peterms Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 fairly decent article .. cue angry replies form the lefties More an eyes-glazing-over. Hodges is a drooling oaf, an embittered wannabe Blair accomplice who seems to have missed the boat, and is angry about it. When you see his first para refer to David Owen as the darling of the left, you assume it's an attempt at irony. When you see his second para confuse "24 hours to save the NHS" with a claim, as yet unmade (to my ears at least), that the NHS will cease to function in 24 hours, then it becomes clear that the man is a cretin. He should be urgently seeking the assistance of the NHS, not gloating over its slow demise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 fairly decent article .. cue angry replies form the lefties More an eyes-glazing-over. Hodges is a drooling oaf, an embittered wannabe Blair accomplice who seems to have missed the boat, and is angry about it. When you see his first para refer to David Owen as the darling of the left, you assume it's an attempt at irony. When you see his second para confuse "24 hours to save the NHS" with a claim, as yet unmade (to my ears at least), that the NHS will cease to function in 24 hours, then it becomes clear that the man is a cretin. He should be urgently seeking the assistance of the NHS, not gloating over its slow demise. You obviously haven't been reading a certain person's Facebook today! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 tonight they are lkely to pass a bill criminalising squatting. :? whats wrong with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I was just wandering if you have used the trains in this country compared to the rail Services in France, Germany, Spain Japan. I have in all of them Say it quietly but I was impressed with the French trains I'm just wondering how to put this. Didn't you find they had, well, sort of...French...people on them? not sure if this is true, but its what I heard 4 people in the carriage of a train - Tony, a pretty young blonde girl, an ugly old woman and a Frenchman. It all goes dark when the train goes through a tunnel. In the dark there's the sound of an almighty slap, and when the train emerges from the tunnel the Frenchman is rubbing his face, and there's a huge red mark on his cheek. The old lady thinks "I bet that Frenchman fondled the blonde in the dark and she slapped him" The pretty young blonde thinks " I bet the Frenchman tried to fondle me in the dark, got the old lady by mistake, and she hit him" The Frenchman thinks "I bet that Englishman fondled the blonde in the dark, but the blonde thought it was me and hit me" Tony thinks "I hope there's another tunnel coming up soon so I can slap that French twit again" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 tonight they are lkely to pass a bill criminalising squatting. :? whats wrong with that? it's been a right in the uk for a reason. it provides people the ability to set themselves up again when things go to shit, it allows people to live an alternative lifestyle, and it puts to use disused buildings that nobody wants or owns. it will cost over £700 million to implement this law and that money could go to better use, not on penalising people in old flats that no one else is using. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I was just wandering if you have used the trains in this country compared to the rail Services in France, Germany, Spain Japan. I have in all of them Say it quietly but I was impressed with the French trains I'm just wondering how to put this. Didn't you find they had, well, sort of...French...people on them? not sure if this is true, but its what I heard 4 people in the carriage of a train - Tony, a pretty young blonde girl, an ugly old woman and a Frenchman. It all goes dark when the train goes through a tunnel. In the dark there's the sound of an almighty slap, and when the train emerges from the tunnel the Frenchman is rubbing his face, and there's a huge red mark on his cheek. The old lady thinks "I bet that Frenchman fondled the blonde in the dark and she slapped him" The pretty young blonde thinks " I bet the Frenchman tried to fondle me in the dark, got the old lady by mistake, and she hit him" The Frenchman thinks "I bet that Englishman fondled the blonde in the dark, but the blonde thought it was me and hit me" Tony thinks "I hope there's another tunnel coming up soon so I can slap that French twit again" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 tonight they are lkely to pass a bill criminalising squatting. And the Lib Dems are going to go along with it? If so, they are utterly useless and don't deserve to represent the people who voted for them. Liberal? my arse. Democratic? I don't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 fairly decent article .. cue angry replies form the lefties More an eyes-glazing-over. Hodges is a drooling oaf, an embittered wannabe Blair accomplice who seems to have missed the boat, and is angry about it. When you see his first para refer to David Owen as the darling of the left, you assume it's an attempt at irony. When you see his second para confuse "24 hours to save the NHS" with a claim, as yet unmade (to my ears at least), that the NHS will cease to function in 24 hours, then it becomes clear that the man is a cretin. He should be urgently seeking the assistance of the NHS, not gloating over its slow demise. You obviously haven't been reading a certain person's Facebook today! Sorry, you've completely lost me. Facebook is to me as mosquitoes are to goats. You know it's there in the background as a vague irritant, sort of inescapable, beyond that, what's there to know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 It's interesting to read the last few pages and see how polarised the general public spending debate has become. The essential fact that all seem to be ignoring is quite how skint UK PLC actually is (I've done the same on the other main bollitics thread regarding tax rates), preferring instead to take a more party political viewpoint about the perceived justification or otherwise for certain cuts. For all those trotting out the usual cliches about the Tories the question to answer (imo) is this: how do they think the government can continue to afford indulging in the levels of state sponsored largesse built up over the last 15 years? Well, there are various ways. They could pursue economic growth rather than deflation. That would involve stimulating employment, meaning less welfare spending, more tax, you know all that. They could recognise that growth as we have traditionally pursued it is unsustainable. Bit more radical. That would mean rethinking quite a bit about how the economy could work in the future, how we wean ourselves off dependence on fossil fuels, year-round asparagus and so on; and rethinking the role of government in such an economy. They could continue much as they are, but collect more tax, end subsidy to banks, and stop spending on vanity projects like Trident, aircraft carriers and the like. Or for preference, they could do the first and third of these, while starting some serious work on understanding and moving towards the second. Presumably option one involves either a) increasing the size of the public sector and/or, advancing planned infrastructure projects, i.e. borrowing from future budgets. Either option involves increasing borrowing now. That is the one course guaranteed to loose UK it's AAA credit rating and therefore increase borrowing costs across the board, compounding the problem even further. Option two is certainly desirable but as you recognise is a long term approach which won't do anything to help in the short term. Option three. I wouldn't argue against collecting more taxes (note, not increasing them still further) and no probs with ending bank subsidies either. Your 'vanity projects' (no surprise that you regard defence as vanity :winkold: ) aren't quite the magic bullet you may think. The penalty clauses written into the contracts for the carrier construction are so severe that even cutting them up for razor blades would only save about 1 billion of the total cost, but with no ships at the end of it - essentially a total waste of about 4 billion. For the sake of this debate let's say Trident is cancelled saving a spend of about 30 billion over 30 years. Significant yes but certainly not a game changer. To put that in a context of where fat can be trimmed and savings sought, the UK welfare spend for 2011 alone was estimated at around 110 billion. I'm sorry but I don't see that you've offered any meaning alternative solutions to resolving the immediate issues other than borrowing more money, which imo is no solution at all to a debt crisis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 fairly decent article .. cue angry replies form the lefties More an eyes-glazing-over. Hodges is a drooling oaf, an embittered wannabe Blair accomplice who seems to have missed the boat, and is angry about it. When you see his first para refer to David Owen as the darling of the left, you assume it's an attempt at irony. When you see his second para confuse "24 hours to save the NHS" with a claim, as yet unmade (to my ears at least), that the NHS will cease to function in 24 hours, then it becomes clear that the man is a cretin. He should be urgently seeking the assistance of the NHS, not gloating over its slow demise. You obviously haven't been reading a certain person's Facebook today! Sorry, you've completely lost me. Facebook is to me as mosquitoes are to goats. You know it's there in the background as a vague irritant, sort of inescapable, beyond that, what's there to know? One of our more left-leaning members had a particularly vitriolic rant about the NHS ceasing to exist yesterday! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Just been past my local hospital ..Imagine my surprise at seeing it appearing to function perfectly If one believed Facebook status updates and the Daily Mirror I was expecting to see it in a giant coffin being lowered into the ground Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meregreen Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Just been past my local hospital ..Imagine my surprise at seeing it appearing to function perfectly If one believed Facebook status updates and the Daily Mirror I was expecting to see it in a giant coffin being lowered into the ground Thats the thing about the Tory plans for the NHS you see. It will be a slow death rather than a quick one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Wasn't / isn't it already dying a slow death anyway ? I've heard the wailing and Nashing of teeth over the planned changes but changes are needed.. Debate the merits ( or lack of) about the plan but I haven't seen anyone who opposes them come up with any tangible alternatives or reasons for their objections other than spouting the old "ideological " line Apologies if anyone has posted reasons / objections that I may have missed .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Isn't Cameron's most trusted adviser on this issue the bloke that stands to make the most money on the changes? Wasn't the lobbyist that represents many of the larger private health organizations quoted as saying these changes would bring fat money - just a couple years down the line? The reality with private companies is that they seem to expect to increase profits year on year. What initially seem like great savings turn round and bite you down the line. To my eyes, with the exception of BT, privatisation of publicly owned services has been good for a few and crap for the many. edit: grammar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted March 22, 2012 Moderator Share Posted March 22, 2012 I am well aware of how poor British railways are in comparison. But would be people be prepared to pay for the massive and long term injection of cash into the railways. So you agree that privatising the railways hasn't put them on a par with European railways, yet defend the proposed privatisation of roads by drawing comparison to European roads? That seems more than a little flawed to me. It doesn’t matter two hoots if the network is private or nationalised if it doesn’t get invested in. BR was under invested in, the private networks are just the same: Result crappy railways. So you have answered my original question, the railway network/rail service is no better following privatisation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 Presumably option one involves either a) increasing the size of the public sector and/or, advancing planned infrastructure projects, i.e. borrowing from future budgets. Either option involves increasing borrowing now. That is the one course guaranteed to loose UK it's AAA credit rating and therefore increase borrowing costs across the board, compounding the problem even further. Option two is certainly desirable but as you recognise is a long term approach which won't do anything to help in the short term. Option three. I wouldn't argue against collecting more taxes (note, not increasing them still further) and no probs with ending bank subsidies either. Your 'vanity projects' (no surprise that you regard defence as vanity :winkold: ) aren't quite the magic bullet you may think. The penalty clauses written into the contracts for the carrier construction are so severe that even cutting them up for razor blades would only save about 1 billion of the total cost, but with no ships at the end of it - essentially a total waste of about 4 billion. For the sake of this debate let's say Trident is cancelled saving a spend of about 30 billion over 30 years. Significant yes but certainly not a game changer. To put that in a context of where fat can be trimmed and savings sought, the UK welfare spend for 2011 alone was estimated at around 110 billion. I'm sorry but I don't see that you've offered any meaning alternative solutions to resolving the immediate issues other than borrowing more money, which imo is no solution at all to a debt crisis. I've highlighted the two bits which require you to accept the conclusions you come to. Once you accept those premises, it's hard to propose sensible solutions to the problem. However, your premises are wrong. We don't have a (public) debt crisis. We have a level of public debt which has been inflated because of the consequences of listening to mainstream economists and deregulating finance, causing a severe recession following by bailing out the organisations most responsible. But the level of debt is not a long-term problem; the hysterical reaction to it is. If you want a review of whether it is better to reduce debt quickly or gradually, there's one here. We do have a private debt crisis. The response to that has made the recession worse, as people cut back and businesses sit on growing piles of cash instead of investing. In that context, the government needs to take counter-cyclical measures to stimulate demand. If instead it tries to cut demand, as it is doing, then it compounds the problem. Of course it will also find that its measures cut across what it aims for, so businesses are failing and investment is deferred because of falling demand, the level of economic activity falters, unemployment rises and so the the level of welfare spend rises while the tax take falls below what it would be in a more lively economy. It is a big mistake to listen to the credit rating agencies. They are corrupt, they fail utterly to predict things, and the things they comment on have in any case been anticipated and factored in by financial institutions. The price of borrowing is not set by them, but by whether an investment is seen as better than the alternative. At the moment, money is pouring in to (non-Euro) government debt because it's a safe place to be. It will go elsewhere as and when alternatives become more attractive. And we don't need to "borrow" anyway. It's an economic convention, a habit. It's not as though money is a finite resource which we must convince someone to "lend" us in order for the government to do anything. But there are some advantages to offering safe investments to eg pension funds. We keep hearing that government stimulus to the economy whether by "borrowing" or just increasing the money base will lead to inflation, etc. It's nonsense. It's like asking, if you pour a quarter pint of water into a glass which already contains water, will it overflow on to the table? The only sensible answer is, it depends on how much room there is in the glass. Krugman has explained many times that increasing borrowing and the monetary base are not inflationary when the economy is in a liquidity trap. Here's one example. He's written on it at more length elsewhere. And yet the superstition persists, and is used as a bogeyman to frighten people away from the idea that governments should act against recession by stimulating the economy. So yes, we should increase government spending, preferably on things like investing in green and sustainable energy which will deliver long-term savings and energy security, rather than things like aircraft carriers (I don't argue they be scrapped, btw; the costs are now sunk - but if we're going to have them at all, either put some planes on them, or else turn them into theme parks or something). Instead of investing, Osborne's big idea is that business will invest and there will be a massive growth of exports. Blanchflower explains why it's nonsense (and also offers a few comments on the credibility of the OBR). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloBarnesi Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 An article in the Indie has credibility; its probably all been made up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 Tory Peter Cruddas resigns... Video on link Conservative Party co-treasurer Peter Cruddas has resigned with immediate effect after a newspaper claimed he was prepared to arrange access to the prime minister and chancellor for £250,000. The Sunday Times has footage of him making the offer to undercover reporters posing as potential donors. London-based Mr Cruddas was appointed Tory co-treasurer in June 2011. He said: "I deeply regret any impression of impropriety arising from my bluster in that conversation." The Conservative Party had earlier said it would investigate but pointed out no donation had actually been accepted. Labour has challenged the prime minister to "come clean" about what he knew about the matter, and when he knew of it. In the footage, Mr Cruddas, who is also founder of online trading company Currency Management Consultants Ltd, is heard discussing what access different size donations would get. "Two hundred grand to 250 is Premier League… what you would get is, when we talk about your donations the first thing we want to do is get you at the Cameron/Osborne dinners," he says. "You do really pick up a lot of information and when you see the Prime Minister, you're seeing David Cameron, not the Prime Minister. "But within that room everything is confidential - you can ask him practically any question you want. "If you're unhappy about something, we will listen to you and put it into the policy committee at number 10 - we feed all feedback to the policy committee." A statement from the Tories said: "No donation was ever accepted or even formally considered by the Conservative Party. "All donations to the Conservative Party have to comply with requirements of electoral law, and these are strictly enforced by our compliance department." Resignation statement Following his resignation in the early hours of Sunday morning, Mr Cruddas released a statement which said: "I only took up the post of principal Treasurer of the Party at the beginning of the month and was keen to meet anyone potentially interested in donating. "As a result, and without consulting any politicians or senior officials in the party, I had an initial conversation with Zenith. No further action was taken by the party. "Clearly there is no question of donors being able to influence policy or gain undue access to politicians. "Specifically, it was categorically not the case that I could offer, or that David Cameron would consider, any access as a result of a donation. Similarly, I have never knowingly even met anyone from the Number 10 policy unit." He went on to say that in order to make this position "clear beyond doubt" he had decided to resign. Labour MP Michael Dugher said: "Time and again the Tory party has been the obstacle to capping donations from wealthy individuals. Now it appears obvious why. "David Cameron should come clean. Will the PM say exactly what he knew and when about an apparent effort to sell access and influence in Downing Street?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 Disgusting behaviour and entirely right that he has resigned, seemingly this lot are no better than Blair's government when it comes to financial donations. What is it with politicians and never learning that this stuff always gets out in the end, is it so hard not to be corrupt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 I think its time someone was prosecuted. This one would be a good start. He should not be allowed to work in politics again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts