Election Year or Fear!

[ramAnag]

Brexit isn't/wasn't the problem, and contrary to anything Tricky might say it's not the recent/current influx of Asian/african 'illegals', it's a sheer numbers thing and there aren't really many of them, the big numbers are thanks to the reckless 'welcome one and all' decision of the nineties which produced an influx that just wasn't expected/budgeted/planned for, be they tax players or not

I wasn’t suggesting Brexit to be the problem, AF…but the fact is that it was touted as the solution - Boris’ bus message being probably the single most iconic image of the entire Brexit campaign - and that, as some of us pointed out at the time, was just dishonest nonsense.

[Andy_Faber]

I wasn?t suggesting Brexit to be the problem, AF?but the fact is that it was touted as the solution - Boris? bus message being probably the single most iconic image of the entire Brexit campaign - and that, as some of us pointed out at the time, was just dishonest nonsense.

No argument, it was just a high profile piece of political manipulation, albeit far from the only one over the years. BUT if the problem hadn?t been created by the reckless idealism of free movement a decade or so before, no such ?solution? would have been seen as necessary. Two wrongs most certainly don?t make a right, but they were both wrong

[ramAnag]

No argument, it was just a high profile piece of political manipulation, albeit far from the only one over the years. BUT if the problem hadn?t been created by the reckless idealism of free movement a decade or so before, no such ?solution? would have been seen as necessary. Two wrongs most certainly don?t make a right, but they were both wrong

‘High profile piece of political manipulation’…aka…organised, anpproved and outrageous lying. As you say, not the first, won’t be the last…but currently one of the most disadvantageous to our country.

[Andy_Faber]

?High profile piece of political manipulation??aka?organised, anpproved and outrageous lying. As you say, not the first, won?t be the last?but currently one of the most disadvantageous to our country.

You seem reluctant to comment on the earlier indiscretion without which, IMO, this one would have had no impact

[swaledale]

No argument, it was just a high profile piece of political manipulation, albeit far from the only one over the years. BUT if the problem hadn?t been created by the reckless idealism of free movement a decade or so before, no such ?solution? would have been seen as necessary. Two wrongs most certainly don?t make a right, but they were both wrong

Mm thats swallowing the hyperbole and downright lies that Farage peddled, the Uk would have been ****ed economically without free movement, as the legal immigration numbers post Brexit have shown. It doesn't take much to understand the demographics to see that.

So we've now swapped free movement whereby people came worked here, often returning to their country of origin, to one whereby we are importing people from outside Europe who will more than likely never return.

Or perhaps you have a different solution as to where the workers paying tax to support the pensioners would have come from? Or where businesses and services such as the NHS and Social Care would get their employees from? Its a simple enough equation.

Plus again your making the assumption that those that supported Brexit did so because of free movement and immigration, which isn't the case. A good proportion did, equally significant numbers had other reasons. For someone who prides themselves on having a "balanced view" of these issues, you frequently make the mistake of thinking the majority of people share your views.

[SithHappens]

No argument, it was just a high profile piece of political manipulation, albeit far from the only one over the years. BUT if the problem hadn?t been created by the reckless idealism of free movement a decade or so before, no such ?solution? would have been seen as necessary. Two wrongs most certainly don?t make a right, but they were both wrong

Was free movement a bad thing? It worked both ways.

And the contribution from EU migrants in tax etc was a positive one, which is better than the rest of the population.

I know the tabloid and nigel and his ilk would have people believe they were here sponging off the state and living for free in 6 bedroom mansions but it was not the truth.

Successive governments, labour and the tories, could have legally chosen to tighten up if they felt there was need to as EU rules state that we could (as others do) dictate that those coming here had 3 months to demonstrate they could financially support themselves.

If they were positively contributing then they deserved to avail of the NHS etc

[ramAnag]

You seem reluctant to comment on the earlier indiscretion without which, IMO, this one would have had no impact

Not reluctant. Just that my recent contributions centred around the 350m Brexit claim.

As regards the 90’s. I think you have to take account of the contemporary geo political situation and domestic economic situation to get the full picture.

Going back thirty years to the 60’s I remember the Manchester to Bradford bus, which went past my house, being literally full of Asians - mainly Pakistanis. There was resentment and racism from certain quarters but without that migrant input the West Yorkshire textile industry would have struggled.

Not making light of how difficult the whole issue is and the need for a joined up international approach, but thinly veiled prejudice and racism, as imo typified by Farage and Co, offers no answers.

[Andy_Faber]

Not reluctant. Just that my recent contributions centred around the 350m Brexit claim.

As regards the 90?s. I think you have to take account of the contemporary geo political situation and domestic economic situation to get the full picture.

Going back thirty years to the 60?s I remember the Manchester to Bradford bus, which went past my house, being literally full of Asians - mainly Pakistanis. There was resentment and racism from certain quarters but without that migrant input the West Yorkshire textile industry would have struggled.

Not making light of how difficult the whole issue is and the need for a joined up international approach, but thinly veiled prejudice and racism, as imo typified by Farage and Co, offers no answers.

IMO all of you have missed my point (MA and GP yet to declare) that, as evidenced by (my) reliable source data on GPSs, public services (and infrastructure) have failed to keep up with the population explosion. that?s nothing to do with racism (in fact in health immigrants have avoided it being an even bigger disaster), nothing to do with Brexit (it partly predates it), nothing to do with Farage (it partly predates it and he?s never been in power), IMO it?s got a lot to do with a succession of short-term thinking administrations of both colours

[MadAmster]

Brexit isn't/wasn't the problem, and contrary to anything Tricky might say it's not the recent/current influx of Asian/african 'illegals', it's a sheer numbers thing and there aren't really many of them, the big numbers are thanks to the reckless 'welcome one and all' decision of the nineties which produced an influx that just wasn't expected/budgeted/planned for, be they tax players or not

Andy, do you agree with the population figures I posted?

Do you agree with the GP numbers I posted?

Does dividing the population figures by the number of GPs in any given year give you the average number of patients per GP?

Do the patient:GP figures I posted conform to the arithmetical outcome of population / GP numbers?

If they do conform, and they do, how can the sources you mentioned come up with figures 50% higher?

I do believe the figures I found for both population and GP numbers, I also believe that my arithmetic is spot on. If I have actually made a grievous error, I'd love to know what and how and then admit I was wrong, if I am, in fact, wrong.

[MadAmster]

IMO all of you have missed my point (MA and GP yet to declare) that, as evidenced by (my) reliable source data on GPSs, public services (and infrastructure) have failed to keep up with the population explosion. that?s nothing to do with racism (in fact in health immigrants have avoided it being an even bigger disaster), nothing to do with Brexit (it partly predates it), nothing to do with Farage (it partly predates it and he?s never been in power), IMO it?s got a lot to do with a succession of short-term thinking administrations of both colours

Post #3279 is my response. You have, obviously, sourced numbers, as have I. You sourced other people's outcomes, did you source the base data and then do the arithmetic as I did? No need to reply to this post but a line by line answer to my questions in #3279 would be greatly appreciated and, as I said, if I have made grievous errors in sourcing the 2 sets of numbers, you can explain what those errors were and/or any errors I may have made in my arithmetic which prove I was actually wrong, I will gladly admit to being wrong. Having said that, I believe the population figures I quoted were correct, I believe the GP numbers I quoted were correct, I believe my arithmetic was correct. Difficult to see how your sources came up with totally different numbers to mine. We shall see.

[Andy_Faber]

Andy, do you agree with the population figures I posted?

Do you agree with the GP numbers I posted?

Does dividing the population figures by the number of GPs in any given year give you the average number of patients per GP?

Do the patient:GP figures I posted conform to the arithmetical outcome of population / GP numbers?

If they do conform, and they do, how can the sources you mentioned come up with figures 50% higher?

I do believe the figures I found for both population and GP numbers, I also believe that my arithmetic is spot on. If I have actually made a grievous error, I'd love to know what and how and then admit I was wrong, if I am, in fact, wrong.

I don?t doubt your arithmetic and don?t know your source?s source, I just know my sources, all checked with both AI assistants I have access to and found to be about right. As Sith said, there is a lot of conflicting info out there. from my time in industry I?m used to using ?producing (ie in this case actually practising) full time equivalents (ie adjusted for part timers etc), which my source does. I?m open of course to being corrected by anyone who?s working the numbers even handedly not just dumping their prejudices on us. I can?t find what I typed into ChatGPT but try Deepseek which I actually revised my numbers, which were quite close, to reflect. Type in ?Number of patients per Gp in uk over last twenty years?

[MadAmster]

You do know my sources - Post #3264 in response to your post where you rightly said I hadn't quoted my sources.

As you have dodged most of my easy to answer questions. I'll try different wording and require simple yes/no replies

Was the UK population in 2000 approx. 59M?

Was the UK population in 2014 approx. 64M?

Was the UK population in 2024 approx. 69M?

Were there 39K GPs in the UK in 2000?

Were there 50K GPs in the UK in 2014?

Were there 54K GPs in the UK in 2024?

[Andy_Faber]

You do know my sources - Post #3264 in response to your post where you rightly said I hadn't quoted my sources.

As you have dodged most of my easy to answer questions. I'll try different wording and require simple yes/no replies

Was the UK population in 2000 approx. 59M?

Was the UK population in 2014 approx. 64M?

Was the UK population in 2024 approx. 69M?

Were there 39K GPs in the UK in 2000?

Were there 50K GPs in the UK in 2014?

Were there 54K GPs in the UK in 2024?

Don?t get like rA, I didn?t dodge anything, I had about 45 seconds to answer and you got my best in those 45 seconds. You?re now getting the best of my 30 seconds. I?ll follow up with sources when I have time and when I?m within 20inched of my laptop not 20 miles

[Andy_Faber]

You do know my sources - Post #3264 in response to your post where you rightly said I hadn't quoted my sources.

As you have dodged most of my easy to answer questions. I'll try different wording and require simple yes/no replies

Was the UK population in 2000 approx. 59M?

Was the UK population in 2014 approx. 64M?

Was the UK population in 2024 approx. 69M?

Were there 39K GPs in the UK in 2000?

Were there 50K GPs in the UK in 2014?

Were there 54K GPs in the UK in 2024?

One of the sources I can refer you too, which forms part of the whole but only goes back to 2015, is the British Medical Associations own analysis, and at at https://www.bma.org.uk/advice-and-su...%20this%20time. There is a subheading ?fewer doctors are looking after (a) greater number of patients?. There?s an email address somewhere if you want to argue with them. I will point out to be fair that gp numbers (although not necessarily ftes) have increased in the past year

[MadAmster]

One of the sources I can refer you too, which forms part of the whole but only goes back to 2015, is the British Medical Associations own analysis, and at at https://www.bma.org.uk/advice-and-su...%20this%20time. There is a subheading ?fewer doctors are looking after (a) greater number of patients?. There?s an email address somewhere if you want to argue with them. I will point out to be fair that gp numbers (although not necessarily ftes) have increased in the past year

You have already quoted your sources. Not the url's, admittedly, but NHS, BMA etc which makes it easy to check for those so inclined. I have also said you were correct in saying I hadn't provided sources. You went on to say "Happy to be proved wrong but the difference between us isn't 'in the rounding'". That seems to indicate there being a large difference between the figures you quoted and the figures I calculated by doing arithmetic. I then repeated the population and GP numbers, asking if you agree those were the numbers in each of the 3 years I quoted. If you agree with my base data then the only question is, are the NHS, BMA etc figures, quoted by those organisations as being FTE rather than actual numbers.

My rounding up comment was designed to remove the chance of anyone coming back with "ah but it was 59.3 or 64 point whatever". It was not an attempt at explaining pop:GP ratio number differences.