|
|
Post by Gawa on Aug 12, 2024 15:38:47 GMT
Whatever the highest bidder wants. I know much more about what he doesn't stand for rather than what he does stand for. What he doesn't stand for is: - Tackling inequality. - Protecting our NHS from further privatisation. - Building COUNCIL houses - Scrapping 2 child benefit cap - Taxing the ludicrously wealthy - Levision 2 inquiry - Abolshing the unelected house of lords - Protection our rights to protest and freedom of speech - Banning fire and rehire (maybe u turned back on this not sure) - Tackling the immigration crisis - Standing with trade unions striking - Protecting our pensioners - Nationalising our water which is run for profit at a deterrent to our health. - Much more To be fair though Reform/Tory don't support alot of the things on that list either. So yeah, you're politics are probably closer to Starmer than my own. An interesting list of wants; as usual with those who have no accountability, it has a lot of spending other people's hard earned money and little about creating wealth, improving efficiency, and a lot of irrelevance like nationalisation and abolishing the HoL which probably has more intelligence in 10% of its members than the whole of the Commons. Good news though, we are starting to tackle the number 1 priority inequality. As I have repeatedly posted, to get a bigger share of the cake you need to make the cake bigger by growing the economy. Driving the rich out of the country, or their money, is not the way. Leaving the EU is the first step. We are now able to manage our own affairs and reverse the increased inequality that has happened since joining the EEC. See Figure 3: www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/a-guide-to-statistics-on-historical-trends-in-income-inequality#:~:text=As%20Figure%203%20shows%2C%20the,top%200.5%20percent%20of%20households. Creating more wealth means there is more money to spend on your wants list, without taxing workers more. We are a sovereign state and perfectly capable of improving employment law, legislation of utility companies, and easing planning to build more housing, which has happened even under the Tories and there is legislation in the pipeline. Well sure at least peoples hard earned money would be going to things which benefit the majority. Alot of my hard earned money is being used to pay for the things past generations borrowed and benefited from. Plenty of wealth already there Mr Coke, the problem is that 1% have as much as 70% of this country (I wonder what it was like in the 70s or 80s for contrast?), it just needs to be redistributed better. Rather than our current model of trickle down economics where someone makes lots of money, sends out to the cayman islands and then magically that money is somehow meant to trickle down to those who need it most. Creating more wealth without tackling inequality isn't the solution. If the pie is worth £100 and 1% own half that pie then making the pie £120 and having 1% still own half doesn't make much difference - it's still unequal. You cannot fix inequality without redistribution of wealth. The list isn't my want list, the majority of items listed there are items which Starmer promised to become leader and u turned on. Hench "I know what he doesn't stand for." On a slightly unrelated note. I wonder if anybody has ever explored the relationship between peoples salaries and self worth. As quite often when we talk about tax people talk about "other peoples hard earned money" but we don't really dig further into the concept. So for instance lets say I'm Elon Musks son and Elon dies and I inherit everything. I may employ cleaners working 60 hours a week on minimum wage. I may also employ my mate on $100k per year to work 2 hours a week. Because my mate earns more we talk about his taxes as "hard earned" without actually rationalising if it is truly hard earned. Whereas people who maybe slave for 60 hours a week, every week, on minimum wage, we don't consider that "hard earned". We consider it a "living wage" and if they want to be able to use a functioning healthcare system then it's their fault because they don't have enough "hard earned money." Is hard earned defined by who has the highest salary? Do you think you work harder and are more deserving of health care, heating and food over anybody that has earned less than you in your career? Personally I think that in 2024 if you are working full time then you should be able to afford a roof over your head, feed your family, have healthcare, put food on the table, buy a few luxuries, take a holiday once a year. Like even the east germans could manage that in their "oppressive draconian regime". Yet in the land of the free people are very much poorer than 2 decades ago but we do have an ever increasing amount of private planes, yachts, tours to the moon, submarine titanic tours, property tycoons, private islands for sale and whatever other pointless vanity project is part of this seasons appetite. People complain about our high streets being dead. But the same people will defend the capitalist owners of your Tesco, Nike, Asda, KFC, MCdonalds and whichever other globalist capitalist company till a hilt for their "hard earned" work. Maybe we'd all be better off if we didn't keep caving into these big corporations who want to own everything from our water, to our homes, to our medical data, to our highstreets. We once had highstreets when they were unique with independent shops owned by actual hard working people who provided value to their customers and returned the loyalty. Now we are a bunch of mindless sheep who call ourselves patriots and preach about soverignity while selling off more and more of our country to capitalist, globalist corporations in the same breath. And if anyone dare argue about their monopolies and the inequalities which come from these, the same patriots will be defending the corporations stripping anything unique about this country away to put their own branding down. We're just a small part of America.... a small part of America. The colonisers have became the colonised and it's not by the immigrants, it's by the foreign owned businesses who won't stop until they own every piece of profit generating infrastructure or business left in this country. |
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Aug 12, 2024 23:40:15 GMT
I'm not quite sure what level of expectation an incoming Labour Government was perceived to achieve in the short term, possibly quite low given the share they received of the Popular Vote. A grudging acknowledgement that the Tory's had Fucked Up and they were the only Electorial alternative at best.
Those that believed Immigrants were the primary source of the problem received about 15% of those that Voted and about 8% of the total Electorate
The deluded True Bluers accounted for almost 25% for more of the same while 40% couldn't be bothered to get off their arse to voice an opinion
It's almost like there was a parallel universe where the Tory's precided over a thriving UK Economy in Mr Cokes World View
Of course there were Political Choices the Tory's made in the distribution of the Cake .... not the one that was thrust upon Boris or even the one that Liz baked which fell flat.
We now have pygmy economists that fundamentally misinterpret what Labour's Fiscal Plan is to begin redistribution of the stale Cake which they inherited even before they have enacted a fiscal event. Trickle Down or Reagenomics couldn't be further from the intent.
Labour fully intend to retain the existing Fiscal Rules ..... for now, but there is elasticity in the interpretation especially in Capital Expenditure which can stimulate growth and redress creaking infrastructure. It is also a five year cycle, even if the rules are maintained which is unlikely.
Extant Income Tax, NI or VAT there are other Tax raising measures which are a pathway to more equal distribution. While the equation 1 versus 70 is valid the corollary can have unintended consequences unless introduced adroitly
|
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Aug 13, 2024 6:02:20 GMT
I'm not quite sure what level of expectation an incoming Labour Government was perceived to achieve in the short term, possibly quite low given the share they received of the Popular Vote. A grudging acknowledgement that the Tory's had Fucked Up and they were the only Electorial alternative at best. Those that believed Immigrants were the primary source of the problem received about 15% of those that Voted and about 8% of the total Electorate The deluded True Bluers accounted for almost 25% for more of the same while 40% couldn't be bothered to get off their arse to voice an opinion It's almost like there was a parallel universe where the Tory's precided over a thriving UK Economy in Mr Cokes World View Of course there were Political Choices the Tory's made in the distribution of the Cake .... not the one that was thrust upon Boris or even the one that Liz baked which fell flat. We now have pygmy economists that fundamentally misinterpret what Labour's Fiscal Plan is to begin redistribution of the stale Cake which they inherited even before they have enacted a fiscal event. Trickle Down or Reagenomics couldn't be further from the intent. Labour fully intend to retain the existing Fiscal Rules ..... for now, but there is elasticity in the interpretation especially in Capital Expenditure which can stimulate growth and redress creaking infrastructure. It is also a five year cycle, even if the rules are maintained which is unlikely. Extant Income Tax, NI or VAT there are other Tax raising measures which are a pathway to more equal distribution. While the equation 1 versus 70 is valid the corollary can have unintended consequences unless introduced adroitly Know your audience. It's a bunch of bored, antagonistic, highly strung middle aged men, of questionable ethics, attitude and educational standard, not an academic conference hanging on every word. |
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Aug 13, 2024 9:50:45 GMT
Was interested to see this as my wife had an identical text a couple of days ago regarding a procedure my son needs, we had to double check that it want a spam text:
|
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Aug 13, 2024 12:09:10 GMT
Learned nothing have they?
Stupid isn't the word...
|
|
|
|
Post by Gawa on Aug 13, 2024 13:11:33 GMT
Learned nothing have they? Stupid isn't the word... Good old British sovereignty. Selling our infrastructure and assets to the wealthy to make money from the many. America, Germany, Singapore and whoever else come buy up more of our public services to exploit the British people. |
|
|
|
Post by Gawa on Aug 13, 2024 13:14:33 GMT
Was interested to see this as my wife had an identical text a couple of days ago regarding a procedure my son needs, we had to double check that it want a spam text: Well Wes did say he would utilise the private health care system to help reduce waiting lists. So now people can spend their hard earned money to do it  And the NHS doctors who work in the private sector can now bolster their hours to do more private work instead. Those who cant afford it can just wait their turn while those with money skip to the front of the queue. |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Aug 13, 2024 13:41:14 GMT
Learned nothing have they? Stupid isn't the word... far more things needed before another thames crossing |
|
|
|
Post by phileetin on Aug 13, 2024 13:51:56 GMT
seems like levelling up has got off to a good start then.
|
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Aug 13, 2024 13:54:03 GMT
seems like levelling up has got off to a good start then. That was a Tory thing wasn't it? It never got started did it? Like most other things they promised. |
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Aug 13, 2024 14:28:37 GMT
Learned nothing have they? Stupid isn't the word... This is an absolutely essential investment that should have been done years ago. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_Thames_CrossingHaving worked for a company with a factory at West Thurrock, I can appreciate how important this is to the economy of the area. The Crossrail investment is paying major dividends proving to be the most used railway in the country. The UK has suffered from decades of under investment in the infrastructure of the country which I hope Labour gives a much needed boost. |
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Aug 13, 2024 14:36:11 GMT
Learned nothing have they? Stupid isn't the word... This is an absolutely essential investment that should have been done years ago. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_Thames_CrossingHaving worked for a company with a factory at West Thurrock, I can appreciate how important this is to the economy of the area. The Crossrail investment is paying major dividends proving to be the most used railway in the country. The UK has suffered from decades of under investment in the infrastructure of the country which I hope Labour gives a much needed boost. Not in the Greater London Area it hasn't. |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Aug 13, 2024 15:13:27 GMT
it was 9bn at first. need to factor in pandemic and inflation costs
probably £22billion now
Im sure ive seen £22bn mentioned somewhere else
|
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Aug 13, 2024 15:15:00 GMT
Was interested to see this as my wife had an identical text a couple of days ago regarding a procedure my son needs, we had to double check that it want a spam text: Weirdly, having changed cannabis pharmacies, all communications coming through on text from them are labelled 'NHS' as the sender  |
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Aug 14, 2024 22:24:12 GMT
Labour have caved in to ASLEF the train drivers union.
Unions hailing 15% with no conditions.
I think the 'no conditions' is the big problem, we won't have a modern railway until this is fixed.
But the idea of a modern railway has been kicked in to the long grass for the next government to fix.
In the end for now it means higher ticket prices and a role for the taxpayer.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Aug 14, 2024 22:55:46 GMT
An interesting list of wants; as usual with those who have no accountability, it has a lot of spending other people's hard earned money and little about creating wealth, improving efficiency, and a lot of irrelevance like nationalisation and abolishing the HoL which probably has more intelligence in 10% of its members than the whole of the Commons. Good news though, we are starting to tackle the number 1 priority inequality. As I have repeatedly posted, to get a bigger share of the cake you need to make the cake bigger by growing the economy. Driving the rich out of the country, or their money, is not the way. Leaving the EU is the first step. We are now able to manage our own affairs and reverse the increased inequality that has happened since joining the EEC. See Figure 3: www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/a-guide-to-statistics-on-historical-trends-in-income-inequality#:~:text=As%20Figure%203%20shows%2C%20the,top%200.5%20percent%20of%20households. Creating more wealth means there is more money to spend on your wants list, without taxing workers more. We are a sovereign state and perfectly capable of improving employment law, legislation of utility companies, and easing planning to build more housing, which has happened even under the Tories and there is legislation in the pipeline. Well sure at least peoples hard earned money would be going to things which benefit the majority. Alot of my hard earned money is being used to pay for the things past generations borrowed and benefited from. Plenty of wealth already there Mr Coke, the problem is that 1% have as much as 70% of this country (I wonder what it was like in the 70s or 80s for contrast?), it just needs to be redistributed better. Rather than our current model of trickle down economics where someone makes lots of money, sends out to the cayman islands and then magically that money is somehow meant to trickle down to those who need it most. Creating more wealth without tackling inequality isn't the solution. If the pie is worth £100 and 1% own half that pie then making the pie £120 and having 1% still own half doesn't make much difference - it's still unequal. You cannot fix inequality without redistribution of wealth. The list isn't my want list, the majority of items listed there are items which Starmer promised to become leader and u turned on. Hench "I know what he doesn't stand for." On a slightly unrelated note. I wonder if anybody has ever explored the relationship between peoples salaries and self worth. As quite often when we talk about tax people talk about "other peoples hard earned money" but we don't really dig further into the concept. So for instance lets say I'm Elon Musks son and Elon dies and I inherit everything. I may employ cleaners working 60 hours a week on minimum wage. I may also employ my mate on $100k per year to work 2 hours a week. Because my mate earns more we talk about his taxes as "hard earned" without actually rationalising if it is truly hard earned. Whereas people who maybe slave for 60 hours a week, every week, on minimum wage, we don't consider that "hard earned". We consider it a "living wage" and if they want to be able to use a functioning healthcare system then it's their fault because they don't have enough "hard earned money." Is hard earned defined by who has the highest salary? Do you think you work harder and are more deserving of health care, heating and food over anybody that has earned less than you in your career? Personally I think that in 2024 if you are working full time then you should be able to afford a roof over your head, feed your family, have healthcare, put food on the table, buy a few luxuries, take a holiday once a year. Like even the east germans could manage that in their "oppressive draconian regime". Yet in the land of the free people are very much poorer than 2 decades ago but we do have an ever increasing amount of private planes, yachts, tours to the moon, submarine titanic tours, property tycoons, private islands for sale and whatever other pointless vanity project is part of this seasons appetite. People complain about our high streets being dead. But the same people will defend the capitalist owners of your Tesco, Nike, Asda, KFC, MCdonalds and whichever other globalist capitalist company till a hilt for their "hard earned" work. Maybe we'd all be better off if we didn't keep caving into these big corporations who want to own everything from our water, to our homes, to our medical data, to our highstreets. We once had highstreets when they were unique with independent shops owned by actual hard working people who provided value to their customers and returned the loyalty. Now we are a bunch of mindless sheep who call ourselves patriots and preach about soverignity while selling off more and more of our country to capitalist, globalist corporations in the same breath. And if anyone dare argue about their monopolies and the inequalities which come from these, the same patriots will be defending the corporations stripping anything unique about this country away to put their own branding down. We're just a small part of America.... a small part of America. The colonisers have became the colonised and it's not by the immigrants, it's by the foreign owned businesses who won't stop until they own every piece of profit generating infrastructure or business left in this country. I don't disagree with your basic premise that things are unfair and something should be done. My point is things have got worse as shown in the link I posted. The point I think you are missing is it those that work hard and those that own the wealth are the ones that create more wealth. You seem to want to dismantle the capitalist system; that has been tried in the Soviet Union, other communist states and red China and failed. I doubt there are many who lived in East Germany want to go back to that time. You are correct that the UK has become the "colonized". That is because we joined the "common market" and since it became the single market have run up a huge balance of payments deficit. The consequences include foreign ownership of assets, lack of investment , and depreciating currency. www.economicshelp.org/macroeconomics/bop/probs-balance-payments-deficit/My argument is not to try and take away the workers and owners shares of the cake but to encourage/motivate them to make the cake bigger and ensure the extra wealth created is directed to those areas that most need it. A windfall tax or excess profits levy would be appropriate in that case. They would actually encourage companies to reinvest rather than paying out high dividends. The UK is not alone in the problems you describe, the US operates with a huge balance of payments deficit but focusses on growth and ignores poverty and inequality. There are others closer to home that have the same issues.: caliber.az/en/post/260192/www.progressives-zentrum.org/en/publication/germans-significantly-underestimate-unequal-distribution-of-income-and-wealth/www.rki.de/EN/Content/Institute/Press_Office/News_Archive/2024_05_02_PI-Social.htmlwww.santannapisa.it/en/news/italian-incomes-and-fiscal-system-inequalities-are-increasing-joint-study-santanna-school-pisa#:~:text=Income%20inequalities%20in%20Italy%20have,of%20the%2099%25%20of%20taxpayers. The process has to start by paying our way and getting the balance of payments into balance and prudent budgeting. A government should only borrow to invest although there are times like to 2008 financial crisis and the pandemic that that cannot be maintained. It is wrong to run a deficit to pay for consumption which future generations will have to finance. I use the term investment liberally; for example investing in health to reduce waiting times and reduce long term sickness is sound as it has a payback in terms of getting people back to work and reducing other costs. Education is another sound investment, but I would qualify that in terms of the value of some education. |
|
|
|
Post by desman2 on Aug 14, 2024 23:17:53 GMT
Learned nothing have they? Stupid isn't the word... Same thing happened locally Huddy with the Royal Stoke. Rather than just cough up the £450m investment, they went down the PFI route and the contract will eventually cost £2.6bn at a rate of £135,000 per day for a hospital where half the upper building is a privately owned restaurant. Oh and by the way , whoever planned the Royal Stoke forgot to include a dialysis unit on the site. It had to be included in it's current location which was allocated to something else. |
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Aug 14, 2024 23:50:50 GMT
Learned nothing have they? Stupid isn't the word... Same thing happened locally Huddy with the Royal Stoke. Rather than just cough up the £450m investment, they went down the PFI route and the contract will eventually cost £2.6bn at a rate of £135,000 per day for a hospital where half the upper building is a privately owned restaurant. Oh and by the way , whoever planned the Royal Stoke forgot to include a dialysis unit on the site. It had to be included in it's current location which was allocated to something else. I'm sorry Huddy and Desman but I don't think you have read the speculative details of the outlined structure of the Financing Which part of the speculated Financing Structure do you object to? |
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Aug 14, 2024 23:57:15 GMT
Well sure at least peoples hard earned money would be going to things which benefit the majority. Alot of my hard earned money is being used to pay for the things past generations borrowed and benefited from. Plenty of wealth already there Mr Coke, the problem is that 1% have as much as 70% of this country (I wonder what it was like in the 70s or 80s for contrast?), it just needs to be redistributed better. Rather than our current model of trickle down economics where someone makes lots of money, sends out to the cayman islands and then magically that money is somehow meant to trickle down to those who need it most. Creating more wealth without tackling inequality isn't the solution. If the pie is worth £100 and 1% own half that pie then making the pie £120 and having 1% still own half doesn't make much difference - it's still unequal. You cannot fix inequality without redistribution of wealth. The list isn't my want list, the majority of items listed there are items which Starmer promised to become leader and u turned on. Hench "I know what he doesn't stand for." On a slightly unrelated note. I wonder if anybody has ever explored the relationship between peoples salaries and self worth. As quite often when we talk about tax people talk about "other peoples hard earned money" but we don't really dig further into the concept. So for instance lets say I'm Elon Musks son and Elon dies and I inherit everything. I may employ cleaners working 60 hours a week on minimum wage. I may also employ my mate on $100k per year to work 2 hours a week. Because my mate earns more we talk about his taxes as "hard earned" without actually rationalising if it is truly hard earned. Whereas people who maybe slave for 60 hours a week, every week, on minimum wage, we don't consider that "hard earned". We consider it a "living wage" and if they want to be able to use a functioning healthcare system then it's their fault because they don't have enough "hard earned money." Is hard earned defined by who has the highest salary? Do you think you work harder and are more deserving of health care, heating and food over anybody that has earned less than you in your career? Personally I think that in 2024 if you are working full time then you should be able to afford a roof over your head, feed your family, have healthcare, put food on the table, buy a few luxuries, take a holiday once a year. Like even the east germans could manage that in their "oppressive draconian regime". Yet in the land of the free people are very much poorer than 2 decades ago but we do have an ever increasing amount of private planes, yachts, tours to the moon, submarine titanic tours, property tycoons, private islands for sale and whatever other pointless vanity project is part of this seasons appetite. People complain about our high streets being dead. But the same people will defend the capitalist owners of your Tesco, Nike, Asda, KFC, MCdonalds and whichever other globalist capitalist company till a hilt for their "hard earned" work. Maybe we'd all be better off if we didn't keep caving into these big corporations who want to own everything from our water, to our homes, to our medical data, to our highstreets. We once had highstreets when they were unique with independent shops owned by actual hard working people who provided value to their customers and returned the loyalty. Now we are a bunch of mindless sheep who call ourselves patriots and preach about soverignity while selling off more and more of our country to capitalist, globalist corporations in the same breath. And if anyone dare argue about their monopolies and the inequalities which come from these, the same patriots will be defending the corporations stripping anything unique about this country away to put their own branding down. We're just a small part of America.... a small part of America. The colonisers have became the colonised and it's not by the immigrants, it's by the foreign owned businesses who won't stop until they own every piece of profit generating infrastructure or business left in this country. I don't disagree with your basic premise that things are unfair and something should be done. My point is things have got worse as shown in the link I posted. The point I think you are missing is it those that work hard and those that own the wealth are the ones that create more wealth. You seem to want to dismantle the capitalist system; that has been tried in the Soviet Union, other communist states and red China and failed. I doubt there are many who lived in East Germany want to go back to that time. You are correct that the UK has become the "colonized". That is because we joined the "common market" and since it became the single market have run up a huge balance of payments deficit. The consequences include foreign ownership of assets, lack of investment , and depreciating currency. www.economicshelp.org/macroeconomics/bop/probs-balance-payments-deficit/My argument is not to try and take away the workers and owners shares of the cake but to encourage/motivate them to make the cake bigger and ensure the extra wealth created is directed to those areas that most need it. A windfall tax or excess profits levy would be appropriate in that case. They would actually encourage companies to reinvest rather than paying out high dividends. The UK is not alone in the problems you describe, the US operates with a huge balance of payments deficit but focusses on growth and ignores poverty and inequality. There are others closer to home that have the same issues.: caliber.az/en/post/260192/www.progressives-zentrum.org/en/publication/germans-significantly-underestimate-unequal-distribution-of-income-and-wealth/www.rki.de/EN/Content/Institute/Press_Office/News_Archive/2024_05_02_PI-Social.htmlwww.santannapisa.it/en/news/italian-incomes-and-fiscal-system-inequalities-are-increasing-joint-study-santanna-school-pisa#:~:text=Income%20inequalities%20in%20Italy%20have,of%20the%2099%25%20of%20taxpayers. The process has to start by paying our way and getting the balance of payments into balance and prudent budgeting. A government should only borrow to invest although there are times like to 2008 financial crisis and the pandemic that that cannot be maintained. It is wrong to run a deficit to pay for consumption which future generations will have to finance. I use the term investment liberally; for example investing in health to reduce waiting times and reduce long term sickness is sound as it has a payback in terms of getting people back to work and reducing other costs. Education is another sound investment, but I would qualify that in terms of the value of some education. I agree with most of that, except the EU bit obviously. It is why Austerity coming out of a Global Recession with Interest Rates at Historically Low Rates, almost ZERO %, was the most cretinous Economic Policy to pursue. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Aug 15, 2024 1:19:39 GMT
Can't suggest stuff like this GODS. Funny how GAWA and his merry army haven't commented on this. It's ironic the people who profess to support and know the Labour party are absolutely clueless as to the direction its heading. Why are you mentioning me and then saying "It's ironic the people who profess to support and know the Labour party are absolutely clueless as to the direction its heading." 
Because he's an idiot? |
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Aug 15, 2024 6:30:04 GMT
Labour have caved in to ASLEF the train drivers union. Unions hailing 15% with no conditions. I think the 'no conditions' is the big problem, we won't have a modern railway until this is fixed. But the idea of a modern railway has been kicked in to the long grass for the next government to fix. In the end for now it means higher ticket prices and a role for the taxpayer. Isn't it factored in over 3 years? |
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Aug 15, 2024 6:31:00 GMT
Same thing happened locally Huddy with the Royal Stoke. Rather than just cough up the £450m investment, they went down the PFI route and the contract will eventually cost £2.6bn at a rate of £135,000 per day for a hospital where half the upper building is a privately owned restaurant. Oh and by the way , whoever planned the Royal Stoke forgot to include a dialysis unit on the site. It had to be included in it's current location which was allocated to something else. I'm sorry Huddy and Desman but I don't think you have read the speculative details of the outlined structure of the Financing Which part of the speculated Financing Structure do you object to? I'll need you to explain it me if you would, thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Aug 15, 2024 6:43:40 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Aug 15, 2024 7:20:51 GMT
Labour have caved in to ASLEF the train drivers union. Unions hailing 15% with no conditions. I think the 'no conditions' is the big problem, we won't have a modern railway until this is fixed. But the idea of a modern railway has been kicked in to the long grass for the next government to fix. In the end for now it means higher ticket prices and a role for the taxpayer. Isn't it factored in over 3 years? Yes, correct, it's about 5% per year. I think key is no change to conditions. Which means we still won't be able to run the railway properly at weekends. |
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Aug 15, 2024 7:26:39 GMT
Isn't it factored in over 3 years? Yes, correct, it's about 5% per year. I think key is no change to conditions. Which means we still won't be able to run the railway properly at weekends. If it means the guards staying on the trains, I'm happy. |
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Aug 15, 2024 7:30:52 GMT
Yes, correct, it's about 5% per year. I think key is no change to conditions. Which means we still won't be able to run the railway properly at weekends. If it means the guards staying on the trains, I'm happy. I like guards too, who doesn't, but surely we need a railway that runs in the evenings and weekends that doesn't rely on drivers volunteering for overtime. If we are to be a competitive and green country. |
|
|
|
Post by emretezzy on Aug 15, 2024 7:38:51 GMT
Why are you mentioning me and then saying "It's ironic the people who profess to support and know the Labour party are absolutely clueless as to the direction its heading."
Because he's an idiot? Peter Hitchens isn't an idiot mate. |
|
|
|
Post by flea79 on Aug 15, 2024 8:06:10 GMT
If it means the guards staying on the trains, I'm happy. I like guards too, who doesn't, but surely we need a railway that runs in the evenings and weekends that doesn't rely on drivers volunteering for overtime. If we are to be a competitive and green country. imagine if we had a decently staffed railway service that would allow us to get back from Manchester after 10pm on a friday or saturday night! |
|
|
|
Post by redstriper on Aug 15, 2024 8:52:04 GMT
This article sums up the current depressing situation for me. Entitlement and LazynessWill Starmer and the new government acknowledge it, and do anything about it ? |
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Aug 15, 2024 9:25:06 GMT
I'm sorry Huddy and Desman but I don't think you have read the speculative details of the outlined structure of the Financing Which part of the speculated Financing Structure do you object to? I'll need you to explain it me if you would, thanks. It is still speculative but if the final Contract is as outlined it will not be like PFI1 or PFI2. It will possibly be time limited to 125 years, the return on investment ROI capped and regulated. The main problems with PFI's was the terms of the contract, responsibility for maintenance of the Asset and unlimited ROI. The single biggest problem with PFIs was that their operation and management was passed to Local Authorities who didn't have the expertise to do so instead of Treasury retaining control. Incidentally Treasury will have to get involved sooner or later on existing PFIs soon to mature to work out exits to avoid additional Legal costs of litigation in the Courts With the LTC Project it is very much wait and see at the moment as the devil will be in the detail but people are wise to be cautious until then |
|
And the NHS doctors who work in the private sector can now bolster their hours to do more private work instead.
