Election Year or Fear!

[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.

[Trickytreesreds]

So, back in Clogland after 3 days in sunny Derbados avoiding the delights of the News and the madhouse that is antisocial media. Had a butcher's at the election results from last Thursday, browsed a bit online. Some Reform person going to sack the council's something or other as DEI or was it Climate Change was nonsense. Turns out that council doesn't have a whatever in place to sack. Said it before, these far right bods don't seem capable. Meloni is finding that she can't do half of what she wants to do because Italian law and/or international Agreements and Laws get in the way. In the Netehrlands, Wilders appoints a totally incompetent woman as immigration Minister. She cobbled together some ridiculous claptrap in order to sort the immigration issues out. The "Raad van State", a government authority that looks at proposed new Laws to conclude whether they conform with the Dutch Constitution, Dutch Law, European Law, International Law and agreements, whether the indicated costs are reasonable and affordable, whether the ministeries/institutions can actually execute the tasks a new law would require etc concluded that there was an awful lot wrong with her proposed Law. Her response? That's the policy of both me and my party and I'm not going to change a single comma. Since then a series of mayors have tried to contact her explaining how what she's expecting of them and her staff at the local level is unaffordable and unworkable. They've also explained why that is so. She won't accept phone calls from them. She doesn't read or reply to their emails. Same goes for emails from opposition MPs. Totally unreasonable behaviour.

Even the opposition parties on the left have said that they are in favour of her intended result. However, they also say that she's going about it the wrong way and that they will gladly discuss ways with her to reach the intended result, within Laws etc and also make it workable. Civil servants in the ministry have also said much of her proposal is illegal, unaffordable and unworkable. She ignores them.

The 4 party coalition could get it through the lower house as they have a majority there. However, in the upper house, they do not have a majority and the Bill will die a death there.

There is a huge willingness from both left and right to reach the end result. Faber, the minister in question, and Wilders are insisting my way or the highway.

IMO, they know, as does most of the populace, that the coalition cabinet will collapse in the course of this year. Their strategy then, at the election, will be to blame everybody else for there not being the "strongest ever immigration Laws" in place and they are hoping that will help them to a majority without the need for a coalition. They are playing games with the rest of us.

Asylum centres have closed without reducing the incoming flow of asylum seekers which means the few remaining centres are overfull. The on in Ter Apel is subject to a court ruling that sees them fined every day they have over 2000 asylum seekers staying there. There's a never ending stream of new asylum seekers and there aren't enough places available. Above the regular centres, we have emergency centres, intended for short term use to cover overflow. Half of those have been shut down. That means they have had to start using hotels. This is, therefore a political choice.

If the old regular places hadn't been shut down by the previous coalition and the emergency overflows by this one there'd be few to zero hotels being used. Regular places cost 30 grand a year per asylum seeker. The emergency ones cost 45 grand a year pp. The hotels 69 grand pp. This immigration minister keeps saying she wants to cut costs yet she takes actions that have reduced the number of regular places, reduced the number of emergency places and increased hotel use. Net effect is the annual cost has risen sharply.

The only council UKIP ever ran, went bankrupt in 7 months. Right wing Meloni isn't delivering what she promised in Italy. Wilders isn't doing it in the Netherlands either. Why do people think Farage will fare any better? I think he'll be awful if he ever gets in power.

Now, I saw a Farage video this morning. Harping on about how difficult it is to even sign on with a GP, never mind get an appointment to actually see one. He went on to say that there's been 7 point something million immigrants over the past 10 years and they are the reason it's so difficult to get a GP/appointment. I thought I'd fact check...

UK population in 2000 was 59 million and there were 39K GPs. That's 1512 patients per GP on average

UK population in 2024 was 69 million and there were 54K GPs. That's 1277 patients per GP on average

If I only go back 10 years UK population in 2014 was 64 million and there were 50K GPs. That's 1280 patients per GP on average

How is it the fault of some 7M immigrants over the past 10 years when each GP has betting on for 20% less patients than in 2000 and an average of 3 less than in 2014?

Figures rounded up/down before anybody goes all pedantic...

ever considered they are sicker and wanting everything? An ex of mine, was a specialist nurse in deformities. She covered an area from sheffield to south of Leicester. Most of her customers were ethnics, from inter marriage with everything from clefts to major organ deformities. She said it was frightening and they still insist on doing it. The figures on health costs were enormous and it all adds up. But saying anything, gets you in trouble.

[Trickytreesreds]

I presume the 7 million includes those from the EU who moved here during free movement. These will have been paying tax so rightly so should be entitled to health care. A fair percentage will have moved around therefore the 7 million will include many duplicate registrations.

Obviously farage wants people to think the 7 million is low life sponging illegals who live the life of Riley in 5 star hotels.

I googled GPS vs patients and it does look like there is a fair amount of conflicting information available on line.

Still can't see the issue, surely with the 350 million a week promised by farage and his gang for the NHS we can afford it no problem.

false quote again sith. Farage never said that and actually argued against it. But even if we saved it, we spent many times more than saved accommodating all these extra users. Too much, too soon, too fast.

[Trickytreesreds]

I would say ive found getting an appointment much easier recently. Not that I go often.

For the first 40 years of my life, when ill I went to the surgery, took a number check and waited. I was seen in an hour. Then it changed and unless you were dying, had to wait anywhere from 2-3 days. Thats when folks started flooding Hospital emergency in order to get some treatment. This didn't happen for no reason.

[Trickytreesreds]

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

Nver said it was. The numbers thing was exactly what I had been banging on about for years. No planning/ actions/ prep work. Germany thought it had no problems when Merkel lost all sense of sanity. Funny how they virtually now slammed the border shut. I suppose Starmers soft touch means they are coming here then.

https://www.france24.com/en/live-new...asylum-seekers

[Trickytreesreds]

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.

Oh behave yourself. Free movement had plenty of problems, from criminals, to free loaders. There was/is nothing wrong with asking for a visa, the whole world does it. I won't defend any party which swapped one solution for another that is more irresponsible. The Tories did that.
Starmers India deal is lunacy in the extreme, for 4 billion quid?
I could save double that, over night.