|
Post by mcf on Oct 3, 2014 9:47:22 GMT
I've seen laziness aplenty with my own eyes so it most certainly isn't a fabrication. There will be always unfortunate isolated incidents and I think it's wrong to blame the Tories for them. People died in Stafford in the NHS under Labour's watch and if I wanted to apply the same logic as you then I'd say that I could easily justifying never voting Labour on the basis that they will cause the death of people too couldn't I!? Never mind the other 101 reasons why I would never vote the usless fuckpigs That is your logic, in almost all cases! (I put an exclamation mark, but I'm not joking). I remember you arguing against the well accepted fact (by John Redwood amongst others (he's a Tory btw to save you checking)) that the NHS had declined in quality under the 18 years of the last Tory governments and needed investment by simply saying you had used it personally and it seemed perfectly ok! Never mind what anyone else's experience might have been or looking at things like waiting lists, mortality rates, crumbling hospitals etc, you were ok so it must have been ok too. Hmmm, I'm ok, so nothing else is of importance....I detect a theme there! I think I'd be foolish to ignore many of my own personal experiences on a variety of issues. I simply didn't accept the fact that it was destroyed under the Tories just as I don't think it was destroyed under Labour just because lots of people died in Stafford. Labour didn't destroy but simply threw bucketfuls of money at it for a return that simply wasn't good enough. Since you are so good at remembering things you should remember that you didn't care about the money being unproductively spent - which was a common theme that we all detected from you as well. I've always been a 'value for money' kind of a guy and I'd happily take a lesser product as long as I got value for money. The same kind of mentality Thatcher used when she kitted out Downing Street.
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Oct 3, 2014 9:50:41 GMT
So OVER 19 BILLION worth of public owned services being sold off doesn't constitute an NHS sell off to you? Fair enough if you consider the figure to low to bother with. are they sold off or external contracts because there is a difference. if they are outside contracts for set periods then to call them privatisation is scaremongering most departments in the public sector have outside contracts i would expect more than 19bn to be contracted out What??? The NHS don't actually make all those bic biros used by the plethora of useless middle managers set on New Labour???? ...or have their very own steelworks to make the instruments??? ...surely their very own labs to make their own drugs, pills etc ????? Whatever next
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 3, 2014 10:03:01 GMT
are they sold off or external contracts because there is a difference. if they are outside contracts for set periods then to call them privatisation is scaremongering most departments in the public sector have outside contracts i would expect more than 19bn to be contracted out What??? The NHS don't actually make all those bic biros used by the plethora of useless middle managers set on New Labour???? ...or have their very own steelworks to make the instruments??? ...surely their very own labs to make their own drugs, pills etc ????? Whatever next exactly so external contracts are scaremongering the public into a privatisation that does not exist
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Oct 3, 2014 13:39:32 GMT
The healthcare budget is £140 billion a year, you have provided a list of contracts totalling £19 billion presumably these are 3,5,10 year or whatever contracts so in actual fact it is a tiny proportion of the overall budget. I've also read the other links and the list of services includes pharmacy, home care and other non critical medical services, purchasing and administration etc etc So to me it's not quite the privatisation of the NHS that is being made out, the NHS pays companies to provide services to the NHS so they retain “ownership”, to me privatisation is the wholesale selling off like BT, British Gas this is more akin to outsourcing. So no not enough to demonstrate the scaremongering about the privatisation of the NHS. So OVER 19 BILLION worth of public owned services being sold off doesn't constitute an NHS sell off to you? Fair enough if you consider the figure to low to bother with. Sorry, I just thought you were just asking for proof that it was happening because the tories keep saying it isn't. The services haven't been sold off though have they, the NHS has outsourced them you don't pay Serco to come and visit your gran the NHS does. 19 billion out of a budget of 140 billion is over 10% I think there would be some redundancies and hospital closures if that was the case but it isn't, the only hospital closures are down to the rising cost of PFI which is also the driving force for these contracts being tendered to save cost without cutting the service. The 19 billion is as I say probably more likely out of 5 years so say £700 billion so hardly two steps away from cash machines in A&E as some would have you believe. I asked for examples of privatisation on a scale comparable with GP practices or the now ownership of hospitals.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2014 17:43:46 GMT
That is your logic, in almost all cases! (I put an exclamation mark, but I'm not joking). I remember you arguing against the well accepted fact (by John Redwood amongst others (he's a Tory btw to save you checking)) that the NHS had declined in quality under the 18 years of the last Tory governments and needed investment by simply saying you had used it personally and it seemed perfectly ok! Never mind what anyone else's experience might have been or looking at things like waiting lists, mortality rates, crumbling hospitals etc, you were ok so it must have been ok too. Hmmm, I'm ok, so nothing else is of importance....I detect a theme there! I think I'd be foolish to ignore many of my own personal experiences on a variety of issues. I simply didn't accept the fact that it was destroyed under the Tories just as I don't think it was destroyed under Labour just because lots of people died in Stafford. Labour didn't destroy but simply threw bucketfuls of money at it for a return that simply wasn't good enough. Since you are so good at remembering things you should remember that you didn't care about the money being unproductively spent - which was a common theme that we all detected from you as well. I've always been a 'value for money' kind of a guy and I'd happily take a lesser product as long as I got value for money. The same kind of mentality Thatcher used when she kitted out Downing Street. I didn't say that. I said that's about as far as it gets in terms of your understanding on so many issues. I never said anything about it being destroyed, (why the silly hyperbole all the time?) - just widely acknowledged (on boths sides) large scale under-investment, which you chose to deny because your own personal experience was ok! Yes, I think spending money on the NHS to improve it was a good thing. Most people accept it did improve. Clearly not enough for your liking, but as you've also said previously, you'd rather not have any government spending at all until the national debt is reduced to zero, so I suspect you're probably biased against any form of spending which doesn't result in 100% effectiveness and 0% wastage, simply because you don't want the money spent in the first place. So it will basically never be a good and sensible spend of taxpayers' money in your eyes because those targets are just unrealisable. Btw like I said, all govts waste money, look at the coalition's fuck up of the Royal Mail - £6bn that cost you and me, apparently, twice as much as Brown apparently lost on his infamous gold sale. No doubt this was all Vince Cable's fault and nothing to do with the Chancellor and business secretary! They were looking the other way no doubt. How convenient, but also how inconsistent since the bank failures and subsequent recession were mainly Labour's fault since they were in charge at that time! I wonder how vocal you were on that particular waste of taxpayers' money at the time. And Osborne's continuing reliance on PFI? Anything to say there? You are biased, you're right about that one thing
|
|
|
Post by swampySCFC on Oct 3, 2014 18:00:23 GMT
I think it's a good idea. I work hard to earn my money and investments. I hate to think if I die my money will go to some dole scum tosser
|
|
|
Post by kbillyh on Oct 3, 2014 20:01:08 GMT
So OVER 19 BILLION worth of public owned services being sold off doesn't constitute an NHS sell off to you? Fair enough if you consider the figure to low to bother with. Sorry, I just thought you were just asking for proof that it was happening because the tories keep saying it isn't. The services haven't been sold off though have they, the NHS has outsourced them you don't pay Serco to come and visit your gran the NHS does. 19 billion out of a budget of 140 billion is over 10% I think there would be some redundancies and hospital closures if that was the case but it isn't, the only hospital closures are down to the rising cost of PFI which is also the driving force for these contracts being tendered to save cost without cutting the service. The 19 billion is as I say probably more likely out of 5 years so say £700 billion so hardly two steps away from cash machines in A&E as some would have you believe. I asked for examples of privatisation on a scale comparable with GP practices or the now ownership of hospitals. So you would prefer to class the privatisation as outsourcing, I disagree. For me outsourcing is a competition between contractors for work the government never intended to do in-house. At the moment it is done in house and after "outsourcing" the private comapnies will take money from the same pot for the services they provide thus intending to make a profit for their shareholders, which will be their main priority........ This opposed to the way it is now, where the priority is for the care of the patients. You accept that hospitals are closing due to the association of Private companies being involved within the NHS, can you not forsee other conflicts of interest occurring anywhere.... Like patient care before profit perhaps? And redundancies are happening. You see when they are "outsourced" the staff are paid off and in some cases re-employed by the private sector on lower wages, longer hours, no pensions etc, thus lowering their moral and in turn affecting the front-line end results of the service involved. The only winners in this are going to be the fat cats this will create and the shareholders of the companies involved, and long term, it will be the taxpayers paying the price and patients suffering the corner cutting. Lives will be lost, the cost to the working class will be massive. It goes against everything the NHS was set up for in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2014 20:26:18 GMT
Genius from Cassetteboy once again
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Oct 6, 2014 11:55:14 GMT
I think I'd be foolish to ignore many of my own personal experiences on a variety of issues. I simply didn't accept the fact that it was destroyed under the Tories just as I don't think it was destroyed under Labour just because lots of people died in Stafford. Labour didn't destroy but simply threw bucketfuls of money at it for a return that simply wasn't good enough. Since you are so good at remembering things you should remember that you didn't care about the money being unproductively spent - which was a common theme that we all detected from you as well. I've always been a 'value for money' kind of a guy and I'd happily take a lesser product as long as I got value for money. The same kind of mentality Thatcher used when she kitted out Downing Street. I didn't say that. I said that's about as far as it gets in terms of your understanding on so many issues. I never said anything about it being destroyed, (why the silly hyperbole all the time?) - just widely acknowledged (on boths sides) large scale under-investment, which you chose to deny because your own personal experience was ok! Yes, I think spending money on the NHS to improve it was a good thing. Most people accept it did improve. Clearly not enough for your liking, but as you've also said previously, you'd rather not have any government spending at all until the national debt is reduced to zero, so I suspect you're probably biased against any form of spending which doesn't result in 100% effectiveness and 0% wastage, simply because you don't want the money spent in the first place. So it will basically never be a good and sensible spend of taxpayers' money in your eyes because those targets are just unrealisable. Btw like I said, all govts waste money, look at the coalition's fuck up of the Royal Mail - £6bn that cost you and me, apparently, twice as much as Brown apparently lost on his infamous gold sale. No doubt this was all Vince Cable's fault and nothing to do with the Chancellor and business secretary! They were looking the other way no doubt. How convenient, but also how inconsistent since the bank failures and subsequent recession were mainly Labour's fault since they were in charge at that time! I wonder how vocal you were on that particular waste of taxpayers' money at the time. And Osborne's continuing reliance on PFI? Anything to say there? You are biased, you're right about that one thing "I’ve answered this before. I don’t mind. What I want the country to vote for is a party that offers financially viable choices. I’m not saying that spending money on the NHS was wrong or not required either...merely that it had to be paid for. We haven’t been able to afford some of the things that we want for some time yet Labour bombed on regardless and now even argue against the most minor of cuts." I didn't deny it...this was what I actually put above. Don't you get bored of misquoting and misquoting and misquoting.....
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Oct 13, 2014 5:17:55 GMT
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 13, 2014 9:33:31 GMT
that article shows despite continued record funding that the NHS has been mismanaged for years id love to see tony blair, gordon brown and the rest of their lot admit their mistakes in government it would need in a bumper edition of the times, and probably result in criminal trials and prison sentances
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2014 12:25:04 GMT
Now they are going to sell off our stake of eurostar(a rare success) to their city chums, another royal mail carve up!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2014 13:30:08 GMT
Now they are going to sell off our stake of eurostar(a rare success) to their city chums, another royal mail carve up! Which was actually first proposed by Gordon Brown; and the full list of assets including the nuclear firm Urenco, blood company Plasma UK, part of the Student Loan portfolio and also included Royal Mail; may also include Met Office, Commonwealth Development Corporation, Channel 4. All of which are being used to provide public investment of £100Bn of planned, major projects including energy, road, rail and flood defense... which supplements the other £275Bn of private investment over the same period. Or...no...we could keep hold of our part of Eurostar. A rare 'success' in that by 2010 it had racked up losses in total of £2.6Bn and it's fantastic news that last year we probably got about £20M of the record profits. Only another 130 years at that rate and we'll get our money back! I'd far prefer us to have a full review of the assets that are currently held and if we can sell some assets to fund other major developments which will bring us far higher returns over the next 20 years, as well as helping to create huge numbers of jobs in the process, I'm all for it regardless of political persuasion. Edit...it was less than £8M we got for our part...only another 325 years to repay - woohoo!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2014 19:48:33 GMT
Now they are going to sell off our stake of eurostar(a rare success) to their city chums, another royal mail carve up! Which was actually first proposed by Gordon Brown; and the full list of assets including the nuclear firm Urenco, blood company Plasma UK, part of the Student Loan portfolio and also included Royal Mail; may also include Met Office, Commonwealth Development Corporation, Channel 4. All of which are being used to provide public investment of £100Bn of planned, major projects including energy, road, rail and flood defense... which supplements the other £275Bn of private investment over the same period. Or...no...we could keep hold of our part of Eurostar. A rare 'success' in that by 2010 it had racked up losses in total of £2.6Bn and it's fantastic news that last year we probably got about £20M of the record profits. Only another 130 years at that rate and we'll get our money back! I'd far prefer us to have a full review of the assets that are currently held and if we can sell some assets to fund other major developments which will bring us far higher returns over the next 20 years, as well as helping to create huge numbers of jobs in the process, I'm all for it regardless of political persuasion. Edit...it was less than £8M we got for our part...only another 325 years to repay - woohoo! i never go by figures bandied about, they are usually bollox and wouldnt be surprised if they had been fabricated.one thing for sure is passenger numbers are on an upward curve and will probably continue to do so. but my point is they will sell our stake for very little so their friends in the city can make another tidy little profit. same as the scandalous royal mail share offer. still not sure how they got away with that one!!!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2014 7:08:24 GMT
Which was actually first proposed by Gordon Brown; and the full list of assets including the nuclear firm Urenco, blood company Plasma UK, part of the Student Loan portfolio and also included Royal Mail; may also include Met Office, Commonwealth Development Corporation, Channel 4. All of which are being used to provide public investment of £100Bn of planned, major projects including energy, road, rail and flood defense... which supplements the other £275Bn of private investment over the same period. Or...no...we could keep hold of our part of Eurostar. A rare 'success' in that by 2010 it had racked up losses in total of £2.6Bn and it's fantastic news that last year we probably got about £20M of the record profits. Only another 130 years at that rate and we'll get our money back! I'd far prefer us to have a full review of the assets that are currently held and if we can sell some assets to fund other major developments which will bring us far higher returns over the next 20 years, as well as helping to create huge numbers of jobs in the process, I'm all for it regardless of political persuasion. Edit...it was less than £8M we got for our part...only another 325 years to repay - woohoo! i never go by figures bandied about, they are usually bollox and wouldnt be surprised if they had been fabricated.one thing for sure is passenger numbers are on an upward curve and will probably continue to do so. but my point is they will sell our stake for very little so their friends in the city can make another tidy little profit. same as the scandalous royal mail share offer. still not sure how they got away with that one!!! First, they aren't just 'figures banded about' - they are published, audited accounts. £8M a year as it stands for a £300M investment is quite a low return and there for very long term investors only. In terms of making another tidy little profit, their 'friends in the city' include any average Joe who also wanted to invest; and you and I could have done the same and made tidy little profits ourselves if we too wanted to play the game. Nobody has got away with anything yet either, it is currently being reviewed by the Department for Business and Innovation. There's a lot of moaning about this lost £1Bn and advice that the IPO should have been set higher. Goldman Sachs, for example, suggested 610p - which was hugely over-valued and I can just imagine the uproar if it had been set at that but didn't achieve it... "pricing out the average person from investing and only serving to benefit their friends in the city" would have been the cry up and down the country. Or, they could have followed other advice and offered it as low as around 220p. They got a range of valuations, knocked off the highest and lowest and then took the rest to form their range...the top end being the final IPO valuation. It's quite easy in hindsight to say that it was set wrong, we could have got more from it...very easy indeed to after the first day of trading to say it should have been set higher. But it follows the stories of many other IPO's, which are either priced just low enough to catch a huge amount of interest which sets prices soaring... or just too high to put off many and see prices fall.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2014 18:02:38 GMT
dont get me started on the tories and privatasion.the wealthy did very nice out of gas,water,leccy etc oh yes even poor people could apply and some did but unfortunatly thanks to maggies policies most working class workers didnt have the cash to spare. and now we are all reaping the rewards of poorer service and higher bills.the tories look after their own allways have allways will.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2014 19:26:59 GMT
I didn't say that. I said that's about as far as it gets in terms of your understanding on so many issues. I never said anything about it being destroyed, (why the silly hyperbole all the time?) - just widely acknowledged (on boths sides) large scale under-investment, which you chose to deny because your own personal experience was ok! Yes, I think spending money on the NHS to improve it was a good thing. Most people accept it did improve. Clearly not enough for your liking, but as you've also said previously, you'd rather not have any government spending at all until the national debt is reduced to zero, so I suspect you're probably biased against any form of spending which doesn't result in 100% effectiveness and 0% wastage, simply because you don't want the money spent in the first place. So it will basically never be a good and sensible spend of taxpayers' money in your eyes because those targets are just unrealisable. Btw like I said, all govts waste money, look at the coalition's fuck up of the Royal Mail - £6bn that cost you and me, apparently, twice as much as Brown apparently lost on his infamous gold sale. No doubt this was all Vince Cable's fault and nothing to do with the Chancellor and business secretary! They were looking the other way no doubt. How convenient, but also how inconsistent since the bank failures and subsequent recession were mainly Labour's fault since they were in charge at that time! I wonder how vocal you were on that particular waste of taxpayers' money at the time. And Osborne's continuing reliance on PFI? Anything to say there? You are biased, you're right about that one thing "I’ve answered this before. I don’t mind. What I want the country to vote for is a party that offers financially viable choices. I’m not saying that spending money on the NHS was wrong or not required either...merely that it had to be paid for. We haven’t been able to afford some of the things that we want for some time yet Labour bombed on regardless and now even argue against the most minor of cuts." I didn't deny it...this was what I actually put above. Don't you get bored of misquoting and misquoting and misquoting..... Ah, the old Followyoudown response - it's all lies and misquotes! I don't think so, more a case of you once again not remembering what you've said previously! Re the NHS after I'd provided evidence and quotes from the likes of arch-rightwinger John Redwood to the effect that the NHS had been under-invested in during the Tories, you said it seemed ok under the Tories because your personal experience was ok! Leaving to one side that rather embarrassingly simplistic analysis, if that isn't denying the well documented problems the NHS suffered until investment was put in, I don't know what is! Do you not remember saying you didn't want any government spending at all on any public services (health, education, welfare, transport, defence, etc) until the national debt was zero? I do
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Oct 15, 2014 12:45:45 GMT
"I’ve answered this before. I don’t mind. What I want the country to vote for is a party that offers financially viable choices. I’m not saying that spending money on the NHS was wrong or not required either...merely that it had to be paid for. We haven’t been able to afford some of the things that we want for some time yet Labour bombed on regardless and now even argue against the most minor of cuts." I didn't deny it...this was what I actually put above. Don't you get bored of misquoting and misquoting and misquoting..... Ah, the old Followyoudown response - it's all lies and misquotes! I don't think so, more a case of you once again not remembering what you've said previously! Re the NHS after I'd provided evidence and quotes from the likes of arch-rightwinger John Redwood to the effect that the NHS had been under-invested in during the Tories, you said it seemed ok under the Tories because your personal experience was ok! Leaving to one side that rather embarrassingly simplistic analysis, if that isn't denying the well documented problems the NHS suffered until investment was put in, I don't know what is! Do you not remember saying you didn't want any government spending at all on any public services (health, education, welfare, transport, defence, etc) until the national debt was zero? I do I'll provide quotes about what i actually said and you just tell us all what you 'remember'.... Ask the patients of Stafford how the 'investment' suited them and yes, I do remember saying that I would cut government spending until the national debt was zero.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Oct 15, 2014 13:11:57 GMT
dont get me started on the tories and privatasion.the wealthy did very nice out of gas,water,leccy etc oh yes even poor people could apply and some did but unfortunatly thanks to maggies policies most working class workers didnt have the cash to spare. and now we are all reaping the rewards of poorer service and higher bills.the tories look after their own allways have allways will. That's a new one on me Maggie introduced a policy to stop the working class buying shares Lucky she never introduced a policy to stop the working class smoking, drinking or going to the football And you're having a laugh if you think the service is poorer as for higher bills try looking at Labour's green taxes and investments in new power plants, sewers etc
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Oct 15, 2014 13:17:39 GMT
dont get me started on the tories and privatasion.the wealthy did very nice out of gas,water,leccy etc oh yes even poor people could apply and some did but unfortunatly thanks to maggies policies most working class workers didnt have the cash to spare. and now we are all reaping the rewards of poorer service and higher bills.the tories look after their own allways have allways will. That's a new one on me Maggie introduced a policy to stop the working class buying shares Lucky she never introduced a policy to stop the working class smoking, drinking or going to the football And you're having a laugh if you think the service is poorer as for higher bills try looking at Labour's green taxes and investments in new power plants, sewers etc I know Lukey will bollock me for using a real life example and personal experience but my Grandad (God rest his soul) bought his council house off Maggie for a bargain and made a fucking fortune out of her privatisation.... ...and voted Labour all his life. That is Stoke on Trent gratitude for you.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Oct 15, 2014 13:30:54 GMT
That's a new one on me Maggie introduced a policy to stop the working class buying shares Lucky she never introduced a policy to stop the working class smoking, drinking or going to the football And you're having a laugh if you think the service is poorer as for higher bills try looking at Labour's green taxes and investments in new power plants, sewers etc I know Lukey will bollock me for using a real life example and personal experience but my Grandad (God rest his soul) bought his council house off Maggie for a bargain and made a fucking fortune out of her privatisation.... ...and voted Labour all his life. That is Stoke on Trent gratitude for you. Just add a few graphs will keep him amused for hours
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2014 14:06:46 GMT
dont get me started on the tories and privatasion.the wealthy did very nice out of gas,water,leccy etc oh yes even poor people could apply and some did but unfortunatly thanks to maggies policies most working class workers didnt have the cash to spare. and now we are all reaping the rewards of poorer service and higher bills.the tories look after their own allways have allways will. That's a new one on me Maggie introduced a policy to stop the working class buying shares Lucky she never introduced a policy to stop the working class smoking, drinking or going to the football And you're having a laugh if you think the service is poorer as for higher bills try looking at Labour's green taxes and investments in new power plants, sewers etc i think you will find it was a very hard time for the working classes under maggie.if you hadnt allready lost your job[pits,steel,pots]you were constantly told by your bosses[wherever you worked]that your job was under threat.therefore having to constantly accept low wage rises in a sort of take it or fuck off way.finding the money to invest was extremely difficult. i know all about this i had first hand experience of it and i did have a celebratory drink when the evil old witch snuffed it.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2014 16:45:11 GMT
Ah, the old Followyoudown response - it's all lies and misquotes! I don't think so, more a case of you once again not remembering what you've said previously! Re the NHS after I'd provided evidence and quotes from the likes of arch-rightwinger John Redwood to the effect that the NHS had been under-invested in during the Tories, you said it seemed ok under the Tories because your personal experience was ok! Leaving to one side that rather embarrassingly simplistic analysis, if that isn't denying the well documented problems the NHS suffered until investment was put in, I don't know what is! Do you not remember saying you didn't want any government spending at all on any public services (health, education, welfare, transport, defence, etc) until the national debt was zero? I do I'll provide quotes about what i actually said and you just tell us all what you 'remember'.... Ask the patients of Stafford how the 'investment' suited them and yes, I do remember saying that I would cut government spending until the national debt was zero. No, you said you'd have no government spending until the national debt was zero - quite a difference. I asked that specific question and your reply was "Why not?". Or do you not remember again? So, to be clear, absolutely no funding for the NHS, schools, transport etc etc under mcf's plan for the country until the national debt was zero. The compassionate, caring and considerate Tory revealed in full effect, no wonder you lot get labelled the nasty party
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2014 16:56:34 GMT
Surely not! Only Labour governments waste money. Tory governments are super-efficient, that's how they can keep services going at tip top level while still cutting taxes which fund them, through eliminating all this Labour wastage. Who'd have thought it could happen under all governments?!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2014 17:00:52 GMT
I know Lukey will bollock me for using a real life example and personal experience but my Grandad (God rest his soul) bought his council house off Maggie for a bargain and made a fucking fortune out of her privatisation.... ...and voted Labour all his life. That is Stoke on Trent gratitude for you. Just add a few graphs will keep him amused for hours Oooh, no, don't try to support an argument using evidence, heaven forbid, especially if you believe that "only fools use the reports of others" right, FYD? A misquote, no doubt No, better off forgetting what you've said previously, making unsupported assertions and hoping no-one challenges your lack of understanding, right
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Oct 15, 2014 18:35:18 GMT
Just add a few graphs will keep him amused for hours Oooh, no, don't try to support an argument using evidence, heaven forbid, especially if you believe that "only fools use the reports of others" right, FYD? A misquote, no doubt No, better off forgetting what you've said previously, making unsupported assertions and hoping no-one challenges your lack of understanding, right Or perhaps you could endlessly quote a report as fact to prove how Labour improved the NHS up until it's pointed out the small print actually says it's just what some bloke thinks than never mention it again.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2014 19:25:48 GMT
Hmmm, unless it was a robot what wrote the report, it's always what the author thinks Usually, however, there's a sizeable difference between reliably gathered evidenced reporting and, say, what Jesse Ventura might reckon, or some bloke thinking his limited personal experience and understanding is enough to form a reliable conclusion on something as a whole. There's plenty of reliable, independent research out there which shows that the gains made in health care quality and range under the last government are starting to be lost under this one. The Nuffield Trust, Health Foundation, Quality Watch, all independent and just three places to start if you want to see whether Labour improved the Health Service or not... Or you could just be daft and point to Stafford as a demonstration that the whole thing was one big waste of money and didn't improve overall at all. A bit like saying just cos Brek Shea is a bit shit, the whole team is equally shit. Such a shame that some folk think that anyone referencing the reports of others is a fool, but then if avoiding independent evidence is your thing, I guess that's the way to think.
|
|
|
Post by kbillyh on Oct 15, 2014 19:49:56 GMT
That's a new one on me Maggie introduced a policy to stop the working class buying shares Lucky she never introduced a policy to stop the working class smoking, drinking or going to the football And you're having a laugh if you think the service is poorer as for higher bills try looking at Labour's green taxes and investments in new power plants, sewers etc I know Lukey will bollock me for using a real life example and personal experience but my Grandad (God rest his soul) bought his council house off Maggie for a bargain and made a fucking fortune out of her privatisation.... ...and voted Labour all his life. That is Stoke on Trent gratitude for you. Good for him. Hope his Grandchildren/Great Grandchildren haven't found themselves on a waiting list for social housing due to the lack of it being available now. Mind you, it'd probably be the fault of all them asylum seekers if they did.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 15, 2014 20:00:37 GMT
I know Lukey will bollock me for using a real life example and personal experience but my Grandad (God rest his soul) bought his council house off Maggie for a bargain and made a fucking fortune out of her privatisation.... ...and voted Labour all his life. That is Stoke on Trent gratitude for you. Good for him. Hope his Grandchildren/Great Grandchildren haven't found themselves on a waiting list for social housing due to the lack of it being available now. Mind you, it'd probably be the fault of all them asylum seekers if they did. How much social/council housing did brown and Blair build in the boom years
|
|
|
Post by kbillyh on Oct 15, 2014 20:07:24 GMT
Good for him. Hope his Grandchildren/Great Grandchildren haven't found themselves on a waiting list for social housing due to the lack of it being available now. Mind you, it'd probably be the fault of all them asylum seekers if they did. How much social/council housing did brown and Blair build in the boom years Why mention that? Instantly defensive, assuming i'm some kind of Labour man just having a dig at the tories per chance? Like that justifies anything. Get a grip Salop.
|
|