You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
binners
Subscriber
To be honest I’m quite happy with the situation as it stands, where the amount of damage any one party can do is severely curtailed. Its actually been quite funny watching ‘World King’ Joris Bohnsons impotent rage at his inability to actually do anything
The worst thing that can happen IMHO is anyone getting an overall majority. Nobody in UK politics could be trusted with one, on account of the fact that they’re all mental! Luckily there seems to be a vanishingly small chance of that happening
I think you're right there. My business partner likened the prospect of a Tory or Labour majority to a choice between being hanged or shot.
JP
Would sir like his huge shit sandwich on brown or white bread?
The underlying problems are poor business practices
British business mostly focus their efforts on cost cutting - which is always detrimental to the service or goods they provide.
British business mostly focus their efforts on cost cutting – which is always detrimental to the service or goods they provide.
Yep. Race to the bottom. Not really increased profit if all you're ever doing is cutting and cutting until you can't function.
I say this as business owner myself.
I've been on countless projects that have been buggered up by cost cutting.
Not really increased profit if all you’re ever doing is cutting and cutting until you can’t function.
Depends how much you are taking out and how short term your view is.
The Tory way is to grab it all now and screw the consequences.
We also have some pretty arcane Treasury rules where any savings delivered by Government departments can't be re-invested, but have to be returned to the Treasury and 'spend-to-save' initiatives are discouraged. I've worked on a number of Government programmes where we spend years developing solutions, applying for funding, co-investment from industry, getting it approved for 5-10 years with promise of more to find the whole thing abandoned after a couple of years because a new administration or minister wants to re-direct it elsewhere. The short-termism of recent Governments is what has deprived investment in many areas and in fact if it wasn't for EU money we'd be a lot worse.
stevextc
Member
Yet other European countries manage… France has had environmentally energy to spare with it’s nuclear program.
EDF are an interesting example to choose. Mostly because it's not privatised. Much like the trains, when we talk about privatisation in the UK it often means "nationalisation, just with a different nation than us". I mean, I like the French but exactly what is it that makes us think we couldn't possibly run a public nuclear power industry ourselves but the French can run it for us? So much so that we nationalised British Energy then sold it to the French.
And trains, people say Britain can't run a nationalised train service but we can have Abelio, Kelios and Arriva run chunks of ours at a profit- why are the Dutch, French and Germans so much better at nationalised rail that they can run ours and we can't?
It's a weird bit of british exceptionalism to think that we suck at these things and that just about every european government would be better at running our critical services than we can be.
Can I just jump into to say todays headlines where the Tories are being attacked for not responding to the flooding promptly is really ripping my knitting.
All parties need to be responding better to anthropomorphic climate change, the individual weather event is a passing side show.
Unimpressed.
Can I just jump into to say todays headlines where the Tories are being attacked for not responding to the flooding promptly is really ripping my knitting.
Well, the Tories since in Government have cut Environment Agency staff by 20% - reap what you sow
Well done Tim Walker. We just need his party, and the party of the candidate he stood down for, to wake the **** up.
As today’s reports of HS2 costs set to escalate yet again (presently 88 billion) it seems the Tory party is intensely relaxed ( to borrow the Abu Labour parlance) about spiffing money up the wall (to borrow the Borisism) as long as it’s going to their mates.
Rip the floor out from underneath the public sector, but when it comes to your mates multi-million quid bills for ‘consultancy work’ that’s all fine.
Remind me how many tens of millions of public money he spent on his ‘garden bridge’ that the evaporated into the ether?
I don’t think Johnson is keen on HS2 at all, is he? It’s a vote loser in his own seat, and plenty of other Conservative seats. Hopefully he’ll look long term and push ahead with it still.
Well done Tim Walker. We just need his party, and the party of the candidate he stood down for, to wake the **** up.
Don't know why he did this before the Thursday cut off as I understand - allowing another candidate to be selected?
(I think there's a battle going at national level versus local level here with the selection of candidates.)
but Labour then invests but wastes a lot…
Cite? Evidence? In my time in the NHS nothing has wasted ( that I have seen) anything like as much money as the tories fake market. that has added at least 10% to costs for zero benefit - its actually a detriment as it makes strategic planning more difficult
but Labour then invests but wastes a lot…
Is that old chestnut still doing the rounds?
All you have to do is look around and see how the Tories have managed to spend so much whilst delivering so little in the period of austerity.
Steve XTC - yes the NHS performs poorly on some indicators - now look at what is spent by other countries on health and compare it to us. Not seen the numbers recently but even at the peak of labours cash injuecton it still ranked a few % behind other counties. We spend IIRC just under 10% of gdp. US 20% EU average is around 12% Germany spends around 14% IIRC
Labours time in power it went up from under 8% of gdp to around 10% - and the improvement was huge
I ain't gonna waste my time actually looking at the numbers for someone who puts it down on ideological grounds without evidence as is clear
Oh go on - here is some numbers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.CHEX.GD.ZS?end=2016&start=2016&view=map
We get poorer results ( only in some areas) because we do not pay enough - and in England after the tories reforms admin cost went from 8% to 20% again IIRC
It’s a weird bit of british exceptionalism to think that we suck at these things and that just about every european government would be better at running our critical services than we can be.
Unfortunately, we did suck at those sorts of things. Almost every nationalised industry in the UK was shockingly bad, and I say this as someone who opposed privatisation of natural monopolies.
Just think back to British Leyland, British Rail et al if you don't believe me.
JP
As I said @rone they need to wake the **** up, as do Labour, and do what needs doing to keep Johnson’s seat count down.
Lib Dems are stuck really, they can't be seen to be uniting with labour if they want to try and steal some soft tories. Corbyn is so toxic that anyone who is seen to be aligned with him get's hurt if they are trying to take centrist voters.
HS2 review is too little and too late; deputy chair claims he has been marginalised and his views ignored - intends to publish his own report.
Totally unnecessary project with a London centric bias.
There needs to be and should have been a significant spend on rail infrastructure in the northern poorhouse to turn it into the northern powerhouse.
Back to HS2 and current estimated cost of £88billion; £33 billion, then £56billion - if it keeps on like this it won't be long before we're talking about big money.
Massively over budget with, undoubtedly, worse to come; will be late; too much committed to pull the plug; has drained infrastructure spend from elsewhere; reinforces London bias.
What a mess.
If you watch the recent despatches programme on HS2 all the rail experts were unanimous. It’s going to end up as 150 billion plus commuter line into London. It’ll be stopped at Birmingham, so the whole ‘northern powerhouse’ thing will be exposed as the total bollocks it always was. HS2 will never get north of the midlands
And while they spaff another 150 billlion on top of cross-rail tens of billions overspend, the reality of rail travel for users outside London and the south east looks like this
But apparently rail nationalisation would be a bad thing? Well I suppose it might be if you live in the South East
Totally this.
When Rees Mogg sounds off about Grenfell it is not a mistake. A lot of the people he is trying to court have an underlying feeling that the residents of Grenfell largely ‘should not be in this country anyway’.
These are the times we live in. This country is in managed decline. It makes it very easy to prey on people who think the world owes them a living.
This is why the right have an easier job than the left.
It's far easier to pander to greed and ignorance than it is to ignite the spark of altruism and appeal to people's better nature.
We're back in the '30's now.
It's only going to end one way.
What caused this shift?
Thatcherism.
Greed is good. The cult of the individual, the deliberate creation of an easy to blame underclass and the demonisation of the disenfranchised.
Evil, hateful ideology that has now gained so much momentum it cannot be stopped.
A nation of selfish, greedy individuals, ready to sacrifice those most in need to get an inch or two nearer the trough.
Unfortunately, we did suck at those sorts of things. Almost every nationalised industry in the UK was shockingly bad, and I say this as someone who opposed privatisation of natural monopolies.
Just think back to British Leyland, British Rail et al if you don’t believe me.
Taking this and Northwind’s post to which it’s replying...someone humour me. As when I arrived here from Ireland, privatisation was well underway, and I wasn’t a big user of trains so I don’t really remember the days of BR.
Were “we” shit at railways? If so, why so? If not, why not? I’m sure I remember some uni mates doing some inter-railing and saying how awesome it was to travel around Europe on the train but that was compared to the national Irish operator, CIE, which was a ****ing joke. That aside, I don’t hear many extolling the halcyon days of BR or is that just everyone looking through Maggie coloured glasses (accepting that it was Major’s government which passed the Railway Act...I think)?
So what made us so shite at railways and the rest of Europe so good? And why do we now yearn for nationalisation because the rest of Europe does it so well? How come they didn’t privatise to our level?
[Apologies for thread diversion.]
https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1194320833977733123?s=09
At first this looks like a shit idea, and it still looks like a shit idea after taking it in but the most successful film scrips feature flawed characters that people can relate to.
It's embarrassing but this is part of his allure unfortunately.
Emotion not facts is driving everything.
Hopefully Labour will get Ken Loach to direct one of their films like he did previously.
British real had suffered many years of underinvestment before privatisation
We had great innovative stuff ready to be used but tory ideology meant it was never put into service - look into the ATP / tilting trains for one example
Stevextc - got any evidence to back your assertions on the NHS? Or do you now I have give you the numbers accept that poor NHS performance is down to the tories underfunding and waste on the fake market?
The limp dems reaction to Tim Walker is very telling is it not?
3 other local limp dems on the candidate list in that constituency are also refusing to stand. If they national limp dems impose a candidate from outside then the local activists are not going to campaign for the imposed candidate
But no - the national party are more concerned with fighting labour than with stopping tories.
What caused this shift?
Thatcherism.
Greed is good. The cult of the individual, the deliberate creation of an easy to blame underclass and the demonisation of the disenfranchised.Evil, hateful ideology that has now gained so much momentum it cannot be stopped.
A nation of selfish, greedy individuals, ready to sacrifice those most in need to get an inch or two nearer the trough.
Yep, that was the start of it. Our main hope is the young who were not around back then and should be looking at the state we are in and doing something about it. Currently they are still outnumbered so a few years yet.
I think the Libdems have no choice but to contest Canterbury.
If they don't they're effectively saying they think Labour are a Remain party. If they think that then the Libdem USP evaporates.
As it happens Labour aren't a remain party IMHO. At best they're a referendum party and with a 50/50 split that referendum is a coinflip. Given their leadership are Brexiteers of 40 years standing and they have some policies that arguably aren't even legal within the EU it seems even more of a stretch to describe Labour as a Remain party.
Finally I think there's a lot to be said for voters having all three choices available to vote for: Leave, Revoke or Referendum. I'd be livid if I was denied the chance to vote for Revoke.
In terms of the result the Remain Torys will be going to the Libdems so I don't buy the logic that the Libdems standing will cost Labour the seat, quite the opposite.
That all ignores how FPTP works, outofbreath. Having “all three options” in a seat so often just lowers the vote count needed for the Conservatives to win that seat.
At first this looks like a shit idea
I thought he was a better actor than that… it looks so practised and contrived… I honestly thought one of his big skills was making this stuff look natural.
That all ignores how FPTP works, outofbreath. Having “all three options” in a seat so often just lowers the vote count needed for the Conservatives to win that seat.
The second paragraph is my main point. You can't set yourself up with the USP of being the the true Remain party and then fail to contest a seat which is a split between two parties that aren't really remainy at all. I really don't see a choice for the Libdems, they have to stand a candidate. (Of course they can stand a rubbish candidate and not campaign very hard in the seat.)
Northwind ...
EDF are an interesting example to choose. Mostly because it’s not privatised. Much like the trains, when we talk about privatisation in the UK it often means “nationalisation, just with a different nation than us”. I mean, I like the French but exactly what is it that makes us think we couldn’t possibly run a public nuclear power industry ourselves but the French can run it for us? So much so that we nationalised British Energy then sold it to the French.
And trains, people say Britain can’t run a nationalised train service but we can have Abelio, Kelios and Arriva run chunks of ours at a profit- why are the Dutch, French and Germans so much better at nationalised rail that they can run ours and we can’t?
It’s a weird bit of british exceptionalism to think that we suck at these things and that just about every european government would be better at running our critical services than we can be.
I don't think it's so clear cut... there is perhaps some British exceptionalism but I think it relates to the history of business/industries and other European countries have their own exceptions.
EDF, GDF (now Engie) and Orange/France Telecom were pretty crap in France from a consumer PoV... and much more successful exported.. whereas TGV/SNCF were always streets ahead.
You can’t set yourself up with the USP of being the the true Remain party and then fail to contest a seat which is a split between two parties that aren’t really remainy at all.
If opposition parties don’t/can’t change their tactics for key seats, rather than attempt a whole UK approach for this campaign, Johnson is laughing.
It’s a weird bit of british exceptionalism to think that we suck at these things and that just about every european government would be better at running our critical services than we can be.
No, it's a result of the way that the rail system was carved up such that it allowed profits to be privatised and liabilities to be nationalised. Any operator ought to be able to appear a success if the game is rigged in your favour.
Unfortunately, we did suck at those sorts of things. Almost every nationalised industry in the UK was shockingly bad, and I say this as someone who opposed privatisation of natural monopolies.
Just think back to British Leyland, British Rail et al if you don’t believe me.
As someone else posted, if you take a shit business on it's arse, nationalise it but don't fundamentally change it, it's still going to be a shit business on it's arse.
If you think we can't effectively run a nationalised business look at the recent history (15 years or so ) of the East Coast Line. Quite pertinent.
If opposition parties don’t/can’t change their tactics for key seats, rather than attempt a whole UK approach for this campaign, Johnson is laughing.
I'm arguing the "can't" angle. I'm making no judgement beyond that.
The two main parties can't do any kind of deal, and the Libdems can only (maybe!) get away with deals in very specific circumstances.
tjagain
Stevextc – got any evidence to back your assertions on the NHS? Or do you now I have give you the numbers accept that poor NHS performance is down to the tories underfunding and waste on the fake market?
Labour had 10 years, it's disingenuous to pretend the whole blame lies with the Tory's... or at least we expect that from the Tory's but 10- years losing a billion a year on procurement?
http://www.pharmatimes.com/news/nhs_procurement_waste_costs_1_billion_a_year_979820
Labour created the NHS IT project wasting billions (£12.4Bn) before it was abandoned...which was ultimately screwed before it started by procurement.
I'm not sure that outsourcing call centres for the NHS & GPs to india as that link suggests stevextc will be a popular move even if it were to save money
Meanwhile polls show bxp collapse & Tories streaking ahead.
Lib dem efforts to unseat Tories in SW & other areas hit as hard as labour in their seats Tories are targeting.
100 seat Tory majority, WTO Brexit 1st Jan 2021
but 10- years losing a billion a year on procurement?
Well you would need to look at how private hospitals do for that really to mean anything.
Although, that said, it is a good example of how the fetishising of "competition" and "choice" by both new Labour and the tories shine through. The "savings" are being shown between trusts created to break up the central NHS.
I’m not sure that outsourcing call centres for the NHS & GPs to india as that link suggests stevextc will be a popular move even if it were to save money
There is also the question does it really save money? After all this is government money not a business.
If a business moves a call centre to India then once redundancy is done they no longer need to worry about those workers. For the government unless its high employment in that area then its ongoing unemployment costs.
Did Labour waste money in the NHS when they were in charge? Undoubtedly. It would be pretty surprising to run an organisation of that size without wasting money somewhere. Meanwhile, after a few years of Tory rule, waiting lists skyrocket, a&e targets abandoned, and a major source of labour, desperately needed, the eu, effectively cut off. Bravo.
Have registered to vote by proxy.
Will put my trust in my sister to put a X next to the lib dems or Labour, which ever makes most sense to keep the tories out. However, with the tories winning over 53%, Labour with 29% and the lib dems only 15% of the vote last time round I'm not full of hope.
NHS losing a billion a year in procurement because they pay different prices for things is a bit glass half empty isn't it? How has that figure been arrived at?
I bought some Carrots reduced to 10p at the end of the night in the Coop- does that mean I'm losing 49p every time I buy them full price from now on?
kerley
I’m not sure that outsourcing call centres for the NHS & GPs to india as that link suggests stevextc will be a popular move even if it were to save money
It's only one way that they can procure cheaper.. the big one is simply removing their preferred suppliers and paying market value or below through bulk buying.
HOWEVER ... yes outsourcing would be unpopular in some terms but equally a different metric might be the difference between being able to get a GP's appointment and not.
Our surgery (6 GP's) no longer takes phone bookings in practice... you go at 07:30 to 08:00 and queue whilst the doors open then they allocate available slots. The phone isn't answered throughout. If you don't get an appointment you go back earlier the next day.
Even before they implemented this new scheme they had this for Monday's...
Going back years they refused to take appointments beyond 2 weeks.... we used to get letters from the health visitor that we hadn't booked an appointment... (even though she obviously knew they wouldn't make them???)
(More incremental waste)
Anyway ... back to what I was saying ...
I TOTALLY expect the Tory's to cost cut the NHS to and beyond the bone... it's what they do.
The point really is Labour did invest but failed to do some unpleasant things that needed doing...
I'm not saying outsourcing is necessary ... I'm saying that scaling back expectations of free at the point of need needs to be scaled back to something recognisable by Bevan.
Meanwhile polls show bxp collapse & Tories streaking ahead.
The average gap between Labour and Tories is narrowing.
Labour had 10 years, it’s disingenuous to pretend the whole blame lies with the Tory’s
There will always be **** ups and bad projects and money wasted. But the Tories are ideologically opposed to the idea of the NHS, they don't like it; whereas Labour support it. That should give you an idea of the direction they will take the NHS and the country.
NHS losing a billion a year in procurement because they pay different prices for things is a bit glass half empty isn’t it? How has that figure been arrived at?
I bought some Carrots reduced to 10p at the end of the night in the Coop- does that mean I’m losing 49p every time I buy them full price from now on?
Carrot's are not regulated and come from different places with different qualities.
Pharmacuticals however are ... not so it's like buying something like let's say a Shimano (or SRAM) chain. (since this is STW lets say both get chains made by KMC)
Not only are specific products chemically identical but they are produced in the exact same facility. (You can even check this because there is a code on the packaging)
NHS procurement though specifies which "preferred suppliers" and even which suppliers for which products and despite being a HUGE buyer often pays more and often many times more.
There will always be **** ups and bad projects and money wasted. But the Tories are ideologically opposed to the idea of the NHS, they don’t like it; whereas Labour support it. That should give you an idea of the direction they will take the NHS and the country.
I don't disagree at all.....
However what this underlies is the philosophy of spending for the sake of spending because it is somehow viewed as "good" regardless of our trade deficit.
If we had a net positive then sure... spend, create jobs and distribute but when the trade deficit is negative for any length of time borrowing is not an answer.
Public sector procurement could and should be much better but part of the problem is the insistence on candidates having OJEU experience in clear preference to significant private sector commercial experience.
OJEU comprises a set of rules; if you can read, you can follow them.
Private sector commercial experience is hard won and transferable but the public sector attaches little value to it.
How do I know? 35 years in procurement, last 15 at senior level; some interim roles in public sector with one of them close to an NHS trust; public sector procurement roles refer to commercial experience but will always take OJEU in preference; challenge is resisted.
The consequence is that recruitment brings in 'more of the same' and nothing changes.
Biggest NHS issue in short term is staff. Which won't be fixed by money although more funding not a bad thing.
Stuff gets cancelled increasingly regularly due to lack of staff, and there are increasing rates of vacant posts which can't be recruited to. Reasons for that probably vary from region to region (although some common ground)
No amount of money will help if you can't get any staff
despite being a HUGE buyer often pays more and often many times more.
The NHS isnt a "HUGE buyer" though. The NHS is several smaller buyers in order to meet ideological requirements.
However what this underlies is the philosophy of spending for the sake of spending because it is somehow viewed as “good” regardless of our trade deficit.
I think you are reading things in here which dont actually exist.
Libdems are shooting themselves in the foot with this Canterbury thing. I get the whole thing about them needing to be anti-labour to pick up tory seats, but this betrays their true intentions. They're more interested in beating labout than they are the tories.
https://twitter.com/BBCChrisD/status/1194534287657381888?s=20
Agreed, LibDems need to stand down in seats where doing so will help keep a seat out of Johnson’s hands… but that brings me back to SO DO LABOUR.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1194569570520051712
Meanwhile polls show bxp collapse & Tories streaking ahead.
Not going to deny they're ahead but I don't think that's the whole picture.
Libdems are shooting themselves in the foot with this Canterbury thing. I get the whole thing about them needing to be anti-labour to pick up tory seats, but this betrays their true intentions.
They’re more interested in beating labout than they are the tories
.
I agree, its a bit of a mess but I don't think it's simply wanting to beat labour. I think they feel the need to be seen as a viable 3rd party with a chance of dozens of seats (I dont think they are) and so stnaidng down to help labour doesnt fit that message. I'm a natural liberal voter but their recnet behaviour is putting me off. Not that it makes a difernece to this election as I am in a labour-tory marginal with a good labour MP.
In a Labour-Tory marginal I’d vote for a bad Labour MP at this election! I think lots of past Tory voters would do the same, with a different Labour leader… but hey… that’s the next snap election. I hope lots of voters who’d otherwise vote LibDem will vote Labour if Labour can beat the Conservatives in their seat… whatever it takes to prevent, or limit, Johnson’s majority.
Funnily enough, my local LibDems withdrew their candidate in a deal with the Greens in 2017. I wasn't greatly impressed, even though my vote was probably going to Labour anyhow. I'd rather potential Liberal and Labour voters were given a full range of choices with the idea of tactical voting pushed hard rather than potentially alienated by offering them only parties they wouldn't normally vote for, which in turn increases the chance of non-turnout.
Not going to deny they’re ahead but I don’t think that’s the whole picture.
polls since BXP stand down announcement show a 1-3% rise for the Tories since then, Labur were making headway before that
http://britainelects.com/polling/westminster/
Carrot’s are not regulated and come from different places with different qualities.
Pharmacuticals however are … not so it’s like buying something like let’s say a Shimano (or SRAM) chain. (since this is STW lets say both get chains made by KMC)Not only are specific products chemically identical but they are produced in the exact same facility. (You can even check this because there is a code on the packaging)
NHS procurement though specifies which “preferred suppliers” and even which suppliers for which products and despite being a HUGE buyer often pays more and often many times more.
That article you linked to is very wide ranging in its claims about £1bn a year, if its including sacking 10s of 1000s of receptionists & outsourcing to call centres as well as everything from ambulances to rubber gloves.
NICE do a pretty good job of negotiating lower drug prices, 3-4x lower than USA for same drugs, especially good at newer medicines, but less good at off-patent generics (one reason any USA trade deal will have the USA insisting we pay US drug companies more)
It is hard to change anything in the NHS, having had some invovlement in updating cancer treatment guidelines doctors/NHS (rightly or worngly) can be hard to change
and dont get me started on ethics regulation for research using human material, I might actually explode
polls since BXP stand down announcement show a 1-3% rise for the Tories since then, Labur were making headway before that
Maybe but as I've said lots of times the electorate can't vote any more for the Tories in the consitutencies that the BXP have stood down in than they can in 2017.
However what this underlies is the philosophy of spending for the sake of spending because it is somehow viewed as “good”
No-one wants to spend money and not get anything for it. That's a ludicrous assertion, not even politicians are that stupid. There is a caveat though - if you spend money on something that no-one needs, but you spend money within your own economy, then the money doesn't disappear, it's redistributed amongst the population where hopefully it'll get spent again within the economy. See Apollo Moon landings. But this requires care, otherwise it'll end up off-shore in someone else's pockets who doesn't need it.
If we had a net positive then sure… spend, create jobs and distribute but when the trade deficit is negative for any length of time borrowing is not an answer.
You borrow to invest and make more money. Ask any business owner.
Rafael behr usually gets my attention and writes this on a lab/LD pact:
As for the notion that Labour and Lib Dems should come to a grand accommodation, it is as old as it is infertile. They are old rivals from different traditions with grudges at every level from the Commons chamber to council by-election.
Even if individuals in certain seats could set bygones aside, at national level Jo Swinson needs support from liberal Tories who abhor Corbynism every bit as much as Brexit nationalism. Swinson cannot afford to give the faintest hint of formal collaboration with Labour under its current leader. Besides, there would be scant reciprocation. When Labour activists call for an alliance, what they tend to mean is that the Lib Dems should admit the folly of their existence, shut up and dock with the big red mothership of all political virtue. It is not as persuasive a pitch as some on the left seem to think
When Labour activists call for an alliance, what they tend to mean is that the Lib Dems should admit the folly of their existence, shut up and dock with the big red mothership of all political virtue.
^^^ this
I want LibDems and Labour to stand aside in a handful of obvious seats to try and deny Johnson his majority. Expecting the national LibDem Party to do so without any reciprocation from Labour is naive… but I still want them to, we still need them to… worry about what do to about an inwards looking Labour Party after denying Johnson his majority.
To discuss the NHS squandering £Billions and not mentioning PFI is disingenuous
A Tory idea seized by Blair/Brown to keep huge amounts of lending effectively off the books
And saddled pretty much every Trust with massive unsustainable costs for 30 years or so
I don’t think either Red or Blue can look back on that with pride. Which is probably why neither side mentions it
No-one wants to spend money and not get anything for it. That’s a ludicrous assertion, not even politicians are that stupid. There is a caveat though – if you spend money on something that no-one needs, but you spend money within your own economy, then the money doesn’t disappear, it’s redistributed amongst the population where hopefully it’ll get spent again within the economy. See Apollo Moon landings. But this requires care, otherwise it’ll end up off-shore in someone else’s pockets who doesn’t need it.
You borrow to invest and make more money. Ask any business owner.
Apollo was done at a time the US had a staggeringly huge positive trade.
You borrow, invest, MAKE MONEY, PAY INTEREST and PAY BACK.... the only way we can pay back is if we have +ve money coming in. The last time that happened in a month was 1989....
After a quarter or even a year as the interest mounts and you borrow more just to pay interest at some point it should have been obvious that borrowing our way out of debt wasn't working, let alone a decade.
To discuss the NHS squandering £Billions and not mentioning PFI is disingenuous
A Tory idea seized by Blair/Brown to keep huge amounts of lending effectively off the books
And saddled pretty much every Trust with massive unsustainable costs for 30 years or so
I don’t think either Red or Blue can look back on that with pride. Which is probably why neither side mentions it
I'm not trying to be dis-ingenious.... I simply expect that from the Tory's....
Lib Dem candidate has stood down in Canterbury
I will be interested to see if any Labour candidates make similar personal decisions to step down in marginals.
Edit should have said: Be interesting to see if any other candidates make similar decisions - seems a reasonable way to move forward without the national parties losing any face.
Of course they could do a deal. Labour and tories did in Scotland against the snp
In the latest instalment of this election campaign that is increasingly looking like its on acid...Jeremy Corbyn heckled as 'terrorist sympathiser' by Church of Scotland minister outside Glasgow campaign rally
In the latest instalment of this election campaign that is increasingly looking like its on acid…
People have been pulling up his tweets. Comes across as a lovely man of the cloth.
Somewhat surprising he is C of S and not one of the more nutty churches.
People have been pulling up his tweets.
Indeed. Being heckled by an overt racist and homophobe is no bad thing.
https://twitter.com/RaynerSkyNews/status/1194616866297266176?s=20
https://twitter.com/RaynerSkyNews/status/1194617302362263552?s=20
Still, JC showing off his knowledge of Scotland by wearing a tartan scarf. Are his own staff trolling him now?
dazh
Subscriber
Libdems are shooting themselves in the foot with this Canterbury thing. I get the whole thing about them needing to be anti-labour to pick up tory seats, but this betrays their true intentions. They’re more interested in beating labout than they are the tories.
Same as with the Unite for Remain pact, it's just that this is even more blatant. It's more and more unavodable that their only goal is to be 4th in a Tory-led country but with a few more seats. I don't just mean "only thing they're working on", I mean literally the only thing they can imagine as a goal for their party.
Scarfy McScarface?
I mean literally the only thing they can imagine as a goal for their party.
Strange isn't it that Swinson says she thinks she can be PM, yet her actions say that she thinks the best she can hope for is a few more MPs and the possiblity of Johnson or Corbyn begging her for help. Of course there is always the possiblity that Swinson is as deluded in real life as she appears in public. From what I've seen of her I wouldn't be too surprised.
Of course there is always the possiblity that Swinson is as deluded in real life as she appears in public. From what I’ve seen of her I wouldn’t be too surprised.
Judging by the number of personal attacks, it's not just Swinson who thinks the Libdems are going to do *very* well in this election. 😀
and the possiblity of Johnson or Corbyn begging her for help.
But that outcome is surely the most likely? The chances of anyone having an overall majority isn't a high one, is it?
And I doubt the Lib Dems will be mugged again like they were by Dave. Especially having just watched the DUP show them how its done. There's the opportunity here to wield a totally disproportionate amount of influence for the amount of seats they'll get. And I certainly hope they use it to make Brexit less Brexity
Hardly deluded, is it?
She's not deluded. She's just unscrupulous and innately dishonest. Unlike Johnson she knows the difference between truth and lies, she just doesn't think it applies to her (Johnson I think really doesn't know that they're not the same thing)
(OOB might consider that a personal attack but it's just a statement of facts. She's got 0 chance of being PM, and she knows it. Unite For Remain is a whitewash made mostly out of misdirection which is more likely to help the Tories than to hinder them, and she knows that too. She's a much more competent liar than Johnson but that's not better.)
She’s just unscrupulous and innately dishonest.
OOB might consider that a personal attack
You think? 😀