The Politics Thread

[Worthy4England]

for 50 mill they can dig up my lawn and park the buggers here if they want!

I'm guessing, that's your park bench front left of the building?

[Hoboh]

We always have been, we are, and I hope that we always shall be detested in France.

Britain and France had to choose between war and dishonor. They chose dishonor. They will have war.

We shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France. We shall fight on the seas and oceans. We shall fight, with growing confidence and strength in the air. We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets. We shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender.

[Prufrock]

That the Churchill who spent 20-odd years as a liberal :O?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

That the Churchill who spent 20-odd years as a liberal :O?

Yes, but that was before that became a term of abuse.

And he was best mates with FE so we'll let him off...

[Hoboh]

The first quote was actually the Duke of Wellington the others Churchill

[Lord Kangana]

Keeping it contemporary then.

[Hoboh]

Why is Alex fish and his bunch of SNP rebels so scared of an in or out referendun for Scotland? Why does he want the "max" question on the ballot paper? why wait till 2014 if it means so much to the SNP and is the central plank of the party?

Answer

Because all though it sounds good they don't like the idea of border controls with England, they don't like thinking of raising tax levels to extreme amounts to fund the free education, prescriptions etc (there are not enough tax payers in Scotland to sustain these and other plans at the current taxation levels) They want the max option so they don't have to fund their own defence forces, they still want to interfere in an English parliment, who will bail out their banks next time?

Sod them we should have a vote to see if we should keep them if they keep delaying a referendum!

[BWFC_Insane]

Why is Alex fish and his bunch of SNP rebels so scared of an in or out referendun for Scotland? Why does he want the "max" question on the ballot paper? why wait till 2014 if it means so much to the SNP and is the central plank of the party?

Answer

Because all though it sounds good they don't like the idea of border controls with England, they don't like thinking of raising tax levels to extreme amounts to fund the free education, prescriptions etc (there are not enough tax payers in Scotland to sustain these and other plans at the current taxation levels) They want the max option so they don't have to fund their own defence forces, they still want to interfere in an English parliment, who will bail out their banks next time?
Sod them we should have a vote to see if we should keep them if they keep delaying a referendum!

Surely the answer is "because they think they will lose an out and out referendum"????

[Hoboh]

Why is Alex fish and his bunch of SNP rebels so scared of an in or out referendun for Scotland? Why does he want the "max" question on the ballot paper? why wait till 2014 if it means so much to the SNP and is the central plank of the party?

Answer

Because all though it sounds good they don't like the idea of border controls with England, they don't like thinking of raising tax levels to extreme amounts to fund the free education, prescriptions etc (there are not enough tax payers in Scotland to sustain these and other plans at the current taxation levels) They want the max option so they don't have to fund their own defence forces, they still want to interfere in an English parliment, who will bail out their banks next time?
Sod them we should have a vote to see if we should keep them if they keep delaying a referendum!

Surely the answer is "because they think they will lose an out and out referendum"????

We should be allowed a referendum to ask us if we still want them I think no might be the result so it would get that slimey toad and his rebels off the hook and we'd be well rid (If anything of value was found in future up there we could always take the place back)

[BWFC_Insane]

Unemployment rising again. Highest rate of unemployment since January 1996.

Surprise surprise the private sector hasn't bailed us out either, as every Tory kept claiming they would.

Public sector job losses far outweigh private sector job creation.

Shock horror!

And the job losses are only just starting in the public sector.

This is going to get worse. Much much worse.

About time "Dave" apologised for this mess.

[Hoboh]

Unemployment rising again. Highest rate of unemployment since January 1996.

Surprise surprise the private sector hasn't bailed us out either, as every Tory kept claiming they would.

Public sector job losses far outweigh private sector job creation.

Shock horror!

And the job losses are only just starting in the public sector.

This is going to get worse. Much much worse.

About time "Dave" apologised for this mess.

It's not good is it? But you are a bit disingenuous blaming the current lot totally for the mess the ugly slack jawed Jock and his little preening half Jock predesessor shoulder a lot of the blame as well and really BWFCI people should shut the fcuk up and think themselves lucky to just have a job at the moment, worry about pensions etc when things get better.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Unemployment rising again. Highest rate of unemployment since January 1996.

Surprise surprise the private sector hasn't bailed us out either, as every Tory kept claiming they would.

Public sector job losses far outweigh private sector job creation.

Shock horror!

And the job losses are only just starting in the public sector.

This is going to get worse. Much much worse.

About time "Dave" apologised for this mess.

BWFCI, can I just say, despite the fact that I feel there's little point in you and I discussing politics, that I never claimed that the private sector would bail us out.

Here's what I do think, though - eventually, the private sector has to generate almost every penny spent in the public sector - the public sector does not generate much new money that comes from outside the system, so it has to be funded by taxes from the private sector. That much is fairly basic and is not a political point.

When we borrow money, we have to hope that one day the private sector will be able to cover every penny we spend in the public sector, unlike the current situation - any borrowing is based on this sort of aspiration!

I've said this before, but surely the acid test for any decision to spend the next pound at the moment is 'is this pound likely to generate an extra pound or more in returns if I spend it?' - if the answer is 'no', which is likely, given the weakness of the multiplier effect at the moment, then surely to spend it is irresponsible?

Maybe that's the big divide at the moment - some people think that it's possible to spend a few hundred billion in such a way that will stimulate enough of a return to pay that back and the interest, but some of us are more pessimistic and don't agree.

[Hoboh]

Unemployment rising again. Highest rate of unemployment since January 1996.

Surprise surprise the private sector hasn't bailed us out either, as every Tory kept claiming they would.

Public sector job losses far outweigh private sector job creation.

Shock horror!

And the job losses are only just starting in the public sector.

This is going to get worse. Much much worse.

About time "Dave" apologised for this mess.

BWFCI, can I just say, despite the fact that I feel there's little point in you and I discussing politics, that I never claimed that the private sector would bail us out.

Here's what I do think, though - eventually, the private sector has to generate almost every penny spent in the public sector - the public sector does not generate much new money that comes from outside the system, so it has to be funded by taxes from the private sector. That much is fairly basic and is not a political point.

When we borrow money, we have to hope that one day the private sector will be able to cover every penny we spend in the public sector, unlike the current situation - any borrowing is based on this sort of aspiration!

I've said this before, but surely the acid test for any decision to spend the next pound at the moment is 'is this pound likely to generate an extra pound or more in returns if I spend it?' - if the answer is 'no', which is likely, given the weakness of the multiplier effect at the moment, then surely to spend it is irresponsible?

Maybe that's the big divide at the moment - some people think that it's possible to spend a few hundred billion in such a way that will stimulate enough of a return the pay that back and the interest, but some of us are more pessimistic and don't agree.

Think the point is mummy that folk want people employed to redistribute more cash and provide some services other than shelling out benefit and getting nowt back, that is cash wasted

[BWFC_Insane]

Unemployment rising again. Highest rate of unemployment since January 1996.

Surprise surprise the private sector hasn't bailed us out either, as every Tory kept claiming they would.

Public sector job losses far outweigh private sector job creation.

Shock horror!

And the job losses are only just starting in the public sector.

This is going to get worse. Much much worse.

About time "Dave" apologised for this mess.

BWFCI, can I just say, despite the fact that I feel there's little point in you and I discussing politics, that I never claimed that the private sector would bail us out.

Here's what I do think, though - eventually, the private sector has to generate almost every penny spent in the public sector - the public sector does not generate much new money that comes from outside the system, so it has to be funded by taxes from the private sector. That much is fairly basic and is not a political point.When we borrow money, we have to hope that one day the private sector will be able to cover every penny we spend in the public sector, unlike the current situation - any borrowing is based on this sort of aspiration!

I've said this before, but surely the acid test for any decision to spend the next pound at the moment is 'is this pound likely to generate an extra pound or more in returns if I spend it?' - if the answer is 'no', which is likely, given the weakness of the multiplier effect at the moment, then surely to spend it is irresponsible?

Maybe that's the big divide at the moment - some people think that it's possible to spend a few hundred billion in such a way that will stimulate enough of a return the pay that back and the interest, but some of us are more pessimistic and don't agree.

Whilst at a most basic level that is correct, you have to also factor in the relationship between many parts of the private and public sector that creates a lot of private sector jobs.

My point is that when they proposed the very deep (and in my mind excessive) cuts to the public sector they talked about the private sector growth being able to prevent rising unemployment. We're only at the very start and that is already not the case.

In my mind I'd rather have a large public sector than a huge welfare bill we're heading for.

I'm absolutely realistic in that cuts had to be made by whoever was in power but the speed and severity has meant we've stifled growth and the rising unemployment is the tip of the iceberg....

As for Hoboh...

The reason we're in this mess is because a load of greedy bankers lent money to people who couldn't pay it back. I don't think any government could reasonably have stopped it, and whilst the last government were far from perfect I do not hold them responsible for the situation we're in now. It was going to be painful whoever was in charge now, but the pain could have been anaesthatised to an extent. It hasn't been and we have a government who IMO see making folk unemployed as an "idealogical" drive rather than something that should be minimised where at all possible.

[BWFC_Insane]

I didn't know whether to put this in the angry thread or the politics one, but I'll stick it here.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16618207" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Makes me so angry. The RCN did not strike back in November re the pensions (Have they ever gone on strike? I don't think so) and have been consulting on the reforms, rather than instant reactionary ill-considered stuff. And have decided like most other right minded clinicians (even the GPs who are forced to go along with it don't want to) disagree strongly with the reforms. They say so and ask for them to be scrapped.

And whats the governments response? To call them a bunch of militants only interested in pay and pensions.

In touch with the common man? I think not....

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Think the point is mummy that folk want people employed to redistribute more cash and provide some services other than shelling out benefit and getting nowt back, that is cash wasted

Yes, of course I get that, but the unfortunately reality is that it's a lot cheaper to have someone on benefits than it is to employ them.

I understand that unemployment has severe side effects and long term costs, and so some belive that it is worth whatever it costs to have people employed on that basis... the trouble is that there it doesn't look likely that we'd be anything like solvent in the 'long term' if we proceeded on that basis.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I didn't know whether to put this in the angry thread or the politics one, but I'll stick it here.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16618207" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Makes me so angry. The RCN did not strike back in November re the pensions (Have they ever gone on strike? I don't think so) and have been consulting on the reforms, rather than instant reactionary ill-considered stuff. And have decided like most other right minded clinicians (even the GPs who are forced to go along with it don't want to) disagree strongly with the reforms. They say so and ask for them to be scrapped.

And whats the governments response? To call them a bunch of militants only interested in pay and pensions.

In touch with the common man? I think not....

I have missed their substantive criticism that isn't about pay and pensions though, other than a vague complaint that the NHS is 'at risk' if we allow half the work to be done in NHS hospitals to be private.

Lansley though... goodness me, he's not exactly a smooth talker is he? What I do agree with is that if you are ever going to be successful with reforms in an institution like the NHS then it needs a higher level of professional consensus and buy-in than this government has achieved.

[BWFC_Insane]

I didn't know whether to put this in the angry thread or the politics one, but I'll stick it here.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16618207" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Makes me so angry. The RCN did not strike back in November re the pensions (Have they ever gone on strike? I don't think so) and have been consulting on the reforms, rather than instant reactionary ill-considered stuff. And have decided like most other right minded clinicians (even the GPs who are forced to go along with it don't want to) disagree strongly with the reforms. They say so and ask for them to be scrapped.

And whats the governments response? To call them a bunch of militants only interested in pay and pensions.

In touch with the common man? I think not....

I have missed their substantive criticism that isn't about pay and pensions though, other than a vague complaint that the NHS is 'at risk' if we allow half the work to be done in NHS hospitals to be private.

Lansley though... goodness me, he's not exactly a smooth talker is he? What I do agree with is that if you are ever going to be successful with reforms in an institution like the NHS then it needs a higher level of professional consensus and buy-in than this government has achieved.

The RCN have outlined their opposition and reasons for in a PDF on their website.

What makes me furious is that despite practically every professional medical body opposing the reforms, without some significant changes, the government are still pressing ahead. One of the RCN's biggest arguments is that the NHS was already going through significant change to deliver the required £20 billion savings. And then this massive overhaul and re-structure was put on top.

I hope I won't get sick for the next few years.....

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

The RCN have outlined their opposition and reasons for in a PDF on their website.

I've read it - show me which bit you think doesn't smack of self interest or a vague fear of change and private health provision?

[Prufrock]

I've said this before, but surely the acid test for any decision to spend the next pound at the moment is 'is this pound likely to generate an extra pound or more in returns if I spend it?' - if the answer is 'no', which is likely, given the weakness of the multiplier effect at the moment, then surely to spend it is irresponsible?

Whilst of course bearing in mind the related question of whether or not cutting spending of one pound will lead to consequences which cost more than one pound to fix. Ultimately it's in the predictions, and much like 'being effecient' it is one every government would like to do, but cannot be judged upon until the results are seen. I don't think in that case one can say 'the cuts' are good or bad, each decision has its own merits, and worth noting financial considerations shouldn't be the only ones, though they may be crucial in deciding between different approaches to the same ends.

I think that may be the worst composed paragraph I have ever written, but hey-ho.