Boris is back phew

[Vindec]

Hes implying that labour voters vote as they always have or vote labour because their parents did

Hes suggesting he doesn't do that , he makes his own mind up . It just happens that means he votes conservative .

Those of us who dont use their mind like he says he does are clearly voting in the way our parents did . How he works that out I have no idea .

More nonsense. Take the South Wales Valleys for example. What has Labour done for them? You have a very skewed view of my earlier posts. I suggest you read them again and not take sentences and jump to conclusions on them. Incidentally, when did I say I voted Tory? Since I have been able to vote I have voted for all the main political parties and for the majority of years voted Labour until I realised belatedly that they offered nothing other than economic chaos. My main point is that politics is not about Labour good, Tory bad. There is good and bad in all parties which you fail to even acknowledge.

[surge]

More nonsense. Take the South Wales Valleys for example. What has Labour done for them? You have a very skewed view of my earlier posts. I suggest you read them again and not take sentences and jump to conclusions on them. Incidentally, when did I say I voted Tory? Since I have been able to vote I have voted for all the main political parties and for the majority of years voted Labour until I realised belatedly that they offered nothing other than economic chaos. My main point is that politics is not about Labour good, Tory bad. There is good and bad in all parties which you fail to even acknowledge.

Seemingly opposing statements.

Regarding Coronavirus, Bernie Sanders and Piers Morgan would largely share an opinion in assessing how UK government and devolved nations have done. This event is either creating shared bedfellows or you're part of the minority on either end of the spectrum which refuses to see some good (for example support for workers and businesses, expansion of hospital capacity) and some bad (lack of preparation, slow response, bad treatment of key workers, potentially distracted by political aims of austerity and Brexit) in this.

My personal opinion is that just because you struggle to see good in what the Conservative party has done over the past 10 years it doesn't make you hard-left. While I'm sure I am missing some the limited list of things which have been genuinely impressive have been: marriage equality (mainly a Lib Dem idea), helping lower earners keep more of their money (at least half a Lib Dem idea), the idea of Universal Credit (think this is 99% Conservative party), although it has taken a series of court challenges to the details of it to make it 90% fixed, and the idea of HS2 as part of a northern-England powerhouse (not sure). Consider the few things Boris Johnson was saying before the election, excluding get Brexit done, were that if things continue being run as they are we'll lose almost 20,000 nurses from the NHS in next 10 years and making pledges to reverse police cuts of past 10 years and it seems he was being quite damning of their record in government. He may be part of what wants to be populist and Fidesz like government but he's not hard-left.

[the other bob wilson]

I too have AF (incidentally Bob where is this AF forum?). I don't think we are in the most vulnerable category. I am under 70 as well.

I have a shielding letter from NHS Wales which was addressed to me but I am 99% certain(so are our doctors )it is because I am a carer for my wife who nearly died twice in 2018 with severe chest infections and pneumonia (in fact I have gone through the "Does she want to be resuscitated" chat from the doctors three times accompanied by "as doctors we don't think it is a good idea")

On the last occasion we were basically told she would not last the night and there was no point putting here on a ventilator because she would never come of off it. It wasn't a pleasant few hours.

She us still here but while she does not have COPD her lungs have been weakened so she is regarded as having a severe respiratory problem She wouldn't survive the virus.

As her carer I am under the same restrictions as her.

I have gone out in the car but only to the doctors for my INR blood test at their insistence ( they do this outside the side door of the surgery so I don't leave the car)

The shielding letter is quite specific as to who qualifies. It does mention severe single organ disease which includes cardio but having seen my heart specialist just before the lockdown I know mine is not regarded as severe.

The AFib forum is with Health Unlocked Elwood;-

https://about.healthunlocked.com/

You need to sign up as a member and should be able to do so from that link - they have forums for all sorts of things, but it's easy to get to the one you want and you can set it up to get e-mail notifications every day telling you what's been posted on there.

I had to go for an INR yesterday. I've been on Warfarin for eleven years now and in all of that time, I've had very few problems with keeping in the target range, but yesterday my blood shot out from the pin prick to my finger and it was obvious my INR was going to be too high - it was 3.8 (my target is between 2 and 3) and the doctor told me she was expecting it to be a lot higher than that given the way my blood came out. I'm at a loss to think why it should be like that when it's usually spot on or close to it because I haven't changed my diet or been eating or drinking things that I shouldn't. I'm beginning to think that I may have taken too much Warfarin on Monday evening because it becomes the sort of thing you do unthinkingly and I may easily have done something like that if I was distracted. Anyway, I've got to go back next Tuesday for another test which is more of a nuisance than anything else - I'm not too concerned because all they'll do is reduce the dosage if it's still high, but it is odd why it was at that level.

Your message makes clear why you got that letter and I wish you and your wife all the best over the coming weeks and, hopefully, not too many months.

[Eric Cartman]

My main point is that politics is not about Labour good, Tory bad. There is good and bad in all parties which you fail to even acknowledge.

for the majority of years voted Labour until I realised belatedly that they offered nothing other than economic chaos.

Probably best not to criticise tendencies that you display yourself in the same paragraph.

[tell it like it is]

The AFib forum is with Health Unlocked Elwood;-

https://about.healthunlocked.com/

You need to sign up as a member and should be able to do so from that link - they have forums for all sorts of things, but it's easy to get to the one you want and you can set it up to get e-mail notifications every day telling you what's been posted on there.

I had to go for an INR yesterday. I've been on Warfarin for eleven years now and in all of that time, I've had very few problems with keeping in the target range, but yesterday my blood shot out from the pin prick to my finger and it was obvious my INR was going to be too high - it was 3.8 (my target is between 2 and 3) and the doctor told me she was expecting it to be a lot higher than that given the way my blood came out. I'm at a loss to think why it should be like that when it's usually spot on or close to it because I haven't changed my diet or been eating or drinking things that I shouldn't. I'm beginning to think that I may have taken too much Warfarin on Monday evening because it becomes the sort of thing you do unthinkingly and I may easily have done something like that if I was distracted. Anyway, I've got to go back next Tuesday for another test which is more of a nuisance than anything else - I'm not too concerned because all they'll do is reduce the dosage if it's still high, but it is odd why it was at that level.

Your message makes clear why you got that letter and I wish you and your wife all the best over the coming weeks and, hopefully, not too many months.

Mum had problems with dosages - because hospital gave her 2 boxes of furosemide, each saying "take one in morning" ( spoiler, took one from each box in the morning ) - ended up dehydrated and falling...

Get yourself one of those pill boxes - column for each day of week, row for each portion of day ( morning, lunch, afternoon, evening ). Keep your dosages in there, shouldn't accidentally take more or miss any.

[the other bob wilson]

Mum had problems with dosages - because hospital gave her 2 boxes of furosemide, each saying "take one in morning" ( spoiler, took one from each box in the morning ) - ended up dehydrated and falling...

Get yourself one of those pill boxes - column for each day of week, row for each portion of day ( morning, lunch, afternoon, evening ). Keep your dosages in there, shouldn't accidentally take more or miss any.

That's something I've been meaning to get for ages, but one thing I do know is that I will definitely be taking the right dosage until next Tuesday when I'm tested again!

[tell it like it is]

Yeah, mums INR fluctuates from 1.8 to 3.8 - heart and kidney problems so I suspect it won't stabilise too much around 2.5.

Eats what she wants too...

The pill boxes are a godsend tbh. Make sure I visit every week to sort it out for her.

[lisvaneblue]

Yeah, mums INR fluctuates from 1.8 to 3.8 - heart and kidney problems so I suspect it won't stabilise too much around 2.5.

Eats what she wants too...

The pill boxes are a godsend tbh. Make sure I visit every week to sort it out for her.

My wife got her doctor to switch from warfarin to a newer blood thiner, rivaroxaban.

Its been a revelation

No need for regular INR, only needs an annual blood test. It's expensive compared to warfarin, but when you consider the cost of regular INR measurements, the overall costs may be less.

[xsnaggle]

For your first point - perhaps Sturgeon is frustrated at the inaction from the conservative party


For your second point, what have the Tories done for Wales post war?
You could also ask the question of what the UK has done for Wales, yet most people still support the union.
Wales was pretty much the poorest part of the UK when it joined the union and it is pretty much the poorest part today. That will never change as long as we are in the union as investment is always focused on the South East of England.

I don't want to get involved in the general England/wales debate but this comment caught my eye? I can't see how you got to that. Wales became part of England in all but name over 700 years ago, as the result of several wars. There was no union at that time. It didn't exist. Therefore Wlaes could not have been the poorest member. As things were in those days I suspect everyone was as poor as each other except for the aristocracy.

[xsnaggle]

I couldn't stand blair but the NHS was in a far better state , he pumped loads of money in both in england and wales , the tories were totally against the formation of the Welsh assembly , now they are gagging to gain control

Those 2 are different points Sludge and you know it. nopt wanting it was I think the feeling of the majority of the country bearing in mind ont something like 25% of the population vote yes. In historical referenda it was accepted that those not voting counted as a vote for the status quo, but the rules were changed somewhat. If that rule had stayed the Welsh Government would not exist. Older rules stated that to change anything in a referendum the people wanting the change had to get over 50% "Of the available vote". It also means we would still be in the EU. Whether you think that a good or a bad thing is your business.

But once the decision was made what political party would not want to run it? If its there you cannot ignore it like the proverbiale elephant in the room so the best way is to seek to control it.
the 2 positions are not opposed to each other as your post suggests.

[trampie09]

Those 2 are different points Sludge and you know it. nopt wanting it was I think the feeling of the majority of the country bearing in mind ont something like 25% of the population vote yes. In historical referenda it was accepted that those not voting counted as a vote for the status quo, but the rules were changed somewhat. If that rule had stayed the Welsh Government would not exist. Older rules stated that to change anything in a referendum the people wanting the change had to get over 50% "Of the available vote". It also means we would still be in the EU. Whether you think that a good or a bad thing is your business.

But once the decision was made what political party would not want to run it? If its there you cannot ignore it like the proverbiale elephant in the room so the best way is to seek to control it.
the 2 positions are not opposed to each other as your post suggests.

The majority of the Welsh voting population voted in 1997 (50.22% turnout) and the majority of those that voted wanted a Welsh Assembly (50.3%).
That was a fair and square result at that time in any language.

[xsnaggle]

The majority of the Welsh voting population voted in 1997 (50.22% turnout) and the majority of those that voted wanted a Welsh Assembly (50.3%).
That was a fair and square result at that time in any language.

A far smaller margin than the EU referendum which was hotly and sometimes violently disputed for years.
But as usual you conveniently miss the point.
if the old referendum rules had applied you would have needed aver 50 % of the "Available votes". In simple terms if there were 1000 peopole eligiblt to vote the people wanting the cahnge would have to number 501 at the ballot box. If 400 voted yes and 200 peole didn't vote then the yes vote would lose. so there would not have been a welsh assembly nor Brexit.
In the figures you quote we have the Labout party now governeing the county with a mandate from about 12% of the population. If there was a vote to scrap the assembly what do you think the vote result might be?

[xsnaggle]

The majority of the Welsh voting population voted in 1997 (50.22% turnout) and the majority of those that voted wanted a Welsh Assembly (50.3%).
That was a fair and square result at that time in any language.

sorry, just ammending my spelling

A far smaller margin than the EU referendum which was hotly and sometimes violently disputed for years.
But as usual you conveniently miss the point.
If the old referendum rules had applied you would have needed over 50 % of the "Available votes". In simple terms if there were 1000 people eligible to vote the people wanting the change would have to number 501 at the ballot box. If 400 voted yes and 200 people didn't vote then the yes vote would lose. So there would not have been a welsh assembly nor Brexit.
In the figures you quote we have the Labour party now governing the county with a mandate from about 12% of the population. If there was a vote to scrap the assembly what do you think the vote result might be?

[Rjk]

I don't want to get involved in the general England/wales debate but this comment caught my eye? I can't see how you got to that. Wales became part of England in all but name over 700 years ago, as the result of several wars. There was no union at that time. It didn't exist. Therefore Wlaes could not have been the poorest member. As things were in those days I suspect everyone was as poor as each other except for the aristocracy.

Wales has always been poorer than most of England.
The terrain here is difficult to farm or build on, prior to the industrial revolution there were no towns in wales with more than about 1000 inhabitants.
Welsh was a perjorative term for a substandard version of something that the poor would have - "welsh cakes" , "welsh rabbit" (rarebit)

[xsnaggle]

Wales has always been poorer than most of England.
The terrain here is difficult to farm or build on, prior to the industrial revolution there were no towns in wales with more than about 1000 inhabitants.
Welsh was a perjorative term for a substandard version of something that the poor would have - "welsh cakes" , "welsh rabbit" (rarebit)

Yes but at that time A. there was no union, B We never 'joined' anything and C the vast majority of the English were from the old saxon lineage and were actually serfs (almost slaves) with no land and no property to speak of so they were really no better off.

[trampie09]

sorry, just ammending my spelling

A far smaller margin than the EU referendum which was hotly and sometimes violently disputed for years.
But as usual you conveniently miss the point.
If the old referendum rules had applied you would have needed over 50 % of the "Available votes". In simple terms if there were 1000 people eligible to vote the people wanting the change would have to number 501 at the ballot box. If 400 voted yes and 200 people didn't vote then the yes vote would lose. So there would not have been a welsh assembly nor Brexit.
In the figures you quote we have the Labour party now governing the county with a mandate from about 12% of the population. If there was a vote to scrap the assembly what do you think the vote result might be?

That would be very unfair as it would be too difficult to achieve, I know I pull you up on points of facts all the time, but do you mean 40% of the available votes ? as I think the Scottish referendum of 1979 infamously had the 40% clause and the majority of Scots voted for devolution (51.62%) on a turnout of just under 64% and didn't get it, obviously that had to change.

[Elwood Blues]

My wife got her doctor to switch from warfarin to a newer blood thiner, rivaroxaban.

Its been a revelation

No need for regular INR, only needs an annual blood test. It's expensive compared to warfarin, but when you consider the cost of regular INR measurements, the overall costs may be less.

I've just started on Apixaban having used Warfarin for about 2 years.

My GP's have been keen on me to change but I was too heavy!

However they spoke to the specialist in UHW who said that I could still take it but I've promised my doctor to get down to the required weight ASAP.

Not doing badly, I've lost about 10kg in the past few weeks. Cut down on the food and taking my water tablets regularly.

I was going to start driving to Roath Park a few times a week for a good walk (plenty of park benches to sit on when my legs ache too much!) but since I have had a shielding letter as my wife's carer I can't go out.

[xsnaggle]

That would be very unfair as it would be too difficult to achieve, I know I pull you up on points of facts all the time, but do you mean 40% of the available votes ? as I think the Scottish referendum of 1979 infamously had the 40% clause and the majority of Scots voted for devolution (51.62%) on a turnout of just under 64% and didn't get it, obviously that had to change.

Its not unfair because Referenda are only called for things of great national importance that seriously alter the status quo and are too big for a bunch of 650 people who happen to be in parliament at the time, to make a decision on.
The high bar is (Or was) deliberate exactly so a vote by 25.2 % of the population couldn't foist something on the other 74.8% who didn't want it.
you make the point yourself, it wasn't the majority of scots who voted for devolution it was 51.6 % of the people who actually voted. That works out at something more than 32% of the population. And that minority making a decision that would affect the majority is exacly what the high bar was intended to prevent. Tony Blair took the % requirement out because he had promised the Welsh Labout Party home rules (Being at the time the assumption that welsh labour votes would ensure the new parliament would be labour controlled.)

[tell it like it is]

I've just started on Apixaban having used Warfarin for about 2 years.

My GP's have been keen on me to change but I was too heavy!

However they spoke to the specialist in UHW who said that I could still take it but I've promised my doctor to get down to the required weight ASAP.

Not doing badly, I've lost about 10kg in the past few weeks. Cut down on the food and taking my water tablets regularly.

I was going to start driving to Roath Park a few times a week for a good walk (plenty of park benches to sit on when my legs ache too much!) but since I have had a shielding letter as my wife's carer I can't go out.

Mum was on Apixaban initially, but caused problems with medication for other heart / kidney issues. They had to switch to Warfarin.

[trampie09]

Its not unfair because Referenda are only called for things of great national importance that seriously alter the status quo and are too big for a bunch of 650 people who happen to be in parliament at the time, to make a decision on.
The high bar is (Or was) deliberate exactly so a vote by 25.2 % of the population couldn't foist something on the other 74.8% who didn't want it.
you make the point yourself, it wasn't the majority of scots who voted for devolution it was 51.6 % of the people who actually voted. That works out at something more than 32% of the population. And that minority making a decision that would affect the majority is exacly what the high bar was intended to prevent. Tony Blair took the % requirement out because he had promised the Welsh Labout Party home rules (Being at the time the assumption that welsh labour votes would ensure the new parliament would be labour controlled.)

You can't assume that people who didn't vote want the same thing as people that voted for the side that came out second best in the popular vote stakes.
Nearly every election is won by a small percentage of the population that is how it works in this country, the winning party in most General Elections for example don't get anywhere near a majority of the total amount of people able to vote.

[xsnaggle]

You can't assume that people who didn't vote want the same thing as people that voted for the side that came out second best in the popular vote stakes.
Nearly every election is won by a small percentage of the population that is how it works in this country, the winning party in most General Elections for example don't get anywhere near a majority of the total amount of people able to vote.

I'll just say it once more. Referenda are for big important decisions that seriously affect a nations future. The people who vote want to change the staus quo, anyone who doesn't vote is assumned to not want to change the status quo. That is the whole point. So what you said cannot be assumed, is exactly what is assumed. It is the whole point of putting 1 question to a referendum, iot cannot be left to politicians to ovte on because the one single question is too big and too important.

[trampie09]

I'll just say it once more. Referenda are for big important decisions that seriously affect a nations future. The people who vote want to change the staus quo, anyone who doesn't vote is assumned to not want to change the status quo. That is the whole point. So what you said cannot be assumed, is exactly what is assumed. It is the whole point of putting 1 question to a referendum, iot cannot be left to politicians to ovte on because the one single question is too big and too important.

Anyone that does not vote is not assumed to not want to change the status quo, they may have no opinion one way or the other or might genuinely don't know what way to vote.

The 'leave' vote in the Brexit referendum had what about 37.4% under your way of looking at things and the 'remain' vote about 62.6% because you are lumping the people that wanted the status quo to remain and people that did not vote all together.

So I take it that you think we should stay in the EU as 51.89% of the vote with a 72.21% turnout was nowhere near good enough for us to leave ?

[Former Labour leader]

A far smaller margin than the EU referendum which was hotly and sometimes violently disputed for years.
But as usual you conveniently miss the point.
if the old referendum rules had applied you would have needed aver 50 % of the "Available votes". In simple terms if there were 1000 peopole eligiblt to vote the people wanting the cahnge would have to number 501 at the ballot box. If 400 voted yes and 200 peole didn't vote then the yes vote would lose. so there would not have been a welsh assembly nor Brexit.
In the figures you quote we have the Labout party now governeing the county with a mandate from about 12% of the population. If there was a vote to scrap the assembly what do you think the vote result might be?

Recent polls show most in favour of the Assembly. There is a small, but vociferous. Minority against.

[xsnaggle]

Recent polls show most in favour of the Assembly. There is a small, but vociferous. Minority against.

There is no point in closing it now. It exists and we have to use it to the benefit of us all.

[xsnaggle]

Anyone that does not vote is not assumed to not want to change the status quo, they may have no opinion one way or the other or might genuinely don't know what way to vote.

The 'leave' vote in the Brexit referendum had what about 37.4% under your way of looking at things and the 'remain' vote about 62.6% because you are lumping the people that wanted the status quo to remain and people that did not vote all together.

So I take it that you think we should stay in the EU as 51.89% of the vote with a 72.21% turnout was nowhere near good enough for us to leave ?

What I think about staying or leaving is irrelevant. I don't see how you can assume my preferences from what I wrote.
The fact is that under the old rules the vote would have been to remain.