|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2019 23:19:06 GMT
So they weren’t considering what hinders US goods being sold in the UK across a number of sectors such as those pesky food standards we have and patent issues that hinder them selling their drugs in the UK? They weren’t evidence of talks being held that the government denied and it was so good that as soon as the NHS was mentioned the said “no we are not discussing the NHS”. I agree “sell off” is misleading. It would be have been more accurate to say “exploring ways to use your taxpayer money to pay US companies to provide services and drugs to the NHS”... They were preliminary talks (not carried out by ministers), there was a clear sector opt out option for any party when actual talks begin. I didn't see anything ruled out by the USA at this point either, did you? Do you think they wont have any trade Red lines? It was simply a discussion to agree a structure of negotiations. Labour lies, lies, lies! Yes it said the US expected everything to be on the table. The NHS was not ruled out and yet the US ruled out certain climate change measures on their side as Congress wouldn’t allow it. Did you miss that bit?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2019 23:21:51 GMT
What if the US drugs were cheaper and more readily available? I posted something similar a while back Numpty. 9 months ago we were told that because of BREXIT there will be a shortage of drugs and people will die..." Can you cope with the guilt when children díe because of what you have done?' The agenda has changed, now the Americans can't wait to get drugs to us..... both positions can't be true. If there isn’t a trade deal in place when Brexit happens then yes there would be issues and if there had been a hard Brexit and border issues weren’t sorted then again there would be issues. They aren’t mutually exclusive?
|
|
|
Post by numpty40 on Nov 28, 2019 23:23:53 GMT
Maybe just maybe in the desperate plight she finds herself reaching out for someone who can make a difference she doesn't even consider Jeremy Corbyn. That is the true scale of how fucking wretched Corbyn is to the Labour party. Maybe, maybe, there is no helping her at the present time. If she thinks Boris and the Tories are going to help her in her plight, the game is up all round. It reminded me of a robust discussion I had at school some years ago. Not long after the London bombings. A lad who was convinced that the bombers were Muslim and all Muslims were bad, and there was no telling him that the bombers were British. If someone is in the predicament you describe and she still votes Boris then it is a very sad indictment of Jez and the Labour Party.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Nov 28, 2019 23:29:07 GMT
I don't think that they " sold out" myself. Shame that the Tories don't stand down in the 200 seats that they can't possibly win and that some Labour voters are not blindly loyal to the party, in my opinion..... This contract should be acceptable to Labour voters...... The way the political Establishment has conspired to frustrate democracy over Brexit has highlighted the need for fundamental political reform. The Brexit Party can deliver real democratic change because we are not part of the Westminster status quo. It is now time for a debate on a written constitution. We pledge to: • Reform the voting system to make it more representative. • Abolish the unelected House of Lords. • Make MPs who switch parties subject to recall petitions. • Overhaul the postal voting system to combat fraud and abuse. • Reform the Supreme Court – judges who play a role in politics must be subject to political scrutiny. Ensure political balance by broadening participation in the Selection Commission or conduct interviews by Parliamentary Committee. • Make the Civil Service more accountable to the public – we would require civil servants to sign an oath to act with political neutrality. • Phase out the BBC licence fee. • Require Universities to incorporate an obligation to protect legal free speech. • Introduce Citizens’ Initiatives to allow people to call referendums, subject to a 5m threshold of registered voter signatures and time limitations on repeat votes. Did they write that they can "deliver real democratic change" before or after they stood down their candidates to help one of the existing major parties to maintain the status quo? Some of the policies are decent, but it's high on ideology and very low on details of how to get it done and how it will be paid for. That is to say, even lower than the other parties. In addition to abolishing the H of L ... The Brexit Party supports policies aimed at regional regeneration, supporting key sectors of the economy and targeted investments in the young, the High Street and families. We pledge to: • Raise £200bn by: – Scrapping HS2 – Keeping the £13bn annual EU contribution – Recovering our £7bn from the EIB – Redirecting 50% of the foreign aid budget (£40bn over a five-year term). ...... What's more I would trust Farage and the BREXIT party to deliver what they say more than the 3 main parties. I believe that more of the Brexit party candidates have had careers in business, " can-do" people rather than inward looking career politicians who can talk a good game, and like preserving their own self importance by ' getting the other side". The decision to step down was to some extent politically forced upon the party...at this stage it seems to have focussed Labour's mind and to some extent sidelined their campaign in my opinion.... aren't there rumours that Labour are reconsidering their approach in their OWN traditional heartlands....as far as conviction politics are concerned they certainly have lost the plot.
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Nov 28, 2019 23:29:49 GMT
One thing that seems indisputable from these Labour NHS documents is that the US are interested in the NHS in any trade deal. This seemed fairly logical and obvious previously but was called "project fear" in the post-Brexit simplistic bullshit that was peddled by the some of the more extreme Brexiteers.
So the question for voters is a) do you think the NHS needs protecting from the US trade deal b) if you do think it needs protecting, who do you trust most to protect it - the Conservatives or Labour?
|
|
|
Post by algor on Nov 28, 2019 23:30:04 GMT
You should know better than this really. Posting links to newspaper articles is amateur, I am sure if I posted links to articles in the Daily Mail you would find it equally amusing. You are getting into MoMo's "the Gaurdian is fact" lunacy. I know posting a link which directly quotes an article Boris wrote himself in the Telegraph is lunacy. Would the Telegraph article itself make it better or do we not even believe articles written by the man himself: www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/0/snap-crackle-pop-view-nhs/amp/ Haha, a fifteen year old article, Jezza's done a few as well, no point at all in trading newspaper articles. You could do it all night and resolve nothing.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Nov 28, 2019 23:31:02 GMT
I posted something similar a while back Numpty. 9 months ago we were told that because of BREXIT there will be a shortage of drugs and people will die..." Can you cope with the guilt when children díe because of what you have done?' The agenda has changed, now the Americans can't wait to get drugs to us..... both positions can't be true. If there isn’t a trade deal in place when Brexit happens then yes there would be issues and if there had been a hard Brexit and border issues weren’t sorted then again there would be issues. They aren’t mutually exclusive? Trading can take place irrespective of a fully comprehensive trade deal.The border issue is irrelevant in this respect
|
|
|
Post by algor on Nov 28, 2019 23:35:55 GMT
One thing that seems indisputable from these Labour NHS documents is that the US are interested in the NHS in any trade deal. This seemed fairly logical and obvious previously but was called "project fear" in the post-Brexit simplistic bullshit that was peddled by the some of the more extreme Brexiteers. So the question for voters is a) do you think the NHS needs protecting from the US trade deal b) if you do think it needs protecting, who do you trust most to protect it - the Conservatives or Labour? In simple terms I wouldn't trust Labour with a house plant! I would be in favour of ensuring that the NHS could never be used as a political football and that it's future was always guaranteed! How would you propose to do this under a majority based commons democracy? I am all ears as I would be all for it.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Nov 28, 2019 23:38:48 GMT
One thing that seems indisputable from these Labour NHS documents is that the US are interested in the NHS in any trade deal. This seemed fairly logical and obvious previously but was called "project fear" in the post-Brexit simplistic bullshit that was peddled by the some of the more extreme Brexiteers. So the question for voters is a) do you think the NHS needs protecting from the US trade deal b) if you do think it needs protecting, who do you trust most to protect it - the Conservatives or Labour? As Numpty says, it would depend upon the reality not the fear.....Any sensible organisation would protect its own self interests and strengths ( as the French and German led EU does).... Whoever mskes the decisions on behalf of the NHS should protect it..... perhaps if the USA are offering tge same druug at a cheaper price we should take advantage, if not go elsewhere. Perhaps in two or three years time Labour will be in power and they could ensure that it is protected.....I don't think some on the party actually believe that they could win another election.
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Nov 28, 2019 23:40:47 GMT
Did they write that they can "deliver real democratic change" before or after they stood down their candidates to help one of the existing major parties to maintain the status quo? Some of the policies are decent, but it's high on ideology and very low on details of how to get it done and how it will be paid for. That is to say, even lower than the other parties. In addition to abolishing the H of L ... The Brexit Party supports policies aimed at regional regeneration, supporting key sectors of the economy and targeted investments in the young, the High Street and families. We pledge to: • Raise £200bn by: – Scrapping HS2 – Keeping the £13bn annual EU contribution – Recovering our £7bn from the EIB – Redirecting 50% of the foreign aid budget (£40bn over a five-year term). ...... What's more I would trust Farage and the BREXIT party to deliver what they say more than the 3 main parties. I believe that more of the Brexit party candidates have had careers in business, " can-do" people rather than inward looking career politicians who can talk a good game, and like preserving their own self importance by ' getting the other side". The decision to step down was to some extent politically forced upon the party...at this stage it seems to have focussed Labour's mind and yo some extent sidelined their campaign in my opinion.... aren't there rumours that Labour are reconsidering their approach in their OWN traditional heartlands....as far as conviction politics are concerned they certainly have lost the plot. There's a lot of business people who have had careers in other sectors in the other parties as well. The way the BP go on about it you'd think they invented the idea of having a candidate with another career. Farage has essentially sold his principles of a no deal Brexit down the river to try to ensure the establishment stays in place - however much a brave face he puts on it, I think most people can see it for what it is. Of course his diehards will not see it that way, but he's always been a fine political spin artist.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2019 23:43:54 GMT
If there isn’t a trade deal in place when Brexit happens then yes there would be issues and if there had been a hard Brexit and border issues weren’t sorted then again there would be issues. They aren’t mutually exclusive? Trading can take place irrespective of a fully comprehensive trade deal.The border issue is irrelevant in this respect Fair point. I do agree with you that remainers from all parties were exacerbating Brexit issues like the supply of drugs. It’s something they could and should have prepared for and stockpiled and put border measures in place. It was the lack of preparation that was the problem but they didn’t prepare because they knew they were going to stop it. Extending US patents in the UK allows them to sell at a higher price. The NHS gets a much lower price than US companies at the moment for US drugs because they are the main provider. We also have greater access to generic drugs. When you have hospitals competing like in the US the can bump up the costs and make more profit. For example insulin here costs $16 and in the US $250 from the same company. Similar where you can get generic drugs they are cheaper and without a patent people can make generic versions of the same drug. This is what Donald has an issue with and wants to change. I do hope your all right and Boris doesn’t cave but I don’t trust that he won’t. I find it odd that he said he hasn’t been discussed when it has. Why not say they did discuss it but it dismissed and show us where it was ruled out. Why is Donald saying the NHS would be part of a trade deal. If he knows we need a deal we are already at a disadvantage.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Nov 28, 2019 23:44:47 GMT
In addition to abolishing the H of L ... The Brexit Party supports policies aimed at regional regeneration, supporting key sectors of the economy and targeted investments in the young, the High Street and families. We pledge to: • Raise £200bn by: – Scrapping HS2 – Keeping the £13bn annual EU contribution – Recovering our £7bn from the EIB – Redirecting 50% of the foreign aid budget (£40bn over a five-year term). ...... What's more I would trust Farage and the BREXIT party to deliver what they say more than the 3 main parties. I believe that more of the Brexit party candidates have had careers in business, " can-do" people rather than inward looking career politicians who can talk a good game, and like preserving their own self importance by ' getting the other side". The decision to step down was to some extent politically forced upon the party...at this stage it seems to have focussed Labour's mind and yo some extent sidelined their campaign in my opinion.... aren't there rumours that Labour are reconsidering their approach in their OWN traditional heartlands....as far as conviction politics are concerned they certainly have lost the plot. There's a lot of business people who have had careers in other sectors in the other parties as well. The way the BP go on about it you'd think they invented the idea of having a candidate with another career. Farage has essentially sold his principles of a no deal Brexit down the river to try to ensure the establishment stays in place - however much a brave face he puts on it, I think most people can see it for what it is. Of course his diehards will not see it that way, but he's always been a fine political spin artist. I'm pleased to be a diehard. We might find that mist people still want BREXIT or even want it more than previously I wouldn't write Farage off, the most effective UK politician in the 21st century. Following the election , even if it is a sizable Tory majority it seems that a true BREXIT has still got to be fought for....I think Farage is fully aware of that.
|
|
|
Post by 4372 on Nov 28, 2019 23:46:24 GMT
Maybe, maybe, there is no helping her at the present time. If she thinks Boris and the Tories are going to help her in her plight, the game is up all round. It reminded me of a robust discussion I had at school some years ago. Not long after the London bombings. A lad who was convinced that the bombers were Muslim and all Muslims were bad, and there was no telling him that the bombers were British. If someone is in the predicament you describe and she still votes Boris then it is a very sad indictment of Jez and the Labour Party. Why? Can she not vote Liberal Democrat, Green or Brexit Party then?
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Nov 28, 2019 23:46:58 GMT
One thing that seems indisputable from these Labour NHS documents is that the US are interested in the NHS in any trade deal. This seemed fairly logical and obvious previously but was called "project fear" in the post-Brexit simplistic bullshit that was peddled by the some of the more extreme Brexiteers. So the question for voters is a) do you think the NHS needs protecting from the US trade deal b) if you do think it needs protecting, who do you trust most to protect it - the Conservatives or Labour? In simple terms I wouldn't trust Labour with a house plant! I would be in favour of ensuring that the NHS could never be used as a political football and that it's future was always guaranteed! How would you propose to do this under a majority based commons democracy? I am all ears as I would be all for it. I'm not sure exactly what the question is, but I would say the best way of ensuring the NHS survives is to vote for the party you believe will protect the best. It sounds like you think that will be the Tories.
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Nov 28, 2019 23:48:59 GMT
They knew Gove would have wiped the floor with them. Hey ho. Lol the sent him at the last minute in a panic along with his dad. No-one is scared of the woodland troll Gove. Even people that support Boris know than man is bumbling buffoon. He was 2 years the DEFRA Minister and will be responsible for the Climate Change conference in Scotland next year. When has Corbyn, Swinson or Sturgeon ever held positions like that??
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Nov 28, 2019 23:49:13 GMT
Trading can take place irrespective of a fully comprehensive trade deal.The border issue is irrelevant in this respect Fair point. I do agree with you that remainers from all parties were exacerbating Brexit issues like the supply of drugs. It’s something they could and should have prepared for and stockpiled and put border measures in place. It was the lack of preparation that was the problem but they didn’t prepare because they knew they were going to stop it. Extending US patents in the UK allows them to sell at a higher price. The NHS gets a much lower price than US companies at the moment for US drugs because they are the main provider. We also have greater access to generic drugs. When you have hospitals competing like in the US the can bump up the costs and make more profit. For example insulin here costs $16 and in the US $250 from the same company. Similar where you can get generic drugs they are cheaper and without a patent people can make generic versions of the same drug. This is what Donald has an issue with and wants to change. I do hope your all right and Boris doesn’t cave but I don’t trust that he won’t. I find it odd that he said he hasn’t been discussed when it has. Why not say they did discuss it but it dismissed and show us where it was ruled out. Why is Donald saying the NHS would be part of a trade deal. If he knows we need a deal we are already at a disadvantage. You are making a lot of presumptions about what future arrangements in respect of the EU and USA will be following Brexit. It may or may not be a challenging time.... given Boris's timescale politicians have a year to sort things out....it is equally possible to argue that things should be ok in the end as it is to look at the worst case scenario. It is not blind optimism, but a bit of optimism in the UK would be useful.
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Nov 28, 2019 23:50:00 GMT
There's a lot of business people who have had careers in other sectors in the other parties as well. The way the BP go on about it you'd think they invented the idea of having a candidate with another career. Farage has essentially sold his principles of a no deal Brexit down the river to try to ensure the establishment stays in place - however much a brave face he puts on it, I think most people can see it for what it is. Of course his diehards will not see it that way, but he's always been a fine political spin artist. I'm pleased to be a diehard. We might find that mist people still want BREXIT or even want it more than previously I wouldn't write Farage off, the most effective UK politician in the 21st century. Following the election , even if it is a sizable Tory majority it seems that a true BREXIT has still got to be fought for....I think Farage is fully aware of that. Why fight for it after the election, when you could fight for it in the election and give 17.4m the chance of the Brexit they dreamed of?
|
|
|
Post by algor on Nov 28, 2019 23:53:54 GMT
In simple terms I wouldn't trust Labour with a house plant! I would be in favour of ensuring that the NHS could never be used as a political football and that it's future was always guaranteed! How would you propose to do this under a majority based commons democracy? I am all ears as I would be all for it. I'm not sure exactly what the question is, but I would say the best way of ensuring the NHS survives is to vote for the party you believe will protect the best. It sounds like you think that will be the Tories. The NHS is dependant on the economy so there is no other choice!
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Nov 28, 2019 23:54:48 GMT
I'm pleased to be a diehard. We might find that mist people still want BREXIT or even want it more than previously I wouldn't write Farage off, the most effective UK politician in the 21st century. Following the election , even if it is a sizable Tory majority it seems that a true BREXIT has still got to be fought for....I think Farage is fully aware of that. Why fight for it after the election, when you could fight for it in the election and give 17.4m the chance of the Brexit they dreamed of? Because I think that the party was forced into political expediency...a lot of pressure was put on Farage not to split the Leave vote... with the so called reassurances of Boris Farage was given a way out..... realistically I don't think that they would have won any of the seats from which they have withdrawn....as it stands they will do well to win one seat....but they have certainly got Labour worried in their traditional seats. Whether Boris's BREXIT eventually satisfies us diehards remains to be seen....
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2019 23:58:00 GMT
Fair point. I do agree with you that remainers from all parties were exacerbating Brexit issues like the supply of drugs. It’s something they could and should have prepared for and stockpiled and put border measures in place. It was the lack of preparation that was the problem but they didn’t prepare because they knew they were going to stop it. Extending US patents in the UK allows them to sell at a higher price. The NHS gets a much lower price than US companies at the moment for US drugs because they are the main provider. We also have greater access to generic drugs. When you have hospitals competing like in the US the can bump up the costs and make more profit. For example insulin here costs $16 and in the US $250 from the same company. Similar where you can get generic drugs they are cheaper and without a patent people can make generic versions of the same drug. This is what Donald has an issue with and wants to change. I do hope your all right and Boris doesn’t cave but I don’t trust that he won’t. I find it odd that he said he hasn’t been discussed when it has. Why not say they did discuss it but it dismissed and show us where it was ruled out. Why is Donald saying the NHS would be part of a trade deal. If he knows we need a deal we are already at a disadvantage. You are making a lot of presumptions about what future arrangements in respect of the EU and USA will be following Brexit. It may or may not be a challenging time.... given Boris's timescale politicians have a year to sort things out....it is equally possible to argue that things should be ok in the end as it is to look at the worst case scenario. It is not blind optimism, but a bit of optimism in the UK would be useful. I just think what the Conservatives (and New Labour) did was so misleading with PFI and tendering NHS contracts to private companies. It’s not just about a trade deal. It’s about the ongoing privatisation of the NHS for me. The Conservatives have not said they will stop that. I don’t think healthcare should be for profit and if you allow profit making companies in its a slippery slope. Some might not be too bad but some will just see £££. Luckily NHS England seem to be pushing back on it now as well. So as you say it might not all be doom and gloom but I’d rather not risk it myself.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2019 0:05:04 GMT
I'm not sure exactly what the question is, but I would say the best way of ensuring the NHS survives is to vote for the party you believe will protect the best. It sounds like you think that will be the Tories. The NHS is dependant on the economy so there is no other choice! Why are so many doctors and nurses saying it’s not safe under the Tories and the Tories won’t fix the issues?
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Nov 29, 2019 0:09:36 GMT
You are making a lot of presumptions about what future arrangements in respect of the EU and USA will be following Brexit. It may or may not be a challenging time.... given Boris's timescale politicians have a year to sort things out....it is equally possible to argue that things should be ok in the end as it is to look at the worst case scenario. It is not blind optimism, but a bit of optimism in the UK would be useful. I just think what the Conservatives (and New Labour) did was so misleading with PFI and tendering NHS contracts to private companies. It’s not just about a trade deal. It’s about the ongoing privatisation of the NHS for me. The Conservatives have not said they will stop that. I don’t think healthcare should be for profit and if you allow profit making companies in its a slippery slope. Some might not be too bad but some will just see £££. Luckily NHS England seem to be pushing back on it now as well. So as you say it might not all be doom and gloom but I’d rather not risk it myself. I've been quoting the BREXIT party contract, not the Conservatives. Where Farage is absolutely correct is in the last paragraph...... "Have a national debate on our NHS, involving the public alongside MPs, doctors and experts. We should discuss ring-fencing the NHS budget and the tax revenues that pay for it." The NHS is not free it's very expensive. Health is already rationed by postcode, waiting list and NICE. Some treatments already are possible but not available through the NHS. As we live longer, the definition of health is widened ( to include for example mental health) , expensive advances in medical possibilities increases we need a national debate that makes health care in this country a non political or cross political issue....of course that would not suit Labour ( nor the Tories probably, for different reasons)
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Nov 29, 2019 0:18:38 GMT
It's funny how simple things said in jest can reveal much...and can come back to haunt you. / Be careful (what you post) out there.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2019 0:27:28 GMT
I just think what the Conservatives (and New Labour) did was so misleading with PFI and tendering NHS contracts to private companies. It’s not just about a trade deal. It’s about the ongoing privatisation of the NHS for me. The Conservatives have not said they will stop that. I don’t think healthcare should be for profit and if you allow profit making companies in its a slippery slope. Some might not be too bad but some will just see £££. Luckily NHS England seem to be pushing back on it now as well. So as you say it might not all be doom and gloom but I’d rather not risk it myself. I've been quoting the BREXIT party contract, not the Conservatives. Where Farage is absolutely correct is in the last paragraph...... "Have a national debate on our NHS, involving the public alongside MPs, doctors and experts. We should discuss ring-fencing the NHS budget and the tax revenues that pay for it." The NHS is not free it's very expensive. Health is already rationed by postcode, waiting list and NICE. Some treatments already are possible but not available through the NHS. As we live longer, the definition of health is widened ( to include for example mental health) , expensive advances in medical possibilities increases we need a national debate that makes health care in this country a non political or cross political issue....of course that would not suit Labour ( nor the Tories probably, for different reasons) I know you have. I thought you were responding to my post about a US trade deal. I don’t disagree with most of what the Brexit party have said but what the Brexit party don’t address is privatisation and NHS contracts being tendered to private companies. Like someone else has said the fact that caved to the Tories and stood down in Conservative seats was a big issue for me. I get them “not wanting to split the leave vote” but if you’re standing and want to be recognised a new party they should have stood and not caved to Boris’ demands. George Galloway is standing as a pro-Brexit independent in West Brom. Like him or loathe him I’ve not heard anyone else so clearly put the left case for Leave forward and actually identify with the reasons many working class people voted for leave. It’s the case the Labour Party should have been making all along.
|
|
|
Post by trickydicky73 on Nov 29, 2019 2:50:21 GMT
I've been quoting the BREXIT party contract, not the Conservatives. Where Farage is absolutely correct is in the last paragraph...... "Have a national debate on our NHS, involving the public alongside MPs, doctors and experts. We should discuss ring-fencing the NHS budget and the tax revenues that pay for it." The NHS is not free it's very expensive. Health is already rationed by postcode, waiting list and NICE. Some treatments already are possible but not available through the NHS. As we live longer, the definition of health is widened ( to include for example mental health) , expensive advances in medical possibilities increases we need a national debate that makes health care in this country a non political or cross political issue....of course that would not suit Labour ( nor the Tories probably, for different reasons) I know you have. I thought you were responding to my post about a US trade deal. I don’t disagree with most of what the Brexit party have said but what the Brexit party don’t address is privatisation and NHS contracts being tendered to private companies. Like someone else has said the fact that caved to the Tories and stood down in Conservative seats was a big issue for me. I get them “not wanting to split the leave vote” but if you’re standing and want to be recognised a new party they should have stood and not caved to Boris’ demands. George Galloway is standing as a pro-Brexit independent in West Brom. Like him or loathe him I’ve not heard anyone else so clearly put the left case for Leave forward and actually identify with the reasons many working class people voted for leave. It’s the case the Labour Party should have been making all along. Labour has lost touch with the working class, especially the lowest paid.
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Nov 29, 2019 6:12:31 GMT
I know you have. I thought you were responding to my post about a US trade deal. I don’t disagree with most of what the Brexit party have said but what the Brexit party don’t address is privatisation and NHS contracts being tendered to private companies. Like someone else has said the fact that caved to the Tories and stood down in Conservative seats was a big issue for me. I get them “not wanting to split the leave vote” but if you’re standing and want to be recognised a new party they should have stood and not caved to Boris’ demands. George Galloway is standing as a pro-Brexit independent in West Brom. Like him or loathe him I’ve not heard anyone else so clearly put the left case for Leave forward and actually identify with the reasons many working class people voted for leave. It’s the case the Labour Party should have been making all along. Labour has lost touch with the working class, especially the lowest paid. The Labour leadership has lost touch with the Labour Party.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Nov 29, 2019 6:46:12 GMT
You are making a lot of presumptions about what future arrangements in respect of the EU and USA will be following Brexit. It may or may not be a challenging time.... given Boris's timescale politicians have a year to sort things out....it is equally possible to argue that things should be ok in the end as it is to look at the worst case scenario. It is not blind optimism, but a bit of optimism in the UK would be useful. I just think what the Conservatives (and New Labour) did was so misleading with PFI and tendering NHS contracts to private companies. It’s not just about a trade deal. It’s about the ongoing privatisation of the NHS for me. The Conservatives have not said they will stop that. I don’t think healthcare should be for profit and if you allow profit making companies in its a slippery slope. Some might not be too bad but some will just see £££. Luckily NHS England seem to be pushing back on it now as well. So as you say it might not all be doom and gloom but I’d rather not risk it myself. New Labour hidden conveniently in brackets Labour has crippled the nhs for years with PFIs
|
|
|
Post by dutchstokie on Nov 29, 2019 8:03:10 GMT
No, i'm all for being environmentally friendly, i just do not go in for this alarmism which is based on the absolute worst case, least likely scenarios. If you want to waste billion on useless new energy then you know who to vote for. Why is useless? How you/your kids/their kids and so on going to heat your home when the fossil fuels run out? I suppose it’s best to overpay the oil companies until it completely runs out and then you can start burning your belongings or something. Fossil fuels running out???? If you believe that then you're simply not understanding the sheer size and scale of oil and gas reserves this planet has......but I suppose thats for another debate. I work in the industry fella and believe me theres enough of it to last hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years. The problems of accessing it are the next challenge - which will bring many benefits to this planet. Put your brain in gear before spouting nonsense heh….
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Nov 29, 2019 8:25:34 GMT
I know you have. I thought you were responding to my post about a US trade deal. I don’t disagree with most of what the Brexit party have said but what the Brexit party don’t address is privatisation and NHS contracts being tendered to private companies. Like someone else has said the fact that caved to the Tories and stood down in Conservative seats was a big issue for me. I get them “not wanting to split the leave vote” but if you’re standing and want to be recognised a new party they should have stood and not caved to Boris’ demands. George Galloway is standing as a pro-Brexit independent in West Brom. Like him or loathe him I’ve not heard anyone else so clearly put the left case for Leave forward and actually identify with the reasons many working class people voted for leave. It’s the case the Labour Party should have been making all along. Labour has lost touch with the working class, especially the lowest paid. That may be the case, the outcome will be that the Tories will stamp the lowest paid into an underclass, where foodbanks are part of the welfare state. The workhouse model. The Victorian ghost will be coming in his long johns.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Nov 29, 2019 8:31:09 GMT
Lol the sent him at the last minute in a panic along with his dad. No-one is scared of the woodland troll Gove. Even people that support Boris know than man is bumbling buffoon. He was 2 years the DEFRA Minister and will be responsible for the Climate Change conference in Scotland next year. When has Corbyn, Swinson or Sturgeon ever held positions like that?? Has anyone got a dictionary definition of 'Leader' for Roger? Of course John has summed up what's happening with the bigger issue of the Neil interview. Typical Bullingdon privilege and still the clapping seals refuse to see it. McDonnell said he was “so annoyed” about Boris Johnson not appearing on the BBC to be grilled by Andrew Neil, and that the BBC should be annoyed, too. “All political parties understood that there would be sequence of interviews with each leader,” McDonnell told the Today show. “I think this is a matter of honour.” The PM was “playing the BBC”, pushing an appearance until the deadline for postal votes had passed, thinking “his Bullingdon Club friends” were above public scrutiny, and was running scared of interviewer Neil, who would “take him apart”, McDonnell said.
|
|