WTF are you talking about? I said we have more doctors than vacancies for them. That is the start, middle and end of my point. And it’s true.Have you been sniffing the vinegar too much ? You might want all those people but you do not have the work to sustain those positions or the budget. The NHS has the demand but not the budget and could readily utilise them with the corresponding drop in waiting lists. You are being casuistic in your view.
You can't see my comment...but you do talk some shit!WTF are you talking about? I said we have more doctors than vacancies for them. That is the start, middle and end of my point. And it’s true.
I didn’t make any comment about why, or whether it’s a good thing or bad or anything else in your head. Merely that it is the position.
And it was my reply to the claim that we can’t train enough doctors. The reality is we’ve trained too many.
Give over. How would being in the EU stop US companies investing in the UK?
But you started this... Here's what Brexit has done:
The value of the UK’s inward FDI flows reached a high of £192.0 billion in 2016, before falling year-on-year between 2016 and 2020, increasing slightly in 2021 and falling again in 2022 and 2023.
There are 46,828 NHS nursing vacancies according to the most recent data.WTF are you talking about? I said we have more doctors than vacancies for them. That is the start, middle and end of my point. And it’s true.
I didn’t make any comment about why, or whether it’s a good thing or bad or anything else in your head. Merely that it is the position.
And it was my reply to the claim that we can’t train enough doctors. The reality is we’ve trained too many.
Sticking to doctors (not nurses which is whataboutery), according to the British Medical Association (in 2025):There are 46,828 NHS nursing vacancies according to the most recent data.
As of March 2025, the NHS in England had an estimated 7,700 doctor vacancies,
There are 46,828 NHS nursing vacancies according to the most recent data.
As of March 2025, the NHS in England had an estimated 7,700 doctor vacancies,
It's quite simple. The Govt have told Trusts to stop using Agency staff which these people probably are. Their income is substantially boosted in working this way but now it has caught up with them. The other key word used is 'speciality training' which by definition indicates a limited availability. Hence the number of places outstrips demand for those placesSticking to doctors (not nurses which is whataboutery), according to the British Medical Association (in 2025):
About one third (34%) of resident doctors responding said they had no substantive employment or regular locum work secured starting August 2025. This rises to over half (52%) for foundation year 2 (FY2) doctors who are completing their initial postgraduate training and looking to enter specialty training or GP posts.
In 2025, there were over 30,000 doctors applying for around 10,000 specialty training places, indicating a large mismatch between numbers trained and available training vacancies.
This has led to a situation described as "employment limbo," with thousands of UK-trained doctors unable to progress in their careers despite high patient waiting lists (over 6 million patients waiting in England alone).
Surely this applies to every election though. I mean, has any party ever gotten over 50% of the vote? Certainly not in modern times. None of Thatcher’s 3 election wins and Blair’s landslide 1997 win garnered more than 44% of the popular vote.I agree with a lot of that but to claim we live in a democracy and somehow our govt represent most people is truly hilarious, I mean so funny it must be a wind up.
I think this lot got around 19% of the eligible vote or a third of those voting. The previous lot got more but certainly not most people or anything to brag about.
Their little minority demographic was slightly bigger than others little minority demographic.
Ok. My point stands, whatever the reason for it.It's quite simple. The Govt have told Trusts to stop using Agency staff which these people probably are.
LBC asked the direct question about the £150bn investment and AI in particular whether it could have happenend pre-Brexit. The reply was "much of it,yes"The particular deal we’re talking about here has been driven in large part by the regulatory differences around AI that have opened up (and will continue to increase) between the UK and the EU. A regulatory divergence which needless to say couldn’t occur if the UK was still in the EU. A Labour government and a light regulatory touch - what could possibly go wrong?
That said it was interesting to hear Nick Clegg’s opinion on the deal today. He thinks the UK is giving away too much access to US companies for little in return and that we are not investing enough in UK technology. A concern probably not helped by this government cancelling £1.3bn of funding for quantum computing as soon as they got into power.
Also interesting that you’ve quoted, word for word, the recent HoC Library report detailing the trend of FDI inflows into the UK. Bit of a shame that you didn’t quote the following paragraph from that report though, which explained how a number of huge M&A deals in 2016 made that year truly exceptional from an FDI perspective, and therefore why you shouldn’t conclude that the Brexit vote has necessarily led to a decline in FDI. Particularly given that the UK FDI inflow data have typically followed the global trend.
For the record, there are another couple of factors which I think should have been included in that report, but weren’t. The first one being a simple explanation of the accounting practices around the balance of payment data, which sees the retained earnings of foreign owned companies in an economy being classified as an FDI inflow. This explains why big swings in an economy’s performance, such as those seen around Covid, can lead to big swings in the FDI data, even though no actual inflows have occurred.
The other related factor is the US TCJA act, which of course led to a huge repatriation of US earnings from 2017 and therefore would have disproportionately impacted the UK FDI inflow data, given the higher stock of US investment in the UK.
We’re not talking about the £150bn figure that’s being banded around today, the point you made yesterday was in relation to specific investments which have been driven by the more favourable regulatory attitude the UK has adopted in relation to AI. A regulatory divergence that could only happen outside of the EU, something which you failed to realise.LBC asked the direct question about the £150bn investment and AI in particular whether it could have happenend pre-Brexit. The reply was "much of it,yes"
Yes... well...Hmmm....
An irony of ' Winning back our Sovereignty' raises it's head.
If only there was some some kind of club with good benefits for all members we could be a part of...
(Ponders)
I think this still supports what I said. Tax cuts or even tax rises obviously aren't the answer because why does that make any difference? You have to ask much do we tax vs spend compared to everybody else? That's the problem. Sweeping tax cuts aren't going to fix the millions that are off sick because they're on NHS waiting lists?There is definitely some confusion when people talk about "Scandinavian" countries and taxation. Its a bit of a fools errand to compare them but where the main difference lies in not what those who earn high salaries pay but instead the basic rate of tax.
Norway for instance has a basic rate of 22%, the maximum that what we would call an additional rate tax payer (someone earning over £125k) would be paying is the basic rate plus 17.7% so 39.7% not 45% as it is in the UK.
Sweden has no inheritance tax. Income tax is a municipal tax ranging from 29% to 35% depending on where you live then a high earner tax of a further 20%. You also pay a ringfenced 7% for your state pension. Compared to the UK, everyone pays more and those earning over around £47k, significantly more. Importantly however the state pension is not a flat figure but instead is based on how much you earned whilst working. Up to a capped value, the larger your salary was when working, the larger your pension will be in retirement, hence there is more a sense of getting out more of what you put in (in a financial sense).
When it comes to the equivalent of council tax its based upon the value of your home and charged at 0.75% but capped at around 10000SEK so about £800. Therefore less than the UK.
I knew I should have highlighted it for you in my reply earlier:We’re not talking about the £150bn figure that’s being banded around today, the point you made yesterday was in relation to specific investments which have been driven by the more favourable regulatory attitude the UK has adopted in relation to AI. A regulatory divergence that could only happen outside of the EU, something which you failed to realise.
Whether the regulatory divergence is the right thing or not, only time will tell.
That the US has been and will remain the largest investor in the UK - and that high levels of investment would occur inside or outside of the EU - isn’t up for debate. But that wasn’t the issue you raised yesterday, so please don’t pretend that it was.
I knew I should have highlighted it for you in my reply earlier:
LBC asked the direct question about the £150bn investment and AI in particular whether it could have happenend pre-Brexit. The reply was "much of it,yes".
The expert didn't say "much of it but not the AI part".
You twist things very well don't you?So even the bloke on LBC agrees that a part of the investment is due to being outside of the EU? Which is the bit you’re arguing against?
I’m not sure you need me if you’re going to be having an argument with yourself.
You twist things very well don't you?
If the AI bit couldn't have been done whilst in the EU, and it was specifically referred to in the question ( as it was, because I phoned the question in), I would have expected him to specifically say "the AI part couldn't have been done whilst in the EU". He didn't.
Anyway no point pursuing as you're aways right anyway no matter what the subject.
Madness isn’t it. So over the past few weeks thousands have arrived, we send one back, and I’m sure we will have to accept one in, to replace the one we send back.One gone, thousands still here.
To be honest I was just making an observation that people conflate Scandinavian taxation and spending into one homogeneous thing, whereas each nation actually has significantly different rates of taxation, some more, some less than the UK. They also have different approaches to health care, we are an outlier by comparison to much of Europe in that it's completely free at the point of access, thats not the case in most Scandinavian countries where there is a nominal charge which I would support. They are also overall less bureaucratic with very little government regulation when it comes to business, planning etc. The focus of regulation instead being on the labour markets and social policy.I think this still supports what I said. Tax cuts or even tax rises obviously aren't the answer because why does that make any difference? You have to ask much do we tax vs spend compared to everybody else? That's the problem. Sweeping tax cuts aren't going to fix the millions that are off sick because they're on NHS waiting lists?
Living within our means is just something that has been made up given the amount of debt that we have. It's something for the accountants and bankers who are clearly running the country and Reeves is running scared of them. Labour are down in the polls because they aren't a Labour party representing people anymore, they represent bankers and corporates just like the Tories did. Scandinavian countries put people above that and they spend far more than we do as a percentage of GDP.
Tax cuts do not help people and they obscure potential increases in spending. They only help people whose obstacle is tax which is usually corporations who will make a bit more profit and rich people who already pack most of their money away from the taxman. The poorest are more worried about their rent and bills and the services they need to use, not their tax bill.