Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2019 15:00:04 GMT
Tories at it again Tory MPs deny rising food bank usage is linked to government cuts flip.it/202YoRThis is them "In 2013, then Education Secretary Michael Gove said families who were forced to use food banks only have themselves to blame because they are ‘unable to manage their finances’" Christ, its Eric in disguise!! |
|
|
|
Post by trevorgas on Nov 27, 2019 15:00:47 GMT
Nope but I give Ken Clarke credit for setting the foundations. I like Ken Clarke, a social moderate who again had an ability to add up. Should have been Home Secretary under Blair. Totally agree very sound and likeable politician who has empathy for people and who doesn't like someone who wears brown hush puppies!! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2019 15:07:05 GMT
Pants down, again?? Based on the content of these documents, we can now imagine what a terrible price Britain will have to pay to conclude a free trade agreement with the United States,” they wrote. “From betraying partners and the interests of own citizens to betraying her national policies.” Labour's explosive NHS documents appeared weeks ago on Reddit flip.it/QcM.igJeremy Corbyn reveals 'evidence' the UK's NHS is part of US trade talks flip.it/TQepef |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2019 15:17:11 GMT
I’m not sure that female pensioner from Rochdale would share your fondness for Brown - I think he ignored her, then his aides said he should engage and then got caught out on mic referring to her as “that bigoted woman” ! Certainly not his finest hour !! As that great philospher John Wayne (ahem ) said " in everyone's life a little rain must fall" Explains why I’m always soaked ! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2019 16:53:21 GMT
I’m not sure that female pensioner from Rochdale would share your fondness for Brown - I think he ignored her, then his aides said he should engage and then got caught out on mic referring to her as “that bigoted woman” ! Ahh, sigh. A budget surplus in 2001 and paid down debt. 6% increase in health spending, per annum, with no increase in debt as measured as a % of gdp. Halcyon Days.... Did Thatcher manage that...answers on a post card to "Sorry, I havent a clue" That's because in 2001 they were still following the previous spending plan of the Tories! Don't forget, Blair inherited a very good economy. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2019 16:56:24 GMT
Tories at it again Tory MPs deny rising food bank usage is linked to government cuts flip.it/202YoRThis is them "In 2013, then Education Secretary Michael Gove said families who were forced to use food banks only have themselves to blame because they are ‘unable to manage their finances’" Christ, its Eric in disguise!! Shameful quote from someone completely out of touch. I recall when IDS was offered the chance to go and live the life of a poor person for a week and declined. You can’t judge people who use foodbanks until you have walked a mile in their shoes and it will be a cold day in hell before someone like Gove bothers to find out what life is like for people in that situation. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2019 16:56:25 GMT
Pants down, again?? Based on the content of these documents, we can now imagine what a terrible price Britain will have to pay to conclude a free trade agreement with the United States,” they wrote. “From betraying partners and the interests of own citizens to betraying her national policies.” Labour's explosive NHS documents appeared weeks ago on Reddit flip.it/QcM.igJeremy Corbyn reveals 'evidence' the UK's NHS is part of US trade talks flip.it/TQepefHave you been following things today? You do realise that Labour are telling complete lies regarding these documents? Corbyn hasn't revealed anything. The NHS is only mentioned four times. |
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Nov 27, 2019 17:20:17 GMT
Pants down, again?? Based on the content of these documents, we can now imagine what a terrible price Britain will have to pay to conclude a free trade agreement with the United States,” they wrote. “From betraying partners and the interests of own citizens to betraying her national policies.” Labour's explosive NHS documents appeared weeks ago on Reddit flip.it/QcM.igJeremy Corbyn reveals 'evidence' the UK's NHS is part of US trade talks flip.it/TQepefHave you been following things today? You do realise that Labour are telling complete lies regarding these documents? Corbyn hasn't revealed anything. The NHS is only mentioned four times. the person who requested it via FOI had this to say
Jeremy Corbyn says he has found proof that the NHS will be part of trade talks between the UK and US after Brexit. But the man who originally got hold of the document said there's even worse
Nick Dearden is the Director of Global Justice Now, who received the papers after putting in a Freedom of Information request.
The government originally refused to give any details, before sending a heavily-redacted version of the 451-page document. A whistleblower then sent the full version to both Global Justice Now and the Labour Party.
Mr Corbyn focused on the fact that it shows the US had demanded pharmaceuticals are on the table as part of any trade deal. But Nick pointed out that there are other elements that are just as concerning.
Speaking to James O'Brien, he said:
"When we flicked through it, we were desperately concerned.
"Not just about the NHS and the health system, but about our food standards, about the kind of laws that may be brought in to regulate big tech - Facebook, Google and Amazon - under a US trade deal."
James O'Brien heard from the man who received the US trade document
James O'Brien heard from the man who received the US trade document. Picture: PA / LBC
One thing mentioned is around food standards, stating the US is not keen on food warning labels - largely based on the fact that the more warnings something has, the less likely people are to buy it.
James added to his commentary, saying: "I note one Financial Times journalist is pointing out correctly that the NHS is only mentioned four times throughout all the leaked documents.
"But it's very interesting to see that you, as someone who got their hands on this document early, recognising that there is lots and lots of other stuff in there that is really interesting and important."
Nick pointed out a line in the document saying that the phrase NHS shouldn't be used because they recognise that it would cause controversy. He said: "Part of the reason the NHS is only mentioned four times is that we have told people not to use the phrase very much"
|
|
|
|
Post by trevorgas on Nov 27, 2019 17:40:20 GMT
Have you been following things today? You do realise that Labour are telling complete lies regarding these documents? Corbyn hasn't revealed anything. The NHS is only mentioned four times. the person who requested it via FOI had this to say
Jeremy Corbyn says he has found proof that the NHS will be part of trade talks between the UK and US after Brexit. But the man who originally got hold of the document said there's even worse
Nick Dearden is the Director of Global Justice Now, who received the papers after putting in a Freedom of Information request.
The government originally refused to give any details, before sending a heavily-redacted version of the 451-page document. A whistleblower then sent the full version to both Global Justice Now and the Labour Party.
Mr Corbyn focused on the fact that it shows the US had demanded pharmaceuticals are on the table as part of any trade deal. But Nick pointed out that there are other elements that are just as concerning.
Speaking to James O'Brien, he said:
"When we flicked through it, we were desperately concerned.
"Not just about the NHS and the health system, but about our food standards, about the kind of laws that may be brought in to regulate big tech - Facebook, Google and Amazon - under a US trade deal."
James O'Brien heard from the man who received the US trade document
James O'Brien heard from the man who received the US trade document. Picture: PA / LBC
One thing mentioned is around food standards, stating the US is not keen on food warning labels - largely based on the fact that the more warnings something has, the less likely people are to buy it.
James added to his commentary, saying: "I note one Financial Times journalist is pointing out correctly that the NHS is only mentioned four times throughout all the leaked documents.
"But it's very interesting to see that you, as someone who got their hands on this document early, recognising that there is lots and lots of other stuff in there that is really interesting and important."
Nick pointed out a line in the document saying that the phrase NHS shouldn't be used because they recognise that it would cause controversy. He said: "Part of the reason the NHS is only mentioned four times is that we have told people not to use the phrase very much"
They might want it doesn't mean their going to get it does it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2019 17:45:54 GMT
I’m hearing that Boris has decided to give Andrew Neil a miss. Not surprising really. Not the sign of a strong leader. Edit: Ah, they can’t agree a date as of yet. Christ, it sounds harder work than getting a bird off Tinder to meet in a bar  just ‘get it done’ ffs. Swinson and Farage are up next Wednesday and Thursday respectively. Swinson will get battered but I doubt he will get a word in edgeways against Farage. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2019 17:48:33 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2019 17:54:50 GMT
the person who requested it via FOI had this to say
Jeremy Corbyn says he has found proof that the NHS will be part of trade talks between the UK and US after Brexit. But the man who originally got hold of the document said there's even worse
Nick Dearden is the Director of Global Justice Now, who received the papers after putting in a Freedom of Information request.
The government originally refused to give any details, before sending a heavily-redacted version of the 451-page document. A whistleblower then sent the full version to both Global Justice Now and the Labour Party.
Mr Corbyn focused on the fact that it shows the US had demanded pharmaceuticals are on the table as part of any trade deal. But Nick pointed out that there are other elements that are just as concerning.
Speaking to James O'Brien, he said:
"When we flicked through it, we were desperately concerned.
"Not just about the NHS and the health system, but about our food standards, about the kind of laws that may be brought in to regulate big tech - Facebook, Google and Amazon - under a US trade deal."
James O'Brien heard from the man who received the US trade document
James O'Brien heard from the man who received the US trade document. Picture: PA / LBC
One thing mentioned is around food standards, stating the US is not keen on food warning labels - largely based on the fact that the more warnings something has, the less likely people are to buy it.
James added to his commentary, saying: "I note one Financial Times journalist is pointing out correctly that the NHS is only mentioned four times throughout all the leaked documents.
"But it's very interesting to see that you, as someone who got their hands on this document early, recognising that there is lots and lots of other stuff in there that is really interesting and important."
Nick pointed out a line in the document saying that the phrase NHS shouldn't be used because they recognise that it would cause controversy. He said: "Part of the reason the NHS is only mentioned four times is that we have told people not to use the phrase very much"
They might want it doesn't mean their going to get it does it. No, but would you trust Johnson to manage your pension plan investments? No, me neither. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2019 17:58:22 GMT
I’m hearing that Boris has decided to give Andrew Neil a miss. Not surprising really. Not the sign of a strong leader. Edit: Ah, they can’t agree a date as of yet. Christ, it sounds harder work than getting a bird off Tinder to meet in a bar just ‘get it done’ ffs. Swinson and Farage are up next Wednesday and Thursday respectively. Swinson will get battered but I doubt he will get a word in edgeways against Farage. Not just a tosser, a coward to boot. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2019 18:10:20 GMT
the person who requested it via FOI had this to say
Jeremy Corbyn says he has found proof that the NHS will be part of trade talks between the UK and US after Brexit. But the man who originally got hold of the document said there's even worse
Nick Dearden is the Director of Global Justice Now, who received the papers after putting in a Freedom of Information request.
The government originally refused to give any details, before sending a heavily-redacted version of the 451-page document. A whistleblower then sent the full version to both Global Justice Now and the Labour Party.
Mr Corbyn focused on the fact that it shows the US had demanded pharmaceuticals are on the table as part of any trade deal. But Nick pointed out that there are other elements that are just as concerning.
Speaking to James O'Brien, he said:
"When we flicked through it, we were desperately concerned.
"Not just about the NHS and the health system, but about our food standards, about the kind of laws that may be brought in to regulate big tech - Facebook, Google and Amazon - under a US trade deal."
James O'Brien heard from the man who received the US trade document
James O'Brien heard from the man who received the US trade document. Picture: PA / LBC
One thing mentioned is around food standards, stating the US is not keen on food warning labels - largely based on the fact that the more warnings something has, the less likely people are to buy it.
James added to his commentary, saying: "I note one Financial Times journalist is pointing out correctly that the NHS is only mentioned four times throughout all the leaked documents.
"But it's very interesting to see that you, as someone who got their hands on this document early, recognising that there is lots and lots of other stuff in there that is really interesting and important."
Nick pointed out a line in the document saying that the phrase NHS shouldn't be used because they recognise that it would cause controversy. He said: "Part of the reason the NHS is only mentioned four times is that we have told people not to use the phrase very much"
They might want it doesn't mean their going to get it does it. Like me and Michelle Keegan 😢 |
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Nov 27, 2019 18:40:51 GMT
So the correlation between nationalisation and union power is caused because nationalisation effectively means there is only supplier of the utility and so, if the union decides to strike that utility is out of action completely with no alternative? Sounds fairly obvious but I’ve never seen the link between nationalisation and union power explicitly stated and like I say, I wasn’t around at the time. Thankfully, I guess You are correct. There is another aspect to Nationalisation, and once again we can use 'British Broadband' as an example. Currently, there are a number of private companies all competing to supply the same thing, broadband. The competition means that they work hard to deliver a good service. They strive to bring the latest innovations to the market, because they want your custom and your money for that product/service. If you bring all these companies under one roof, and call it British Broadband you instantly remove all the drivers needed to make a company successful. With no competition there is no drive to deliver the latest tech innovations. There is no need to deliver good customer service, after all, where else can the customer go? You then give your product away for free and it doesn't matter if the company makes a profit or not as the taxpayer will cover any losses. That is what happens with Nationalised companies. Sh1t products, sh1t service and losing money that is covered by the taxpayer. Those of us of a certain age have seen it all before. As a young 'un you will have noticed that there is not a single person on this forum, even those who support Labour, shouting out how good the old Nationalised companies were. Not one. Nobody is pointing out how good the old nationalised industries are, true. They're also not pointing out how good 1970s fashions were or how fantastic the first home computers were. It's 40+ years ago. I've already pointed out that RBS and Lloyds owe their existence to being nationalised. And National Rail have hauled the privatised disaster that was Railtrack back into shape. On the question of broadband, and these efficient competitive companies, who provides the telephone and cable network used by almost everyone? BT. And how did BT build this network, the copper element of which has remained unchanged for decades? By a government funding a nationalised industry, as BT was. Talk Talk and Sky just piggyback off the network by enticing customers in at little investment cost to themselves, and then rip those customers off by raising charges way above the rate of inflation every year after year 1 of their contract. That's not efficient. It's cynical, and typical of what capitalism encourages the market to do if left unchecked. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2019 18:42:29 GMT
I’m hearing that Boris has decided to give Andrew Neil a miss. Not surprising really. Not the sign of a strong leader. Edit: Ah, they can’t agree a date as of yet. Christ, it sounds harder work than getting a bird off Tinder to meet in a bar just ‘get it done’ ffs. Swinson and Farage are up next Wednesday and Thursday respectively. Swinson will get battered but I doubt he will get a word in edgeways against Farage. Not just a tosser, a coward to boot. Let’s be honest, he must be looking at those interviews with Corbyn and Sturgeon and thinking “f**k that!”. I suspect he.’s in a privileged position now where he can only lose this election by some severely extreme gaffe. The damage he could do by appearing on the show is greater than by just giving it a miss. Even then were he to be torn apart by Neil I doubt that’s going to change much either. It’s a free play at this stage. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2019 18:43:53 GMT
You are correct. There is another aspect to Nationalisation, and once again we can use 'British Broadband' as an example. Currently, there are a number of private companies all competing to supply the same thing, broadband. The competition means that they work hard to deliver a good service. They strive to bring the latest innovations to the market, because they want your custom and your money for that product/service. If you bring all these companies under one roof, and call it British Broadband you instantly remove all the drivers needed to make a company successful. With no competition there is no drive to deliver the latest tech innovations. There is no need to deliver good customer service, after all, where else can the customer go? You then give your product away for free and it doesn't matter if the company makes a profit or not as the taxpayer will cover any losses. That is what happens with Nationalised companies. Sh1t products, sh1t service and losing money that is covered by the taxpayer. Those of us of a certain age have seen it all before. As a young 'un you will have noticed that there is not a single person on this forum, even those who support Labour, shouting out how good the old Nationalised companies were. Not one. Nobody is pointing out how good the old nationalised industries are, true. They're also not pointing out how good 1970s fashions were or how fantastic the first home computers were. It's 40+ years ago. I've already pointed out that RBS and Lloyds owe their existence to being nationalised. And National Rail have hauled the privatised disaster that was Railtrack back into shape. On the question of broadband, and these efficient competitive companies, who provides the telephone and cable network used by almost everyone? BT. And how did BT build this network, the copper element of which has remained unchanged for decades? By a government funding a nationalised industry, as BT was. Talk Talk and Sky just piggyback off the network by enticing customers in at little investment cost to themselves, and then rip those customers off by raising charges way above the rate of inflation every year after year 1 of their contract. That's not efficient. It's cynical, and typical of what capitalism encourages the market to do if left unchecked. Interesting counter perspective |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2019 8:29:19 GMT
You are correct. There is another aspect to Nationalisation, and once again we can use 'British Broadband' as an example. Currently, there are a number of private companies all competing to supply the same thing, broadband. The competition means that they work hard to deliver a good service. They strive to bring the latest innovations to the market, because they want your custom and your money for that product/service. If you bring all these companies under one roof, and call it British Broadband you instantly remove all the drivers needed to make a company successful. With no competition there is no drive to deliver the latest tech innovations. There is no need to deliver good customer service, after all, where else can the customer go? You then give your product away for free and it doesn't matter if the company makes a profit or not as the taxpayer will cover any losses. That is what happens with Nationalised companies. Sh1t products, sh1t service and losing money that is covered by the taxpayer. Those of us of a certain age have seen it all before. As a young 'un you will have noticed that there is not a single person on this forum, even those who support Labour, shouting out how good the old Nationalised companies were. Not one. Nobody is pointing out how good the old nationalised industries are, true. They're also not pointing out how good 1970s fashions were or how fantastic the first home computers were. It's 40+ years ago. I've already pointed out that RBS and Lloyds owe their existence to being nationalised. And National Rail have hauled the privatised disaster that was Railtrack back into shape. On the question of broadband, and these efficient competitive companies, who provides the telephone and cable network used by almost everyone? BT. And how did BT build this network, the copper element of which has remained unchanged for decades? By a government funding a nationalised industry, as BT was. Talk Talk and Sky just piggyback off the network by enticing customers in at little investment cost to themselves, and then rip those customers off by raising charges way above the rate of inflation every year after year 1 of their contract. That's not efficient. It's cynical, and typical of what capitalism encourages the market to do if left unchecked. "They're also not pointing out how good 1970s fashions were or how fantastic the first home computers were. It's 40+ years ago." - Mao's Great Leap Forward in China, which killed millions, happened over 50 years ago, but you wouldn't recommend repeating it would you. "I've already pointed out that RBS and Lloyds owe their existence to being nationalised." - They were not Nationalised. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2019 9:59:38 GMT
Nobody is pointing out how good the old nationalised industries are, true. They're also not pointing out how good 1970s fashions were or how fantastic the first home computers were. It's 40+ years ago. I've already pointed out that RBS and Lloyds owe their existence to being nationalised. And National Rail have hauled the privatised disaster that was Railtrack back into shape. On the question of broadband, and these efficient competitive companies, who provides the telephone and cable network used by almost everyone? BT. And how did BT build this network, the copper element of which has remained unchanged for decades? By a government funding a nationalised industry, as BT was. Talk Talk and Sky just piggyback off the network by enticing customers in at little investment cost to themselves, and then rip those customers off by raising charges way above the rate of inflation every year after year 1 of their contract. That's not efficient. It's cynical, and typical of what capitalism encourages the market to do if left unchecked. "They're also not pointing out how good 1970s fashions were or how fantastic the first home computers were. It's 40+ years ago." - Mao's Great Leap Forward in China, which killed millions, happened over 50 years ago, but you wouldn't recommend repeating it would you. "I've already pointed out that RBS and Lloyds owe their existence to being nationalised." - They were not Nationalised. It's a fine line between majority shareholding and nationalisation. Either way public funds were used. Aghast has a point, at the time when telephony was rolled out there was no private company that had the financial or logistical critical mass to do that the then BT did. And it's TRUE upon privatisation the true asset value was not realised, (another Tory giveaway). |
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Nov 28, 2019 10:11:04 GMT
Good news for The Tories if you believe the Polls and the special YouGov, MArginal Regression technology voting intention tool thingy
350 odd seats
|
|
just ‘get it done’ ffs. Swinson and Farage are up next Wednesday and Thursday respectively. Swinson will get battered but I doubt he will get a word in edgeways against Farage.