Yes, that and all the time they aren't processed the more they can point at steadily filling up camps and continue to blame them for the fact Mike in Chatham can't get a doctor's appointment
[Politics] Tory meltdown finally arrived [was: incoming]...
- Thread starter TomandJerry
- Start date
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
These are as likely to happen as Rwanda is.
Will Brussels agree to it? Doubtful asking individual states to take more from the UK has no benefits for them, they have already said it's unlikely.
What might work is if you do it on a county by country basis and do Individual deals, still unlikely in most cases I imagine.
Claiming the EU will happily take more is on par with claiming we can control borders after leaving the EU, I'm sure the French and Spanish population will love it.
You might be able to speed it up slightly, but I find it doubtful the numbers on the waiting list will drop dramatically.
Last edited:
Well let's face it, putting back any of the measures this cabal removed to get us into 'this state' would definitely 'fix the problem' and it looks like Starmer has picked up on a couple of them
1. Reinstate the ability to claim Asylum from abroad
2. Reopen legal Asylum routes to allow claimants
3. Work with Interpol again to target people traffickers
3. Re-employ more caseworkers to clear the backlog
It's hardly f***ing rocket science is it
1/2 Do you think that will stop people traffickers? these scumbags are the issue at the moment. I'm not sure legal routes will have any impact on them.
3. Would be nice, I don't think there is the will to do so, once they are in the EU they want them out, thanks to Brexit UK is the easiest option.
nicko31
Well-known member
Leaving Europol, losing to access EU Schengen databases, very very dumb....Well let's face it, putting back any of the measures this cabal removed to get us into 'this state' would definitely 'fix the problem' and it looks like Starmer has picked up on a couple of them
1. Reinstate the ability to claim Asylum from abroad
2. Reopen legal Asylum routes to allow claimants
3. Work with Interpol again to target people traffickers
3. Re-employ more caseworkers to clear the backlog
It's hardly f***ing rocket science is it
- Oct 12, 2022
- 1,996
1/2 people traffickers will keep plying their trade, but they’re hardly a much loved part of any country’s society. Any individual with a legitimate claim would go through the legal route given the choice. Why?
A) cheaper
B) more certain than being shoved into an overcrowded dinghy with little food or drinking water
C) the official process may be slow but it’s documented and there’s a degree of fairness to it. Reasons have to be given, appeal is possible if the claimant feels the decision hasn’t taken the relevant information into account.
Legitimate claim routes via embassies make it much simpler to sort the wheat from the chaff. If there are legal avenues by which asylum can be claimed before an individual reaches Britain, then those claims can be assessed, ID cross-checked against local criminal records etc.
When you close all legal avenues for claiming asylum except by turning up in Britain, you get thousands of unchecked, unvetted asylum seekers with no ID and no way of determining genuine need from fraudulent claim.
This issue is largely (almost wholly) of this Conservative government’s making. They’ve poured petrol on quite a small bin fire, and managed to turn it into a forest fire.
As for 3, if the EU feel they’re negotiating with adults who are negotiating in good faith, we may make more headway than the Johnson tactic of openly slagging the EU off in our domestic press, and then going back to the negotiating table with everyone in the room having read whatever nonsense he’s just said in the Daily Mail.
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
We had that agreement whilst in the EU. It was called the Belfast Agreement but was thrown away with Brexit.
Wrong Irish capital: it was the Dublin Agreement. But, yes, it was thrown away after Brexit
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
I knew it was something like that. Thanks.
- Jul 10, 2003
- 26,173
These are the exact steps that the current cabal took to create the 'problem'. I am interested why you don't think reversing those steps would get rid of it
And in case you need a reminder of when the problem was created
There are no records prior to 2018 as the Government considered them "Inconsequential"
2018 - 299
2019 - 1,890
2020 - 8,466
2021 - 28,526
2022 - 45,755
St Leonards Seagull
Well-known member
- Jul 10, 2012
- 546
Exactly, why fix the problem when it’s their number one vote winner. Don’t worry about healthcare going down the pan, schools collapsing, corruption in government, inflation, that not one cabinet member appears halfway competent etc. Let’s stop these “immigrants” coming over here, scapegoating them for all the countries ills. Nothing to do with us we have done all we can over the last 13 years.
It’s politics from the Trump playbook, I’ve not seen one rational argument for anyone to vote Tory. It’s hate politics.
Neck and neck apparently - with Lib Dems not far behind. Could be interesting.
www.theguardian.com
Labour and Tories neck and neck in byelection race for Mid Beds, poll says
Survey reveals Labour more likely than Lib Dems to overturn Conservatives’ 25,000 majority in Nadine Dorries’s former seat
www.theguardian.com
Nobby Cybergoat
Well-known member
- Jul 19, 2021
- 7,289
More melting down going on today.
Shambolically announced watering down of key net zero policies
Shambolically announced watering down of key net zero policies
"I tried to rear the pig, fatten the pig and slaughter the pig on the same day".
f*** me. That was the ill-fated prime minister of last year, Thick Lizzie, speaking recently.
The event horizon has been now crossed. We now have a rolling tory government of the talentless, cheerfully admitting that they are attempting to achieve the ludicrously impossible for shits and giggles, and are jolly well going to bash on regardless.
Shameless self-serving cretins. Fie upon them.
f*** me. That was the ill-fated prime minister of last year, Thick Lizzie, speaking recently.
The event horizon has been now crossed. We now have a rolling tory government of the talentless, cheerfully admitting that they are attempting to achieve the ludicrously impossible for shits and giggles, and are jolly well going to bash on regardless.
Shameless self-serving cretins. Fie upon them.
Just listened to the 'Change' medley from Sunak's latest driveling, er, speech, on radio 5. What a chump. Repeatedly saying 'change' is a dog whistle to what? That the tories are shit and are going to change?
Jolly Red Giant
Well-known member
- Jul 11, 2015
- 2,615
Here is an example of how the Tories (and the Blairites) are f*cking over the NHS.
The NHS is currently employing Anaesthesia Associates - and this should serve as a major warning for where the NHS is going.
To become an Consultant Anaesthetist you need a medical degree (minimum five years) and up to ten years of training.
To become an Anaesthesia Associate you are required to have a 2.1 degree in biology/life sciences or biomedical science and then complete a 2 year post grad qualification.
Anaesthetists are members of the Royal College of Anaesthetists, are licensed, regulated and insured and have stringent supervision.
Anaesthesia Associates are not members of the RCA, are not licensed, are not regulated, are not insured and have far less supervision.
Anaesthesia Associates are not required to inform patients that they are not anaesthetists, that they do not hold a medical degree (and indeed if they hold a PhD - or are a qualified vet - they can actually call themselves 'doctor' in a medical environment). They are 'encouraged' but not required to maintain a 'presence' on the 'AA Managed Voluntary Register' - and they don't pay any fees to the RCA (Anaesthetists are required to pay up to £700 per year for RCA membership and trainging fees, insurance etc can top £2,500 per year).
Anaesthesia Associates are allowed to administer anaesthetic or sedation 'under the supervision of a consultant' (what they don't tell you is that the consultant still has to carry out their own work and may be supervision more than one AA). However, if anything goes wrong, and it can at any time when you are administering these drugs - the AA has zero training on how to resolve the problems.
Furthermore, if anything does go wrong, there is no statutory body to carry out an investigation, no regulations that must be adhered to, no consequences for the AA.
Currently, an AA with a four year non-medical degree and two years of post-grad training is paid more than an anaesthetist with a five year medical degree, and seven years of training and experience as a doctor.
There are currently approximately 130 Anaesthesia Associates in the NHS - the Tories are planning to increase the number of AAs more than ten-fold to bring their numbers up to 1,500. That is 1,500 people with two years post-grad training preparing patients for surgery, administering anaesthetic or sedation, caring for post-op patients - without any regulation, without any insurance, without any license of competence, and with less than appropriate supervision.
Why are the AAs paid more than anaesthetists with a five year medical degree and seven years of medical experience and training - and why are hospitals falling over themselves to hire AAs instead of anaesthetists ?
Because the hospitals act as independent trusts, with budgets, who get fined if they breach their budget limits - if a hospital hires an anaesthetist then the salary of that anaesthetist comes directly out of the hospital's budget. However, the anaestesia associates are paid from a central government fund - so the government is paying the AAs significantly more that they will pay an experienced anaesthetist - and the hospitals are hiring the AAs instead of an experienced anaesthetist because the salary does not come out of the hospital's budget.
And here is the problem - the government refuse to expand training for anaesthetists despite the fact that there are five applicants for every one place available for anaesthetist training (and that includes through all the stages of training up to consultant) - but are willing to expand significantly the much inferior training places given to anaesthesia associates. And - of course - the next step is to expand the work that an AA will be allowed to do in a hospital because there is a severe shortage of anaesthetists because of the lack of training places.
My advise to anyone undergoing surgery in the NHS of any kind that requires anaesthetic or sedation is to ask the following question - are you an anaesthetist or an anaesthesia associate - if they say they are an AA (and press them for an honest answer), tell them politely to f*ck-off, send over an properly trained anaesthetist and that you do not want them to come anywhere near you.
The NHS is currently employing Anaesthesia Associates - and this should serve as a major warning for where the NHS is going.
To become an Consultant Anaesthetist you need a medical degree (minimum five years) and up to ten years of training.
To become an Anaesthesia Associate you are required to have a 2.1 degree in biology/life sciences or biomedical science and then complete a 2 year post grad qualification.
Anaesthetists are members of the Royal College of Anaesthetists, are licensed, regulated and insured and have stringent supervision.
Anaesthesia Associates are not members of the RCA, are not licensed, are not regulated, are not insured and have far less supervision.
Anaesthesia Associates are not required to inform patients that they are not anaesthetists, that they do not hold a medical degree (and indeed if they hold a PhD - or are a qualified vet - they can actually call themselves 'doctor' in a medical environment). They are 'encouraged' but not required to maintain a 'presence' on the 'AA Managed Voluntary Register' - and they don't pay any fees to the RCA (Anaesthetists are required to pay up to £700 per year for RCA membership and trainging fees, insurance etc can top £2,500 per year).
Anaesthesia Associates are allowed to administer anaesthetic or sedation 'under the supervision of a consultant' (what they don't tell you is that the consultant still has to carry out their own work and may be supervision more than one AA). However, if anything goes wrong, and it can at any time when you are administering these drugs - the AA has zero training on how to resolve the problems.
Furthermore, if anything does go wrong, there is no statutory body to carry out an investigation, no regulations that must be adhered to, no consequences for the AA.
Currently, an AA with a four year non-medical degree and two years of post-grad training is paid more than an anaesthetist with a five year medical degree, and seven years of training and experience as a doctor.
There are currently approximately 130 Anaesthesia Associates in the NHS - the Tories are planning to increase the number of AAs more than ten-fold to bring their numbers up to 1,500. That is 1,500 people with two years post-grad training preparing patients for surgery, administering anaesthetic or sedation, caring for post-op patients - without any regulation, without any insurance, without any license of competence, and with less than appropriate supervision.
Why are the AAs paid more than anaesthetists with a five year medical degree and seven years of medical experience and training - and why are hospitals falling over themselves to hire AAs instead of anaesthetists ?
Because the hospitals act as independent trusts, with budgets, who get fined if they breach their budget limits - if a hospital hires an anaesthetist then the salary of that anaesthetist comes directly out of the hospital's budget. However, the anaestesia associates are paid from a central government fund - so the government is paying the AAs significantly more that they will pay an experienced anaesthetist - and the hospitals are hiring the AAs instead of an experienced anaesthetist because the salary does not come out of the hospital's budget.
And here is the problem - the government refuse to expand training for anaesthetists despite the fact that there are five applicants for every one place available for anaesthetist training (and that includes through all the stages of training up to consultant) - but are willing to expand significantly the much inferior training places given to anaesthesia associates. And - of course - the next step is to expand the work that an AA will be allowed to do in a hospital because there is a severe shortage of anaesthetists because of the lack of training places.
My advise to anyone undergoing surgery in the NHS of any kind that requires anaesthetic or sedation is to ask the following question - are you an anaesthetist or an anaesthesia associate - if they say they are an AA (and press them for an honest answer), tell them politely to f*ck-off, send over an properly trained anaesthetist and that you do not want them to come anywhere near you.
If there is tactical voting, the Tories will get slaughtered.Neck and neck apparently - with Lib Dems not far behind. Could be interesting.
Labour and Tories neck and neck in byelection race for Mid Beds, poll says
Survey reveals Labour more likely than Lib Dems to overturn Conservatives’ 25,000 majority in Nadine Dorries’s former seat
“A new constituency poll seen by the Observer suggests that the Tory vote share in the seat has collapsed, halving from the near 60%.”
But this is more evidence that first past the post is useless and ultimately disengages the voter. Up to 70% may want the Tories out in mid-beds but they could still win with 30% of the vote. The sooner Starmer announces a new preferential vote system that makes is difficult for these ****s to get elected, the better.
- Jul 10, 2003
- 26,173
I'd happily settle for a system whereby the number of seats any party gets in parliament actually reflects the number of votes they get from the electorate
A mex eyecan
Well-known member
- Nov 3, 2011
- 3,371
I wasn’t always a fan of the idea, but I certainly have been over the past 2 - 3 years.I'd happily settle for a system whereby the number of seats any party gets in parliament actually reflects the number of votes they get from the electorate