Wes Tender Posted 4 May, 2015 Share Posted 4 May, 2015 Is it a " cast iron guarantee " ? If so, I think we've been there before . It's a con . To get meaningful changes to the eu the change people seem to want , will require treaty change . There is already a law guaranting a referendum in the even of treaty change . Thus proving Cameron is just showboating and will only tinker around the edges , but try and pull the wool over the publics eyes . Yes, you're right in that it was Conservative policy to hold a referendum in this last Parliament, but the LDs scuppered it. This time though, if it is promised that a referendum on the EU is sacrosanct and will not be negotiable in the horse-trading of a coalition, then that is something that will be extremely difficult to wriggle out of. Whether the Conservatives try to pull a fast one and renege on that promise remains to be seen, but if they do, then there will be considerable anger from the public and the growing resentment on issues like immigration could boil over into public disorder. As it is, immigration surfaces as one of the hot issues of this election, so even if there is a Labour/SNP/rainbow alliance that forms the next government, they would do well not to ignore it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 4 May, 2015 Share Posted 4 May, 2015 Shock horror, who would have guessed. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/general-election-2015-tory-election-chief-lynton-crosbys-firm-planned-to-expand-role-of-private-healthcare-in-the-uk-10223112.html Bit indirect isn't it? 'Plan to lobby' is not surprising, I suspect that this company plans to lobby anyone who might give them more work. All that matters is better patient care however that is achieved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 4 May, 2015 Share Posted 4 May, 2015 What's the problem? If people want private schools and private care , that in theory can make room for others in the NHS, of course we don't want the NHS downgraded but if they run alongside each other that is good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 4 May, 2015 Share Posted 4 May, 2015 Bit indirect isn't it? 'Plan to lobby' is not surprising, I suspect that this company plans to lobby anyone who might give them more work. All that matters is better patient care however that is achieved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint si Posted 4 May, 2015 Share Posted 4 May, 2015 The only people with fingers in their ears are the ones that refuse to entertain the idea that the private sector can make a valuable contribution to healthcare in this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintbletch Posted 4 May, 2015 Share Posted 4 May, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex Lion Tamer Posted 4 May, 2015 Share Posted 4 May, 2015 I don't know much about the EU working but how come Turkey's application got rejected?' Presumably somebody votes? I thought they have failed to clean up their human rights record and so aren't eligible. It's actually a textbook example of why the EU is good - respect your citizens' human rights or you don't get the economic benefits of joining our club Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 4 May, 2015 Share Posted 4 May, 2015 Bit indirect isn't it? 'Plan to lobby' is not surprising, I suspect that this company plans to lobby anyone who might give them more work. All that matters is better patient care however that is achieved. With a rollover attitude like that no wonder we are all fcked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintbletch Posted 4 May, 2015 Share Posted 4 May, 2015 Would anyone here entertain using a vote-swapping web site to ensure that their vote 'counts'? How do people feel about this as a means to influence FPTP results - where otherwise you might not have any influence? http://www.swapmyvote.uk/ http://voteswap.org/ http://www.unitetheright.com/ And here's a write-up discussing the 'trend'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 4 May, 2015 Share Posted 4 May, 2015 The only people with fingers in their ears are the ones that refuse to entertain the idea that the private sector can make a valuable contribution to healthcare in this country. "The biggest canard we have to fight is that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector". Source, my mate on FB, but also, anyone that works for the private sector, particularly above a certain company size. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iansums Posted 4 May, 2015 Share Posted 4 May, 2015 Pap seems to be leaning over a bit in his avatar photo, must be that feckin great big chip on his shoulder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 4 May, 2015 Share Posted 4 May, 2015 Pap seems to be leaning over a bit in his avatar photo, must be that feckin great big chip on his shoulder. It grew bigger when he moved to Liverpool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 4 May, 2015 Share Posted 4 May, 2015 My favourite headline from the election was released today: Miliband defends his pledge stone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Saint Posted 4 May, 2015 Share Posted 4 May, 2015 My favourite headline from the election was released today: Miliband defends his pledge stone If only that had read, "Miliband defends his pledge, stoned.".... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackFrost Posted 4 May, 2015 Share Posted 4 May, 2015 Shock horror, who would have guessed. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/general-election-2015-tory-election-chief-lynton-crosbys-firm-planned-to-expand-role-of-private-healthcare-in-the-uk-10223112.html "If you elect a Labour government we'll end the privatisation of the National Health Service" Robin Cook, 1992 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 4 May, 2015 Share Posted 4 May, 2015 (edited) labour 'saving' the NHS has been promised since it was created. saving from what? it is not about to be destroyed and it never has so far, labour have more hotties compared to the others. respect on that front Edited 4 May, 2015 by Batman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 4 May, 2015 Share Posted 4 May, 2015 Pap seems to be leaning over a bit in his avatar photo, must be that feckin great big chip on his shoulder. It grew bigger when he moved to Liverpool Fantastic points, very well made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 4 May, 2015 Share Posted 4 May, 2015 (edited) "If you elect a Labour government we'll end the privatisation of the National Health Service" Robin Cook, 1992 Bowling underarm, JackFrost? Very kind of you. First, the date on that quote would indicate that's a 1992 election pledge. As I recall, the British people did not elect a Labour government back then. If we had, politicians like Kinnock, Smith and Cook would have been leading the charge. And you know what, I think they would have attempted to cut off privatisation of the NHS at something close to source. Your implied charge of hypocrisy doesn't fit unless you can find me someone saying the same thing in the 1997 elections. That's a four, I reckon. Feel free to catch me out. Second, you're using the notoriously unprincipled Robin Cook as your poster child for Labour mendacity? That's a six, mush. No-one is catching that. Edited 4 May, 2015 by pap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 4 May, 2015 Share Posted 4 May, 2015 Brand now saying vote Labour Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 4 May, 2015 Share Posted 4 May, 2015 Why does a government need a law to bind its own Chancellor to such acts? I think it was Robert Peston who pointed out that the law would be over-ridden if there was, say, another financial crisis and that there is nothing to stop the next government passing another law to override this law! Crazy! Carve these pledges out in stone is probably a more practical idea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 4 May, 2015 Share Posted 4 May, 2015 "If you elect a Labour government we'll end the privatisation of the National Health Service" Robin Cook, 1992 A Labour government wasn't elected then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 4 May, 2015 Share Posted 4 May, 2015 With a rollover attitude like that no wonder we are all fcked. What a stupid prejudiced comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 4 May, 2015 Share Posted 4 May, 2015 Brand now saying vote Labourwhat a surprise. Labour are welcome to that disgusting excuse of a human being. If women take any notice of him they should be ashamed of themselves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 4 May, 2015 Share Posted 4 May, 2015 A Labour government wasn't elected then.thankfully the voters saw throug the dogma, 25 years on and the NHS is still not privatised Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 4 May, 2015 Share Posted 4 May, 2015 what a surprise. Labour are welcome to that disgusting excuse of a human being. If women take any notice of him they should be ashamed of themselves he has spent all year telling people NOT to vote. Those who follow what he says probably are not even registered Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 4 May, 2015 Share Posted 4 May, 2015 Not of interest to many, and minor in the big picture but the Tories are going to ban the buying/selling of any ivory items whatever the age.At present it is rightfully illegal to sell any item post 1947. In theory any musical instrument eg pianos and other ancient works of art will be embraced into this madness. They must have been talking too much to the Royals who want to crush the nations/Royal collection of ivory items that are part of our heritage . Whilst people can pass them down or give them away a lot of items will be lost due to neglect and ignorance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 4 May, 2015 Share Posted 4 May, 2015 What a stupid prejudiced comment. Yeah I'm prejudiced against cronyism. You go ahead believe the old boys network is working for the greater good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 4 May, 2015 Share Posted 4 May, 2015 what a surprise. Labour are welcome to that disgusting excuse of a human being. If women take any notice of him they should be ashamed of themselves You ever watch the Trews? Like Cameron and most of the press you can dismiss him as a joke. Why women particularly btw? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackFrost Posted 4 May, 2015 Share Posted 4 May, 2015 Bowling underarm, JackFrost? Very kind of you. First, the date on that quote would indicate that's a 1992 election pledge. As I recall, the British people did not elect a Labour government back then. If we had, politicians like Kinnock, Smith and Cook would have been leading the charge. And you know what, I think they would have attempted to cut off privatisation of the NHS at something close to source. Your implied charge of hypocrisy doesn't fit unless you can find me someone saying the same thing in the 1997 elections. That's a four, I reckon. Feel free to catch me out. Second, you're using the notoriously unprincipled Robin Cook as your poster child for Labour mendacity? That's a six, mush. No-one is catching that. Unfortunately I don't play cricket. The most significant part of what I quoted was the year. They've been saying it for decades now and we're supposed to be burying our heads in the sand over something that has never happened. labour have more hotties compared to the others. respect on that front Luciana Berger certainly scrubs up well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 4 May, 2015 Share Posted 4 May, 2015 he has spent all year telling people NOT to vote. Those who follow what he says probably are not even registered Agree and weird how much media coverage he gets. I am back to liking him again now. I'm sure most people who seem to get really angry with him don't actually listen to his content. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 4 May, 2015 Share Posted 4 May, 2015 what a surprise. Labour are welcome to that disgusting excuse of a human being. If women take any notice of him they should be ashamed of themselves But men shouldn't? Dinosaur! If you're looking for a disgusting excuse of a human being, try Iain Duncan Smith for starters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 4 May, 2015 Share Posted 4 May, 2015 Unfortunately I don't play cricket. The most significant part of what I quoted was the year. They've been saying it for decades now and we're supposed to be burying our heads in the sand over something that has never happened. The year is the reason your point falls down. No promise was broken on that pledge. If you believed Murdoch and co, the moronic British public were swayed by his rag of a newspaper. "Last one out, turn off the lights" followed by "It was the Sun wot won it". 1992 election pledge. Get me an advance on that or concede the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 4 May, 2015 Share Posted 4 May, 2015 Brand now saying vote Labour I expect he will alienate a number of his followers with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 4 May, 2015 Share Posted 4 May, 2015 Yeah I'm prejudiced against cronyism. You go ahead believe the old boys network is working for the greater good. So, you are saying that better patient care is less important than how it is achieved? Are you saying that all that matters is that the public sector should be as large as possible no matter the consequences? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 4 May, 2015 Share Posted 4 May, 2015 You ever watch the Trews? Like Cameron and most of the press you can dismiss him as a joke. Why women particularly btw? I've watched most of it because I think he's an interesting bloke even if I mostly disagree with him. This sudden u-turn is hilarious and to me shows his true feelings all along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 4 May, 2015 Share Posted 4 May, 2015 So, you are saying that better patient care is less important than how it is achieved? Are you saying that all that matters is that the public sector should be as large as possible no matter the consequences? But it's worse than the NHS - and this from the Daily Fail! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-3053452/Private-healthcare-worse-GPs.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 4 May, 2015 Share Posted 4 May, 2015 But it's worse than the NHS - and this from the Daily Fail! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-3053452/Private-healthcare-worse-GPs.html I didn't say that private healthcare was necessarily better, just saying that improved patient welfare is the ultimate aim however it is achieved. It would be wrong to let politics get in the way of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintbletch Posted 4 May, 2015 Share Posted 4 May, 2015 I expect he will alienate a number of his followers with that. I would think he would, but he's here justifying it. Whatever the rights and wrongs, this will surely have an impact on (particularly youth) voting? How big is the question. Whilst the production quality of his videos are normally pretty high, this one looks on a different level to me. Has he had extra help/funding to make this one? Perhaps the Labour party contributed? Perhaps this was always going to happen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Who? Posted 4 May, 2015 Share Posted 4 May, 2015 I have read all 3 manifestos (busy at work at the mo). I have been fighting with myself for a while now between red and yellow. A agree with so much of the lib dem policies, but feel I cannot believe anything they say. Labour on the other hand have started to take a different angle on things over the last week and involving people's, that seem outside of the norm. Maybe trying to interact with communities and trying to give politics back to the individuals and help them believe they can make a difference and their vote could really matter. Communities having their say and this being escalated over time to the voice of Ed. For the first time in a while, I do think that labour could get into power on their own. Let's face it politics needs a new angle and to start interacting with the working classes, which used to be the difference between the Tories and labour. We need these clear defined differences! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 4 May, 2015 Share Posted 4 May, 2015 Here's a good read http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/breadline-britain-20million-now-living-5123323 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 4 May, 2015 Share Posted 4 May, 2015 I would think he would, but he's here justifying it. Whatever the rights and wrongs, this will surely have an impact on (particularly youth) voting? How big is the question. Whilst the production quality of his videos are normally pretty high, this one looks on a different level to me. Has he had extra help/funding to make this one? Perhaps the Labour party contributed? Perhaps this was always going to happen? Reading the comments there are a number of people who feel let down by him and are wondering if this was part of a bigger plan all along. It certainly seems that way with the teaser trailer from earlier in the week. Others feel very pet down and wonder how he can support a labour government who have let the country down just as badly as the Tories in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 4 May, 2015 Share Posted 4 May, 2015 I would think he would, but he's here justifying it. Whatever the rights and wrongs, this will surely have an impact on (particularly youth) voting? How big is the question. Whilst the production quality of his videos are normally pretty high, this one looks on a different level to me. Has he had extra help/funding to make this one? Perhaps the Labour party contributed? Perhaps this was always going to happen? Very conspiratorial, bletch. I approve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 4 May, 2015 Share Posted 4 May, 2015 Moan when he says voting is pointless. Moan when he says vote Labour. Moan, moan, bloody moan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 4 May, 2015 Share Posted 4 May, 2015 Moan when he says voting is pointless. Moan when he says vote Labour. Moan, moan, bloody moan. Whose that then? His supporters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Millbrook Saint Posted 4 May, 2015 Share Posted 4 May, 2015 I thought the point of selling parts of the NHS was to get value for money, for instance if aids care got sold off to a company, it would only do so if selling it to the company was better value than doing it themselves, ie outsourcing it. The NHS would still pay the bill, but instead of paying £25 to keep it in house, they now only pay £20 to outsource it. Is this the case? If it is I don't see what the problem is, in this scenario the thing that needs to be watched is that the companies are behaving and we are getting value for money. As long as there's stringent controls, with care and costs being monitored, with the companies having to justify their prices knowing that they can lose the contract at any time should they start taking the ****. Surely this is a far more efficient thing to do than to have one huge system where no one has to justify themselves and money gets wasted as there's no shareholders to answer to. I know that in an ideal world there would be no profit to be made from the NHS but surely if it's more efficient to let a company make money from doing it and as long as care isn't compromised and it's cost effective then there is no problem. I know people will say that in the end profit will come before care but that would be down to the controls being put in place being sufficient???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 4 May, 2015 Share Posted 4 May, 2015 I thought the point of selling parts of the NHS was to get value for money, for instance if aids care got sold off to a company, it would only do so if selling it to the company was better value than doing it themselves, ie outsourcing it. The NHS would still pay the bill, but instead of paying £25 to keep it in house, they now only pay £20 to outsource it. Is this the case? If it is I don't see what the problem is, in this scenario the thing that needs to be watched is that the companies are behaving and we are getting value for money. As long as there's stringent controls, with care and costs being monitored, with the companies having to justify their prices knowing that they can lose the contract at any time should they start taking the ****. Surely this is a far more efficient thing to do than to have one huge system where no one has to justify themselves and money gets wasted as there's no shareholders to answer to. I know that in an ideal world there would be no profit to be made from the NHS but surely if it's more efficient to let a company make money from doing it and as long as care isn't compromised and it's cost effective then there is no problem. I know people will say that in the end profit will come before care but that would be down to the controls being put in place being sufficient???? Do you really want to pay for the internal squabbles associated with large, corporate entities? I know I don't. The experience from the US is bloody awful. Wildly varying rates, and drug companies that would rather manage conditions than seek outright cures. Personally, I think it is immoral to make any money from sick people, and I view any attempt at privatisation with suspicion. This is all foot in the door stuff right now. What happens when we really let the private sector in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 4 May, 2015 Share Posted 4 May, 2015 In the same way The Sun's headlines role in elections got massively overplayed back in the day, our Russell's gesture is as similarly inconsequential in the scheme of things. But I like Russell and I like Labour so go on my son. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Who? Posted 4 May, 2015 Share Posted 4 May, 2015 In the same way The Sun's headlines role in elections got massively overplayed back in the day, our Russell's gesture is as similarly inconsequential in the scheme of things. But I like Russell and I like Labour so go on my son. It's all politics! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Millbrook Saint Posted 4 May, 2015 Share Posted 4 May, 2015 Do you really want to pay for the internal squabbles associated with large, corporate entities? I know I don't. The experience from the US is bloody awful. Wildly varying rates, and drug companies that would rather manage conditions than seek outright cures. Personally, I think it is immoral to make any money from sick people, and I view any attempt at privatisation with suspicion. This is all foot in the door stuff right now. What happens when we really let the private sector in? I agree in a perfect world no one would make money from sick people, unfortunately where there's a service to be given there's money to be made, if people making money off the back of sick people improves their care and doesn't cost more, then surely that's a good thing? It all comes down to legislation and oversight, the bad thing about privatisation isn't the actual privatisation itself, it's how it's handled, companies would try and find loopholes to do things but the government would need to put things in place that would remove the contracts if they were trying 'to beat the system' The privatisation of the rail system is a case in point, if it was handled better it would have been ok, if the government could look at the rail companies taking the **** with prices, or lateness etc they should have the power to remove the contract from them and take it back in house until a suitable alternative was found. You can always say 'what happens when....' the trouble is if we did that then nothing would happen, what if when benefits were started someone popped up saying 'what happens when people have more kids to get more money' 'what happens when people pretend they're too ill to work' Fact of the matter is, things will always be open to abuse but the job of the government is to stamp down on this as soon as they have an indicator that this could be happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 4 May, 2015 Share Posted 4 May, 2015 (edited) I see that Labour have held a segregated party rally. disgusting really......im sure had this been a UKiP thing it would have been all over the news http://order-order.com/2015/05/04/farage-blasts-labour-over-sex-segregated-rally/#_@/V4rJnj78zyfBrg http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/05/labour-should-be-embarrassed-about-holding-a-sex-segregated-rally/ Edited 4 May, 2015 by Batman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now