• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: General UK Politics V Suella Strikes Back

Status
Not open for further replies.
So the latest reason why we should be grateful to the Tories is that they're going to restore £200,000 of the £500,000 removed from NHS Dentistry (apparently from 'unused' cash elsewhere in the existing NHS budget).
 
Those figures seem light

Eta - the impartial BBC say "an extra £200 million will be invested" every year.

Invested is a loaded word
 
Last edited:
Filippo Lippi said:
Those figures seem light
Click to expand...

From healthcareers.nhs.uk

Salaried dentists employed by the NHS, working mainly with community dental services, earn a basic salary of between £47,653 and £101,923. Consultants.

That extra is really going to go a long way, mind you cheap if it can get them the headlines they want for that money, cheaper than most Tory headline announcements, sorry policies.

Here's a suggestion, why not send dental patients to Rwanda for treatment...
 
junkshop said:
Apologies for the somewhat belated question (I'm playing catch-up withh this thread), but what is the highlighted referring to? Did I miss some kind of scandalous shenanigans?
Click to expand...

This incident (which had the 'unionist' element frothing at the mouth):

First Minister Michelle O'Neill has said “the world needs more hugs” after a shock embrace from Prime Minister Rishi Sunak.

Appearing on ITV's Good Morning Britain programme this morning, Michelle O'Neill said she was “surprised” by the hug on Monday as Mr Sunak and the Taoiseach visited Belfast to celebrate the restoration of devolved government.

In a picture shared from a meeting with politicians, Mr Sunak is seen giving Ms O’Neill a warm embrace.
Click to expand...
Belfast Telegraph

NB I have no problem at all about O'Neill representing Sinn Fein, its more to do with the propriety of Sunak in his office as representing the Prime Minister of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland seeming to hit on female leaders.
 
Darat said:
From healthcareers.nhs.uk

Salaried dentists employed by the NHS, working mainly with community dental services, earn a basic salary of between £47,653 and £101,923. Consultants.

That extra is really going to go a long way, mind you cheap if it can get them the headlines they want for that money, cheaper than most Tory headline announcements, sorry policies.

Here's a suggestion, why not send dental patients to Rwanda for treatment...
Click to expand...

A dentist friend says it's a waste of money. It will go to the practices not the practitioners and won't be enough to employ any more dentists at a practice. Plus, where are the dentists going to come from?

He says it will bring his practice about 20K which isn't any kind of incentive to take on loss making NHS work when they would have to stop private Dentplan work that earns more money.
What they would need is erough to employ a dentist to do NHS work. Any dentist they did employ would have to come from outside the UK as there aren't any available.
 
Last edited:
Paddy McGuinness on QT. What does he know?

Quite a lot it seems.

“You don’t want to see a dentist doing target-based care. You want to see a dentist doing care-based care.”

Nail. Head.
 
So Rishi is planning to become a tv anchor when he is booted out after the General Election.

(I said 'anchor', not the not the word that rhymes with it; it could be argued he is that already.)
 
Andy_Ross said:
Rees Mogg says Supreme Court should not be final arbiter of the law.


https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/p...or-neutering-of-supreme-court/5118671.article
Click to expand...

Gulliver Foyle said:
Of course. In his mind "In this hour I was responsible for the fate of the German English people, and thereby I became the supreme judge of the German English people."
Click to expand...

Rees Mogg is partly right. We don't have the separation that America has and parliament should have the last word. The question is how do you do that?

Currently the supreme court applies the law in the way they think parliament intended. If Parliament disagrees they can rewrite the law making their wishes clearer.

The alternative is you allow losers at the supreme court to be able to appeal to parliament and go there to have their cases heard.

The alternative is plainly ridiculous but typical of Mogg who likes to complain about the current state of affairs but fails to offer anything better and instead leaves us worse off; see Brexit.
 
Lothian said:
Rees Mogg is partly right. We don't have the separation that America has and parliament should have the last word. The question is how do you do that?

Currently the supreme court applies the law in the way they think parliament intended. If Parliament disagrees they can rewrite the law making their wishes clearer.

The alternative is you allow losers at the supreme court to be able to appeal to parliament and go there to have their cases heard.

The alternative is plainly ridiculous but typical of Mogg who likes to complain about the current state of affairs but fails to offer anything better and instead leaves us worse off; see Brexit.
Click to expand...

Don't forget before the SC we had the "law lords" so you did appeal in effect to one of the houses but yes, the SC interprets the legislation, if parliament doesn't agree they've interpreted it the right way as you say they can make that clear, new legislation, re-draft, statutory instrument and so on.

What other way it could work is beyond me (in the current system we have in the UK).
 
No joke, it's official. He's hosting Moggs State Of The Nation show on monday evening.
 
Lothian said:
Rees Mogg is partly right. We don't have the separation that America has and parliament should have the last word. The question is how do you do that?

Currently the supreme court applies the law in the way they think parliament intended. If Parliament disagrees they can rewrite the law making their wishes clearer.

The alternative is you allow losers at the supreme court to be able to appeal to parliament and go there to have their cases heard.

The alternative is plainly ridiculous but typical of Mogg who likes to complain about the current state of affairs but fails to offer anything better and instead leaves us worse off; see Brexit.
Click to expand...

Mogg would be somewhat right if he knew anything about English law. There is a reason why I quoted from the night of the long knives speech.
 
Lothian said:
Rees Mogg is partly right. We don't have the separation that America has and parliament should have the last word. The question is how do you do that?

Currently the supreme court applies the law in the way they think parliament intended. If Parliament disagrees they can rewrite the law making their wishes clearer.
Click to expand...


At present the SC has to apply the HRA, which is probably what Mogg is really complaining about.

Darat said:
Don't forget before the SC we had the "law lords" so you did appeal in effect to one of the houses but yes, the SC interprets the legislation, if parliament doesn't agree they've interpreted it the right way as you say they can make that clear, new legislation, re-draft, statutory instrument and so on.
Click to expand...


The "law lords" were basically the SC under a different name - technically members of the House of Lords, but appointed as judges. The rest of the house didn't get a say in judicial business, at least in the last century or longer.

What other way it could work is beyond me (in the current system we have in the UK).
Click to expand...


The government gets the right to do whatever it likes without those pesky courts interfering.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom