they have in some way connected to an issue or a cause. It’s the same as supporting Oxford. It’s my team - I have connected. And like football matches protests will always bring out a handful of idiots.

 

[MustardYellow]

I'm interested in exploring this concept of "sort the stuff out at home first" and the notion that both helping yourself at home and helping others overseas simulataneously is somehow incompatible.

Might it actually be the reason we don't do more to help those in need at home is that, compared to some desperate situations overseas, they just aren't of the same scale and magnitude?

And might it also be the case that the reason we don't do as much at home is purely down to a political choice and not because we can't afford to because we're spending it all in foreign lands, helping people we (you) don't really give a f**k about?

It's not necessarily incompatible, I just find it counterproductive at this stage. We're sending money to other people to help them, while people here struggle. Maybe if less people were struggling here we'd be in a better position to help elsewhere, and actually offer more help than we are now?

I don't think scale or magnitude come into it. There's always going to be someone somewhere in the world worse off than you, does that mean you should be forever aiding them regardless of the effect on you? Also, how do you decide who to help and who not to help? Who's 'worthy' of your help and who isn't?

Political choice is probably part of it, but that doesn't change the fact money that could be spent here is being spent elsewhere.

Politics is also about optics. Financially aiding or helping to arm countries that are assets/allies to us is logical - we get something back for what we put in. 'Humanitarian' aid is one of those things where it's a financial/political decision made on emotion, but also optics - it's a good look. Imagine if the Gov announced they were stopping all foreign aid?

Also, as I've said, t's not that I 'don't give a f**k', we just prioritise different things!

 

[MustardYellow]

If I start to consider the political thinking behind giving money in aid that also starts to stack up to me.

If you have a country with civil war that has had a famine and thousands of people are on the move what’s the quickest way to stop them being refugees and coming here in small boats?

Protecting them Feeding and sheltering them where they are.

Personally if I was starving I’d move heaven and earth to get food ( just ask my kids if there’s a bounty in the fridge) and that has to be first step. Supporting people in a country so that they stay and have a successful and free life there.
(see I’m not actually pro immigration)

Making other countries better is good for us.

Israel and Gaza is an absolute clusterf**k created by leaders who do not care about people.

It’s bigots and egos proving that they are stronger and neither the Israeli government or hamas has been seen an anything other than a dreadful light.

People protest because they have in some way connected to an issue or a cause. It’s the same as supporting Oxford. It’s my team - I have connected. And like football matches protests will always bring out a handful of idiots.

This should be true, but we send billions in aid across the world and still end up with refugees and folks on boats. It seems logical but it isn't working out that way. It also raises the question why we're expected to solve the world's problems anyway. We as taxpayers have nothing to do and no say in what's going on in Gaza or anywhere else in the world, yet it's us that's expected to fund the clean-up.

It's always the case - governments and leaders cause chaos and destruction, but it's the people who had no say that suffer the consequences. In Israel & Gaza you have an Israeli government and a Gazan governing body that hate each other and want each other dead. Both sides have said they want to see the total annihilation of the other. It's a situation that will more than likely never end. What both sides have done is only going to create more anger and hatred amongst the respective populations.

Ps, coconut flavoured chocolate??!?! Noooooooo!

 

[QR]

News flash - the NHS already outsources a lot of basic work (like hip replacements) without insurance being in the room, although it is knocking on the door ever harder.

The reasoning is as stupid as it sounds.

People who wait beyond a trigger time create a punitive cost for the referring hospital. That eats into the following years financial allocation.

The hip replacement at £5k (NHS) might be invoiced at £7k (Private provider) but it works out better value than the reduction in funding.

Ironically if something serious occurs during the operation/recovery etc the patient gets lobbed back to the NHS and the PP still invoices.

The NHS now has a "habit" of referring the patient well before the trigger date because they know it's unlikely they will be able to make the stars align for the operation, but the better organised PP will.

As soon as "Mr Smith" gets passed to the PP he is off the NHS list and we move on to the next one and the PP makes it happen.

Numbers on spreadsheets eh?

And the solution to allow us ('cos it is our money at the end of the day) to stop paying £7k for something that costs £5k?

 

[m]

I think people think they're saviours because why do they believe it's their job and responsibility to solve the worlds problems? I work with someone who spends his life fighting for 'social justice', yet he's a man in his mid 40's living in a small 4 bedroom house with 6 strangers with no kids, no girlfriend, limited contact with his family (because they cut him off because of how he treats them), self-confessed loneliness and an admitted general unhappiness about where he is in his life - what's happening in Gaza should really be the least of his concerns!

Would not making judgements on our colleagues and acquaintances be a decent thing to do?

 

[Sheik djibouti]

This should be true, but we send billions in aid across the world and still end up with refugees and folks on boats. It seems logical but it isn't working out that way. It also raises the question why we're expected to solve the world's problems anyway. We as taxpayers have nothing to do and no say in what's going on in Gaza or anywhere else in the world, yet it's us that's expected to fund the clean-up.

It's always the case - governments and leaders cause chaos and destruction, but it's the people who had no say that suffer the consequences. In Israel & Gaza you have an Israeli government and a Gazan governing body that hate each other and want each other dead. Both sides have said they want to see the total annihilation of the other. It's a situation that will more than likely never end. What both sides have done is only going to create more anger and hatred amongst the respective populations.

Ps, coconut flavoured chocolate??!?! Noooooooo!

And therefore it is up to the global community to come together, apply pressure and ultimately find and facilitate the solution. They are incapable of doing it themselves and there is an awful lot at stake in terms of stability in the wider region and the impacts that will have on the rest of the world as a result. We're already seeing that in the Red Sea and whilst nobody is condoning those actions on "innocent" (the word you used, which could be equally applied to thousands of Gazans and Israeli's) sailors, they are as a direct result of Israels actions in Gaza....and the Iranians are only too willing to back those actions, as they will be in other parts of the region through their extensive networks pretty soon, if some kind of solution is not found.

We cannot stand by and let the hate keep on increasing and let everything just fester, simply because we think we have bigger, more important problems at home. Whether you like it or not, part of that effort to find a solution also has to include humanitarian aid and support for a very broken society on the brink of a famine, otherwise there is nothing worth protecting or finding a solution towards peace for.

Nobody is pretending that Israel and the Palestinians will ever be bale to live entirely peacefully side by side, but there is a very good reason why efforts are being made to try and at least improve it from the shitfest and genocide we're currently seeing.

What we decide to do in aid and how we chose between home and abroad is not a binary decision. Our inaction on domestic problems is not as a result of not being bale to afford it becasue we're sending billions abroad. We could do both but we CHOOSE not to. In fact, I would wager that if foreign aid stopped tomorrow, not one thing would change on the domestic aid front!

Maybe you should give some examples of domestic issues that you think warrant more money and we can explore why they don't get it, but I think you'll be hard pressed to find any government minister who will say we're only giving x to this domestic project because we're sending y to this foreign project. And whilst I'm thinking about Government Ministers, perhaps they'd like to explain why they have not replaced all that EU funding we used to get for domestic projects now we've left the EU. I've no doubt there are communities up and down the UK who are (literally) dying to know the answer to that one . . . are they losing out to Johnny Foreigner?!?!?

 

[Marked Ox]

A ringing endorsement for Sunak.....

MSN

www.msn.com

(article from the Telegraph)

 

[QR]

I'd say I'm open minded. I'm always open to new ideas, opinions etc and quite happy to be wrong! I've changed loads of my opinions in the last 10 or so years. I've listened to lots of different arguments on both sides of the Gaza/Israel situation and I've formed my opinion based on that. As I say, I'm not that strongly invested that I'd ever do anything about my opinion (march, donate etc) but I have an opinion nonetheless. Rather than spend £75 to get the train to London on a Saturday to hold up a sign and walk around for a bit, I'd rather go out for lunch with my family, or spend the day with my girlfriend.

When I say I don't 'care' about things, I use the word a bit loosely. There are things that I do care about and situations I can sympathise with, but I choose to not let them bother me. I prioritise other things.

I think people think they're saviours because why do they believe it's their job and responsibility to solve the worlds problems? I work with someone who spends his life fighting for 'social justice', yet he's a man in his mid 40's living in a small 4 bedroom house with 6 strangers with no kids, no girlfriend, limited contact with his family (because they cut him off because of how he treats them), self-confessed loneliness and an admitted general unhappiness about where he is in his life - what's happening in Gaza should really be the least of his concerns!

You don't half think a lot about how you think other people think.

 

[Sheik djibouti]

A ringing endorsement for Sunak.....

MSN

www.msn.com

(article from the Telegraph)

If you're ever looking for a better example of re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.....nope, can't think of one

 

[tonyw]

So something that I have personally been affected by got me thinking. My wife gets free healthcare at work and I can join for a small fee. I don’t want to and she can’t understand why.

My argument is this if we go to a healthcare system based on insurance, then hospitals charge what they like for any procedure.

So for example let’s say it’s £5k for a hip replacement or whatever. If it’s based on insurance who starts looking at the prices? it easily could go up to £20k without anyone blinking at the fees for the service.

Lots of people get rich and no one seems to pay anything as it’s built into the benefits of your employment.
So I won’t loose…..

Except what happens if she looses her job, and the NHS has been allowed to slip into the abyss. Then I can’t afford £20k for a hip replacement.
And neither would the majority of people in those circumstances. This is what is happening in the US. Innocent people getting shot and facing hospital bills for hundreds of thousands of dollars.

One of the two big reasons why the US spends somewhere between 2.2 - 2.4 times as much per person on healthcare than Britain does
(the other being that 500,000 people are employed to manage the bureaucratic, inefficient, administrative nightmare that is the US insurance billing system)

A lot of people (the insurance companies, pharma, Medical equipment providers etc. etc.) make a ton of money from it, though, so it's a tough thing to reverse once you go down that rabbit hole.

 

[Scotchegg]

Basically, my theory is people should (as a general rule*) mind their own business and not be too bothered by what everyone is is/isn't, may/may not be doing. We'd all be happier for it.

Where does this start and finish? If you think people should mind their own business about international war crimes and the killings of 20-30,000 women and children along with up to a million more facing starvation, then why are you worried about who Oxford United Ltd. employ or how much your neighbour pays in rent?

 

[Essexyellows]

And the solution to allow us ('cos it is our money at the end of the day) to stop paying £7k for something that costs £5k?

Doesn`t work like that sadly.

The NHS doesn`t use its buying power, staffing, patient capacity & time as efficiently as the private provider for many and complex reasons.

If the NHS did most of those things they would A: Save a lot of money. B: Perform a lot more surgery.

When the choice of "what orthopaedic kit to buy" is driven by a a group of consultants preference then buying is never going to be cost effective.

When the same consultants are doing 3 days NHS and 2 days private the volume of NHS procedures decreases.

When people are bed blocking through out the system because of a lack of porters, waiting for cleaners, waiting for discharge and folk are coming in faster than they leave the flow stops and capacity becomes inefficient.

When staff won`t start a planned procedure in case it goes over their finish time then another person waits.

The "solution" is to allow those who can afford to go private but do so in an effective way - NHS pays the £5k (their cost price) and the patient tops up the private providers slice of £2k.

Patient is fixed and off the NHS list, the NHS hasn`t paid over the odds and everyone is happy.

Downside - you get a two tier healthcare system that already exists anyway...

 

[Marston Road yellow]

Doesn`t work like that sadly.

The NHS doesn`t use its buying power, staffing, patient capacity & time as efficiently as the private provider for many and complex reasons.

If the NHS did most of those things they would A: Save a lot of money. B: Perform a lot more surgery.

When the choice of "what orthopaedic kit to buy" is driven by a a group of consultants preference then buying is never going to be cost effective.

When the same consultants are doing 3 days NHS and 2 days private the volume of NHS procedures decreases.

When people are bed blocking through out the system because of a lack of porters, waiting for cleaners, waiting for discharge and folk are coming in faster than they leave the flow stops and capacity becomes inefficient.

When staff won`t start a planned procedure in case it goes over their finish time then another person waits.

The "solution" is to allow those who can afford to go private but do so in an effective way - NHS pays the £5k (their cost price) and the patient tops up the private providers slice of £2k.

Patient is fixed and off the NHS list, the NHS hasn`t paid over the odds and everyone is happy.

Downside - you get a two tier healthcare system that already exists anyway...

Genuine question ( I’m trying to be less confrontational on here) after reading what you have written and know how bad things are in one of the biggest employers in the country, that even has a government minister overseeing it. After the last 14 years how could there be any support for the government that is overseeing that?

 

[MustardYellow]

Would not making judgements on our colleagues and acquaintances be a decent thing to do?

Difference between making judgments and acting on those judgments.

If he tells me and my colleagues things about his life, it's normal to form an opinion on him. The difference is, I don't let my opinion of him change how I treat him - I treat him the same as I would anyone else.

We all make judgments on people all the time, I'm sure you do too. If you're suggesting having an opinion on someone isn't 'decent', then we're all un-decent! It only becomes a problem when it changes how they're treated.

 

[QR]

I work with someone who spends his life fighting for 'social justice', yet he's a man in his mid 40's living in a small 4 bedroom house with 6 strangers with no kids, no girlfriend, limited contact with his family (because they cut him off because of how he treats them), self-confessed loneliness and an admitted general unhappiness about where he is in his life - what's happening in Gaza should really be the least of his concerns!

Have you ever stopped to think that maybe his fights for social justice are one of the few things that gives him happiness and a sense of worth?

 

[m]

Difference between making judgments and acting on those judgments.

If he tells me and my colleagues things about his life, it's normal to form an opinion on him. The difference is, I don't let my opinion of him change how I treat him - I treat him the same as I would anyone else.

We all make judgments on people all the time, I'm sure you do too. If you're suggesting having an opinion on someone isn't 'decent', then we're all un-decent! It only becomes a problem when it changes how they're treated.

Um. Would describing his life in faintly mocking tones on the internet not count as acting on a judgement.

Would using him as an example to try and influence the thought of others not count as acting on a judgement?

 

[MustardYellow]

And therefore it is up to the global community to come together, apply pressure and ultimately find and facilitate the solution. They are incapable of doing it themselves and there is an awful lot at stake in terms of stability in the wider region and the impacts that will have on the rest of the world as a result. We're already seeing that in the Red Sea and whilst nobody is condoning those actions on "innocent" (the word you used, which could be equally applied to thousands of Gazans and Israeli's) sailors, they are as a direct result of Israels actions in Gaza....and the Iranians are only too willing to back those actions, as they will be in other parts of the region through their extensive networks pretty soon, if some kind of solution is not found.

We cannot stand by and let the hate keep on increasing and let everything just fester, simply because we think we have bigger, more important problems at home. Whether you like it or not, part of that effort to find a solution also has to include humanitarian aid and support for a very broken society on the brink of a famine, otherwise there is nothing worth protecting or finding a solution towards peace for.

Nobody is pretending that Israel and the Palestinians will ever be bale to live entirely peacefully side by side, but there is a very good reason why efforts are being made to try and at least improve it from the shitfest and genocide we're currently seeing.

What we decide to do in aid and how we chose between home and abroad is not a binary decision. Our inaction on domestic problems is not as a result of not being bale to afford it becasue we're sending billions abroad. We could do both but we CHOOSE not to. In fact, I would wager that if foreign aid stopped tomorrow, not one thing would change on the domestic aid front!

Maybe you should give some examples of domestic issues that you think warrant more money and we can explore why they don't get it, but I think you'll be hard pressed to find any government minister who will say we're only giving x to this domestic project because we're sending y to this foreign project. And whilst I'm thinking about Government Ministers, perhaps they'd like to explain why they have not replaced all that EU funding we used to get for domestic projects now we've left the EU. I've no doubt there are communities up and down the UK who are (literally) dying to know the answer to that one . . . are they losing out to Johnny Foreigner?!?!?

What the Houthis are doing in the Red Sea is a direct result of nothing other than 2 terrorist organisations backing each other (Hamas & Houthis). Let's not pretend it's for a noble reason.

I'd argue that by trying to prevent 'hate' overseas, we've just created more hate here at home. Cases of anti-semitism up nearly 600% or something ridiculous.

Sounds harsh, but the Israel/Palestine fiasco is a lost cause. It won't end. Whether what's happening is a 'genocide' or not is a different question. In my opinion, no. Hamas started a war with a far stronger and greater enemy, and this is simply the result of that. The allies killed plenty of 'innocent' Germans during the war, unfortunately that's just what happens. Genocide can usually be identified through the use of war crimes. What is/isn't a war crime is more complex than people think. For example, I saw people saying Israel committed a war crime by entering a hospital - legally this may not be true. It's all about the difference between civilian and military targets. If there's reason to believe that say a residential building, kids playground, and yes even a hospital is being used by the enemy in any capacity in a way, it becomes a legitimate military target.

We're always sending money around for 'hungry people who need shelter' all around the world. There's hungry people who need shelter on our doorstep - why not fix that problem before we start trying to solve it elsewhere? I agree part of why that isn't happening is political, but it seems odd to me that people don't see the juxtaposition of it - we're trying to solve problems overseas that we're ignoring here. Get your own house in order before giving it the biggen about how much we all care about humanitarian problems.

 

[SteMerritt]

We're always sending money around for 'hungry people who need shelter' all around the world. There's hungry people who need shelter on our doorstep - why not fix that problem before we start trying to solve it elsewhere?

Or we could look to do both As much as you'd like to paint this as a binary 'either-or' choice, it simply isn't.

 

[MustardYellow]

Have you ever stopped to think that maybe his fights for social justice are one of the few things that gives him happiness and a sense of worth?

They make him angry. In fairness to him, he's very open about how he feels about things in his life, but countless colleagues have tried to help him and he just can't help himself making problems worse. He went to a family meal late last year as a 'trial run' to see if his mum would let him come to Christmas (weird, I know). He ended up kicking off at his brother-in-law because he asked his wife (my colleagues sister) if she wouldn't mind getting him a drink. According to my colleague, he was 'perpetuating the patriarchy' and it's 'disgusting how he treats women' because of it, this despite the brother-in-law getting her a glass of wine upon arrival at his mothers house. Now maybe I'm a young man behind the times, but isn't couples occasionally getting each other things just... normal?

He has a bee in his bonnet. The running theory amongst colleagues is he's had so little in his life for so long that 'social justice' has become his life, which is why everything comes back to it. He gets very aggressive towards anyone who doesn't agree with him. If it makes him happy then it doesn't show!!!