Election Year or Fear!

[Andy_Faber]

ChatGPT says that the UK population in 2024 was 68.18M

ChatGPT says that the number of GPs in 2024 was 48,948 full-time equivalent (FTE)

68000000 / 49000 = 1387.75 patients per GP. 110 more per GP than I'd worked out from my previous searches. Due to this number being FTE?

In post #3262 (?) you quoted 2300 patients per GP in 2024. Over 900 difference with what I've just found using ChatGPT, something you used to look at figures. How on earth can the same programme come up with such huge differences?

It may be my wording but I'm not having a go, and haven't been. I like things to be correct. I have found stuff. This 2nd run at getting info isn't far removed from my first run at it. Major difference is that the GP number is less because it's now FTE rather than total numbers. Hasn't made much of a difference to my population:GP ratios. What I'm trying to get at is what is the ratio? 1200 to 1300 as I've come up with using 2 different methods or the 2300 NHS etc are saying. Without the definitive answer to that conundrum, any discussion on numbers is irrelevant, IMO. I'm not arsed if I'm the one coming to the wrong conclusion, I just want a conclusion reached that is based on correct data. If I'm "right" great, if I'm "wrong" I'll happily say so.

It appears that the only number that can be remotely trusted is UK population, which most reliable sources quote somewhere round your numbers. Lots of other sources add on (sometimes many) millions for 'the undocumented' but I'm not even sure they are relevant here.

Digging into my GP sources, I'm pretty sure that some of the data published represents a particular organisation's agenda, one way or the other, and I've also noticed that Chat GPT, Google's AI assistant and Deepseek disagree with one other, with themselves depending on how the question is put and provide unhelpful vaguenes (so much for AI), so I've had another trawl and found a source I think is agenda-free, The Royal Society Of General Practitioners, although their numbers only go back to 2015 and they are England only.

I'm not sure I'm so bothered about things being (perfectly) correct, rather I like to be confident that on balance the data is credible whether it supports my belief or not, and I think RSGP is. You could say thats because it supports the direction of my original assertion if not the magnitude, but their presentation is clear and well defined so it'll do for me

Not sure if this helps but I'm trying

[swaledale]

Which doesn't change the fact that the issue here is 14 years of cuts and lack of investment in services which is the main issue. Though anecdotally I have not had an issue except with dentistry (and that's down to the piss poor contract which doesn't cover the cost for NHS work)

Oh and of course Johnson's failed immigration policy which has seen a huge rise in authorised immigration.

Mm millions of undocumented migrants? Think your looking at the US on that one, 100,000's yes but then why in 14 years did the last government not take action, oh because they cut funds for police and enforcement agencies, that will be why.

Fascinating that for somebody claiming they are not right of centre, you seem to quote a lot of things reported by a right wing media and as you have also said, take the rubbish that the dim Red one posts at face value - it doesn't take a lot of research to realise very little of what he posts is factual.

Still I guess there is the "good bullying" that you approve of.

[Andy_Faber]

the dim Red one

In post #3124, you stated, about TTR:

'He is on ignore for me and I will no longer mention or engage with him, for those whose lives are so impoverished that they find his contributions useful, carry on waste your time'

Yet in the period since, you have mentioned TTR and referred to his contributions in almost every post you've made. How's your impoverished life going? Do you need help?

[Geoff Parkstone]

Which doesn't change the fact that the issue here is 14 years of cuts and lack of investment in services which is the main issue. Though anecdotally I have not had an issue except with dentistry (and that's down to the piss poor contract which doesn't cover the cost for NHS work)

Oh and of course Johnson's failed immigration policy which has seen a huge rise in authorised immigration.

Mm millions of undocumented migrants? Think your looking at the US on that one, 100,000's yes but then why in 14 years did the last government not take action, oh because they cut funds for police and enforcement agencies, that will be why.

Fascinating that for somebody claiming they are not right of centre, you seem to quote a lot of things reported by a right wing media and as you have also said, take the rubbish that the dim Red one posts at face value - it doesn't take a lot of research to realise very little of what he posts is factual.

Still I guess there is the "good bullying" that you approve of.

How do you know what TTR is posting. You are ignoring him

[ramAnag]

How do you know what TTR is posting. You are ignoring him

Think you’ll find that’s a reply to AF, GP…and at least three posters are trying to ignore (i.e. not respond to) TTR, doesn’t mean we never read what he’s written. I usually do and then just gratefully breathe a sigh of relief that I no longer feel the need to waste my time responding. The forum seems a better and less contentious place of late despite a certain someone continuing to howl at everyone from Starmer to the McCanns and the moon itself.

[Trickytreesreds]

Which doesn't change the fact that the issue here is 14 years of cuts and lack of investment in services which is the main issue. Though anecdotally I have not had an issue except with dentistry (and that's down to the piss poor contract which doesn't cover the cost for NHS work)

Oh and of course Johnson's failed immigration policy which has seen a huge rise in authorised immigration.

Mm millions of undocumented migrants? Think your looking at the US on that one, 100,000's yes but then why in 14 years did the last government not take action, oh because they cut funds for police and enforcement agencies, that will be why.

Fascinating that for somebody claiming they are not right of centre, you seem to quote a lot of things reported by a right wing media and as you have also said, take the rubbish that the dim Red one posts at face value - it doesn't take a lot of research to realise very little of what he posts is factual.

Still I guess there is the "good bullying" that you approve of.

so you mean too cowardly to remove the ECHR, untangle our laws from it and tell the border agencies to do their job with no restrictions? Yes I agree, the current lot are even worse on that score

[Trickytreesreds]

How do you know what TTR is posting. You are ignoring him

don't . just don't.
We all know he is lying and always has. He's like that old washer woman hanging on the garden wall. I never listen to gossip, honest.
He'll be claiming, he doesn't mean to, its what he pieces to gether from other folks posts. blah blah blah.
Just grow some bollox swale and admit it. We all know, so you're fooling no one. You'd make a **** spy.

[Trickytreesreds]

Think you’ll find that’s a reply to AF, GP…and at least three posters are trying to ignore (i.e. not respond to) TTR, doesn’t mean we never read what he’s written. I usually do and then just gratefully breathe a sigh of relief that I no longer feel the need to waste my time responding. The forum seems a better and less contentious place of late despite a certain someone continuing to howl at everyone from Starmer to the McCanns and the moon itself.

Coming from someone, who made howling and crying about the Tories or anyone right wing, a national career for over 10 years I've been around. That takes the biscuit. You got your wish, they're gone.
The replacements are absolute garbage but you'd rather no one pointed that out, as it conflicts with your previous tirade of constant complaints of Tory rule.
#Comedy gold.

[ramAnag]

Aah-oooooooooh.

[swaledale]

Aah-oooooooooh.

I try not read RA, its usually just the latest rubbish some right wing nut job has spouted, repeated word for word. Must have time on his hands I guess.

[Trickytreesreds]

I try not read RA, its usually just the latest rubbish some right wing nut job has spouted, repeated word for word. Must have time on his hands I guess.

But you do read it, don't you Pinocchio?

[Trickytreesreds]

Never mind RA, your far right everywhere theories die again. Just local people fed up with being lied to and abused by the government.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknew...d=BingNewsVerp

This made me titter, that no one responded to it.
Starmer screamed far right riots, had folks jailed for posting things on social media, whilst real criminals walked away for far worse.
#
This needs rectifying asap.

[swaledale]

Not sure that provides the whole picture albeit Milliband is easy to dislike

I'm certain its utter *******s, just a little research would demonstrate that, rather than believing what's on anti social media, sigh?


Why is Miliband easy to dislike? Or is it because certain elements of the press have attacked him, mocked him and generally sort to discredit him, that your views have been influenced? Here's me thinking that your the very epitome of a serious centrist, able to see beyond the puff, lies and hyperbole of the majority of the media, judging people on what they do rather than what's said about them and always taking that middle line, backing up your views with anecdotes, sorry empirical evidence.

Personally I've always found him to be a serious thinking politician, not blessed with excessive charisma I'd agree, but then perhaps that's not a bad thing? Charismatic politicians tend not to be very good at delivering.

[ramAnag]

I'm certain its utter *******s, just a little research would demonstrate that, rather than believing what's on anti social media, sigh?


Why is Miliband easy to dislike? Or is it because certain elements of the press have attacked him, mocked him and generally sort to discredit him, that your views have been influenced? Here's me thinking that your the very epitome of a serious centrist, able to see beyond the puff, lies and hyperbole of the majority of the media, judging people on what they do rather than what's said about them and always taking that middle line, backing up your views with anecdotes, sorry empirical evidence.

Personally I've always found him to be a serious thinking politician, not blessed with excessive charisma I'd agree, but then perhaps that's not a bad thing? Charismatic politicians tend not to be very good at delivering.

I think it’s probably because, about a decade ago, he had an unflattering photo taken of him eating a bacon sandwich, swale.
I doubt that anyone can completely retain their dignity in such circumstances, under the scrutiny of very rapid shutter speeds, but apparently that’s much more important than anything he says.

[swaledale]

How do you know what TTR is posting. You are ignoring him

**** me you people are dim, but let me explain.

If you or another poster answers the dim red one and quotes his post I can see it. See AF post 3315 for an example!

If a poster responds after dim red ones post the contents of which are hidden from me, it doesn't take a genius to work out the gist of what was in the original post.

Experience of what the dim red one has posted on here suggests it is largely a verbatim repeat of the latest rubbish from the internet or a link to some **** on twitter, you tube or some other dubious internet source.

I mean I'm happy to be proven wrong, that now his posts largely consist of a well thought out critique of politics, backed up by evidence of research from a variety of sources but funnily enough, for the reasons I have stated I don't need to actually open up his posts and read them to know this isn't the case.