news & politics:discussion

[eFestivals]

On 3/3/2021 at 1:11 PM, Ozanne said:

Remember when the Tories tore into Corbyn for wanting to spend.

Corbyn planned to spend more without the crisis of a pandemic

[st dan]

12 minutes ago, xxialac said:

Not underfunded our health system for the last decade.

Not called them Hospitals.

Not claimed to have 'built' them.

Not bragged endlessly about how wonderful the Nightingales were (and by extension how wonderful the government was) and treated them as cheap PR.

Acknowledged when asked that they were an escape valve with a low level of care.

I agree, however I am reliably informed by an army physiotherapist who was drafted in to help set up the Nightingale in Manchester that the intention for them were to be used to treat non-Covid patients if hospital capacities were ever reached. Why the government didn’t come out and state this I do not know - instead they ran with the narrative that they were going to be used to treat Covid patients, despite a severe lack of equipment or doctors to do so. 

[xxialac]

Just now, st dan said:

I agree, however I am reliably informed by an army physiotherapist who was drafted in to help set up the Nightingale in Manchester that the intention for them were to be used to treat non-Covid patients if hospital capacities were ever reached. Why the government didn’t come out and state this I do not know - instead they ran with the narrative that they were going to be used to treat Covid patients, despite a severe lack of equipment or doctors to do so. 

Absolutely, 100%

They didn't tell the truth...well because they are always more interested in PR than in results.

[DeanoL]

21 minutes ago, xxialac said:

Not underfunded our health system for the last decade.

Not called them Hospitals.

Not claimed to have 'built' them.

Not bragged endlessly about how wonderful the Nightingales were (and by extension how wonderful the government was) and treated them as cheap PR.

Acknowledged when asked that they were an escape valve with a low level of care.

So you agree they were worth having then? You just think the government should have been more honest about them?

[st dan]

2 minutes ago, xxialac said:

Absolutely, 100%

They didn't tell the truth...well because they are always more interested in PR than in results.

It’s madness because they were even being dishonest when they actually doing a good thing. These Nightingales were there to assist with hospital capacity if needed, for whatever purpose the NHS deemed fit and practical, yet they spun them as being ‘built’ for Covid patients.
Being genuine and honest on this issue would have actually been a benefit to them aswell, maybe even more so than the lies they sold. Instead they got slated for not having the equipment or staff required to treat Covid patients in them in any case.
The PR team for this bunch aren’t the brightest sparks. 

[st dan]

[steviewevie]

11 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Corbyn planned to spend more without the crisis of a pandemic

and after 10 years of underfunding and austerity.

[steviewevie]

2 minutes ago, st dan said:

It’s madness because they were even being dishonest when they actually doing a good thing. These Nightingales were there to assist with hospital capacity if needed, for whatever purpose the NHS deemed fit and practical, yet they spun them as being ‘built’ for Covid patients.
Being genuine and honest on this issue would have actually been a benefit to them aswell, maybe even more so than the lies they sold. Instead they got slated for not having the equipment or staff required to treat Covid patients in them in any case.
The PR team for this bunch aren’t the brightest sparks. 

wasn't the big issue with these nightingales and an overwhelmed NHS the staffing, rather than the beds?

[Ozanne]

12 minutes ago, xxialac said:

Absolutely, 100%

They didn't tell the truth...well because they are always more interested in PR than in results.

Ha I was just about to write that they care more about PR than anything else. The Nightingales always had the main flaw of lack of staffing because of underfunding, Brexit and poor pandemic planning.

Edited March 9, 2021 by Ozanne

[mattiloy]

16 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Corbyn planned to spend more without the crisis of a pandemic

Is that true though? 

As far as I can see Corbyn’s spending plans amounted to 83bn a year which was costed, meanwhile net govt debt is due to go up by around 300bn this year alone..

[DeanoL]

Just now, steviewevie said:

wasn't the big issue with these nightingales and an overwhelmed NHS the staffing, rather than the beds?

Staffing was always going to be the big issue, but we were already doing that - hospitals were being rearranged to fit more patients in and so a single member of staff would be responsible for far more patients that normal. That meant reduced quality of care.

The Nightingales would have exacerbated that - you'd have had to move staff over to them, meaning even more patients per single member of staff - both in the Nightingales and the other hospitals.

It's true you can't just magic up staff out of nowhere, and so the Nightingales were not a magical solution to stop the NHS being overwhelmed. 

But if things got worse they would have allowed us to actually put all the sick people somewhere and give them some level of care. Yes, there would have people who died who would have lived had they had access to a better standard of care. But that's been the case anyway.

But the alternative is just to go "the NHS is full" and stop treating new people. I'd rather have had understaffed treatment than no treatment at all - especially as we keep talking about how low the death rate is for young people - that's because they often don't need a huge amount of treatment in hospital if it gets to that. But they would die without that treatment.

And if there's literally no space to put people, there's no way to treat them.

[xxialac]

12 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

So you agree they were worth having then? You just think the government should have been more honest about them?

Yes, all other major countries as far as I can tell set up additional facilities as an escape valve but not with a massive PR blitz, with smug photos standing outside them, and they had staff they could call on.

 

 

[st dan]

8 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

wasn't the big issue with these nightingales and an overwhelmed NHS the staffing, rather than the beds?

More than 15,000 ex NHS staff signed up to help out during the first wave, they could have been used to treat non Covid patients in these Nightingales if required. Luckily the lockdowns avoided needed using them, which is a positive, but the public were misled with the intention of them in the first place.  

[Ozanne]

3 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Staffing was always going to be the big issue, but we were already doing that - hospitals were being rearranged to fit more patients in and so a single member of staff would be responsible for far more patients that normal. That meant reduced quality of care.

The Nightingales would have exacerbated that - you'd have had to move staff over to them, meaning even more patients per single member of staff - both in the Nightingales and the other hospitals.

It's true you can't just magic up staff out of nowhere, and so the Nightingales were not a magical solution to stop the NHS being overwhelmed. 

But if things got worse they would have allowed us to actually put all the sick people somewhere and give them some level of care. Yes, there would have people who died who would have lived had they had access to a better standard of care. But that's been the case anyway.

But the alternative is just to go "the NHS is full" and stop treating new people. I'd rather have had understaffed treatment than no treatment at all - especially as we keep talking about how low the death rate is for young people - that's because they often don't need a huge amount of treatment in hospital if it gets to that. But they would die without that treatment.

And if there's literally no space to put people, there's no way to treat them.

You are right but what all of this misses are the reasons why the NHS were so under-stretched to begin with. We were so ill-prepared for this pandemic because we were 10 years into Tory rule where they slashed public spending like never seen before, ignored their own pandemic preparedness literature and set about limiting people that could come to the country to work in the NHS.

Labour has started talking about it but nowhere in the media do we see people asking why we were in this position to start of with, so as a result the public won’t ask that question either. 

[gigpusher]

14 hours ago, efcfanwirral said:

Just gave an undeserved viewing figure to the shitshow on ITV for 10 minutes. Horrible horrible family, can't believe so many of the country love and idolise them 

Good on them exposing what I imagine is just a tiny tiny amount of what they've done over the years. If they're willing to treat family members like that you can only imagine how they've treated people around the world over the centuries. 

Archaic institution for an archaic country - them and the British public deserve each other 

It's taken a mixed race person to show my basic problem with the whole concept of a monarchical system. The Royal Family are basically slaves, incredibly privileged slaves no doubt but if you have a child you can tell them they can do or be anything but they can't they are trapped in that family. We pay for them we feel we own them. That has no place in today's society. They are people in handcuffs and the fact that those handcuffs are gold and diamond encrusted doesn't help them any. It's an institution that needs to be removed completely. 

[steviewevie]

so...who do you think actually asked about how dark their son would be?

Charles? William? Kate? Louis?

BET NOW!

[xxialac]

11 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

so...who do you think actually asked about how dark their son would be?

Charles? William? Kate? Louis?

BET NOW!

The Queen Mum via Derek Acorah.

[Crazyfool01]

20 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

so...who do you think actually asked about how dark their son would be?

Charles? William? Kate? Louis?

BET NOW!

Kate .... she clearly doesnt give a shit who she upsets 

[fred quimby]

24 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

so...who do you think actually asked about how dark their son would be?

Charles? William? Kate? Louis?

BET NOW!

Harry

 

I only watched about 10 minutes of it. When Meghan  was asked on a few things "who said that to you" her reply was "No one Harry told me they said it. "

There was the thing with calling their Son a prince as well. Since King George they have never been able to (heard that on the radio) so maybe he has been lying to her.

It may of course all been explained later but I could not watch.

 

Did they explain why they did the interview after saying they did not want to be i the spotlight, actually not sure I care

Edited March 9, 2021 by fred quimby

[maelzoid]

32 minutes ago, gigpusher said:

It's taken a mixed race person to show my basic problem with the whole concept of a monarchical system. The Royal Family are basically slaves, incredibly privileged slaves no doubt but if you have a child you can tell them they can do or be anything but they can't they are trapped in that family. We pay for them we feel we own them. That has no place in today's society. They are people in handcuffs and the fact that those handcuffs are gold and diamond encrusted doesn't help them any. It's an institution that needs to be removed completely. 

I have often likened it to an abusive relationship between the Royals, and the press and public. We coddle them, tell them they are better than anyone else, yet allow them no personal freedom, and the minute they do something we disapprove of, the criticism is instant and oppressive. 

[st dan]

2 minutes ago, maelzoid said:

I have often likened it to an abusive relationship between the Royals, and the press and public. We coddle them, tell them they are better than anyone else, yet allow them no personal freedom, and the minute they do something we disapprove of, the criticism is instant and oppressive. 

Agreed, but think that will all change when the Queen passes away and it’s handed over to Charles.
I think the reason why the royals are held in such high regard by so many is purely driven by the Queen being such a likeable personality - she’s like a great grandma for the whole country. 

[fred quimby]

5 minutes ago, maelzoid said:

I have often likened it to an abusive relationship between the Royals, and the press and public. We coddle them, tell them they are better than anyone else, yet allow them no personal freedom, and the minute they do something we disapprove of, the criticism is instant and oppressive. 

Totally agree, and with @gigpusher

Does this mean we are the abusive partner

[maelzoid]

16 minutes ago, fred quimby said:

Totally agree, and with @gigpusher

Does this mean we are the abusive partner

Yes, certainly. Although I take no personal responsibility myself, as I don't engage with this criticism, and certainly don't fund the tabloids that are the main instigators. But taken as a whole, the 'public' treats the Royals as if we're one of those rich guys who have a totally controlling hold over a trophy wife - superficially she has a wonderful and lavish life, but behind closed doors its a mess of psychological torture and gaslighting.

Edited March 9, 2021 by maelzoid
typo

[gigpusher]

30 minutes ago, fred quimby said:

Totally agree, and with @gigpusher

Does this mean we are the abusive partner

Not we as such but certainly royalists. I'm a staunch republican, didn't watch the interview or any of the royal weddings or even the Diana funeral. I just think the whole thing has no place in modern society. Public roles should be filled by people who volunteer for them.

[Mr.Tease]

19 minutes ago, gigpusher said:

Not we as such but certainly royalists. I'm a staunch republican, didn't watch the interview or any of the royal weddings or even the Diana funeral. I just think the whole thing has no place in modern society. Public roles should be filled by people who volunteer for them.

Me too, I'm opposed to a monarchy politically, but also on a personal level- the whole things creepy, it turns the public into these weird stalkers, where they pretend someone else's baby (who they have absolutely no relationship to) is somehow also theirs and that following this child as they grow up in fancy captivity, taking joy or fury at their restricted life choices, expecting to see their wedding and fawning or demonising them is somehow perfectly fine behaviour. Plus all that curtseying or bowing to other people and calling them 'maa' m' or whatever and all that, it's embarrassing.