Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
BBC News agenda; Politics
Topic Started: Dec 24 2014, 11:08 AM (1,462 Views)
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Now like most on this board I am biased. I admit it, but to be fair we are all biased by our personal circumstances, our upbringing and our experiences in life, but I do try to be objective.
I am convinced that the BBC , news programmes in particular, has an agenda , a left wing government supporting one. I point the finger , and leave you to decide for yourselves if the coincidences you see are just fair reporting or there is something unfair taking place.
We know that the labour party is having difficulties with their opposition of government policies on the economy, so they have directed their opposition agendas towards the health service and government cuts.
To me the BBC is doing the same, and in the last few days there have been reports by them on ambulance waiting times, hospital waiting times, cuts in council spending, with a cut in street lighting emphasised ,and this morning they had a cameraman at a reporter at a feeding stationto supply food to the "starving" who looked to me .well fed , and the numbers shown very limited indeed. It looked like a set up.
Naturally with their multi cultural agenda , there were black faces to the fore. They do like to focus in their stories on the one black police officer, or the black or female soldier where ever they can. It seems as if the camera man has instructions to get at least one black person in their footage to be cut into the reporting. If a child in a classroom has a head scarf on they get particular attention. They also manage to get a Labour party spokesperson to appear in the early morning to comment on the story they highlight, which seems to indicate that they are in collusion with the Labour party.
I forecast that for the next few months they will concentrate on those things that will advantage the Labour party and will disadvantage the current government, with an emphasis on the NHS, which itself is so successful in the main , but will always have deficiencies and failures. peaks and troughs, until the last few weeks before the general election, when they will take an even handed approach to avoid criticism.

Look and watch for yourself make your judgements in an objective manner , and then tell me it is not as I see it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Dec 26 2014, 10:27 PM
C-too
Dec 26 2014, 04:01 PM
jaguar
Dec 26 2014, 03:43 PM
papasmurf
Dec 26 2014, 03:10 PM
I wish people would take a step back and take a look at the problems of running an ambulance service in a mainly rural area like Wales. Many areas of the UK have similar problems whoever is in government.
In Cornwall for instance a target arrival time of 8 minutes to get to an urgent casualty is cloud cuckoo land thought up by a desk pilot looking at maps, and not getting an area physically checked first before deciding on a sensible target time.

I believe JFG is not complaining about the problems of running an ambulance service, but complaining how the NHS in Wales is managed under LABOUR.

Maybe you should step back and take a look at the problems of Labour running the NHS in England.
As far as I'm aware, under NL, the health systems of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland were run separately from each other, with England having the most efficient NHS in these islands.
The NHS in England made giant steps forward under NL.
So did the national debt.
And Osborne has bought the "recovery" with record amounts of new debt!

Mentioned because it seems to have predictably escaped your attention. :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
jaguar
Dec 27 2014, 11:03 AM
Quote:
 
A bit of a smart arse reply when you know that NL did not cause the international financial meltdown. What NL did do was to pick up the pieces of the schools and the NHS inherited from the Tories.
I guess your comment was intended to somehow cancel out the positive achievements by NL. A sad ploy used on different threads by some other posters.




Picking up the pieces, Labour mortgaged the NHS for the next 30+ years under PFI. They allowed the private sector to dictate the terms and conditions of the PFI deals through utter incompetence in negotiating the contracts. PFI was started under the Major government and could have been stopped on day 1 in 1997.

In the PFI trusts the only staff who are NHS employee’s are doctors nurses and AHPs everybody else is employed by the PFI contractor. Central Manchester PFI is £5.5 BILLION over 35 years and South Manchester £1.1 BILLION over 40 years. South Manchester has a £20 MILLION hole in it’s 2014-15 ACCOUNTS. Both of these PFIs were signed by the last Labour government. Look at a lot if not all PFIs are in trouble and the vast majority were signed under the Blair/Brown years.

[/quote]

***************

What a shame the present government did not seek to get these onerous debts written off as a condition of bailing out many of the bankrupt banks that have their fingers in numerous PFI pies.

Instead we have been giving them free money AND repaying these intentionally piss poor deals, all of this is of course a subsidy for these useless parasites and is a stark reminder of who the Tory party really serves, ie not me or you.........
Edited by Tigger, Dec 27 2014, 07:21 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Dec 27 2014, 07:20 PM
jaguar
Dec 27 2014, 11:03 AM
Quote:
 
A bit of a smart arse reply when you know that NL did not cause the international financial meltdown. What NL did do was to pick up the pieces of the schools and the NHS inherited from the Tories.
I guess your comment was intended to somehow cancel out the positive achievements by NL. A sad ploy used on different threads by some other posters.




Picking up the pieces, Labour mortgaged the NHS for the next 30+ years under PFI. They allowed the private sector to dictate the terms and conditions of the PFI deals through utter incompetence in negotiating the contracts. PFI was started under the Major government and could have been stopped on day 1 in 1997.

In the PFI trusts the only staff who are NHS employee’s are doctors nurses and AHPs everybody else is employed by the PFI contractor. Central Manchester PFI is £5.5 BILLION over 35 years and South Manchester £1.1 BILLION over 40 years. South Manchester has a £20 MILLION hole in it’s 2014-15 ACCOUNTS. Both of these PFIs were signed by the last Labour government. Look at a lot if not all PFIs are in trouble and the vast majority were signed under the Blair/Brown years.



***************

What a shame the present government did not seek to get these onerous debts written off as a condition of bailing out many of the bankrupt banks that have their fingers in numerous PFI pies.

Instead we have been giving them free money AND repaying these intentionally piss poor deals, all of this is of course a subsidy for these useless parasites and is a stark reminder of who the Tory party really serves, ie not me or you.........[/quote]

Perhaps you could point out who exactly NL served?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
No need to, you already have the answer.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
krugerman
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
I would like to draw the attention of posters to an email which I wrote to Yorkshire Ambulance Service recently, the point of doing so is to reinforce the deterioration of the service across Yorkshire, and across the country.

The fact that many, indeed most people, have a good experience of the NHS is not only gratifying, but its what we expect.

The BBC, along with other news sources, are reporting the growing number of bad experiences of the NHS because this in NOT what we expect, therefore it is newsworthy, and more impotantly, it is in the public interest that we are informed of what is happening to OUR NHS.

The BBC is not a mouthpiece for either the Conservative Party or the Labour Party, it is a public service broadcaster which if necessary can, and should cause embaressment to either of the political parties, and to government and opposition, without fear of retribution.

____________________________________________________________________






I am writting to you chiefly in my capacity as a committee member of ****************, but also simply as a concerned resident of the Whitby area.

On Saturday last ( 6th December ) a member of staff at ************** called 999 and requested an ambulance because a customer had collapsed and showed some worrying signs of illness, this call was put out at approximately 11.40 pm.

At 00.15 am the emergency ambulance arrived, the time between putting out the call and the ambulance arriving was between 30 and 35 minutes, we were quite shocked to discover that the crew had actually travelled from Scarborough, which as you know is 21 miles on the A171, a road notorious for hazardous conditions in winter.

According to bar staff, this was the fourth time an ambulance has been called to the club in little over a year, and it seems that on three out the four ocassions, the response time was about 30 minutes, would you agree with me that this situation is not really acceptable. ?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
krugerman
Dec 28 2014, 11:07 AM
.

At 00.15 am the emergency ambulance arrived, the time between putting out the call and the ambulance arriving was between 30 and 35 minutes, we were quite shocked to discover that the crew had actually travelled from Scarborough, which as you know is 21 miles on the A171, a road notorious for hazardous conditions in winter.

Where did you expect the ambulance to have travelled from? It may also have been the only untasked ambulance available.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
krugerman
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Dec 28 2014, 11:13 AM
krugerman
Dec 28 2014, 11:07 AM
.

At 00.15 am the emergency ambulance arrived, the time between putting out the call and the ambulance arriving was between 30 and 35 minutes, we were quite shocked to discover that the crew had actually travelled from Scarborough, which as you know is 21 miles on the A171, a road notorious for hazardous conditions in winter.

Where did you expect the ambulance to have travelled from? It may also have been the only untasked ambulance available.
The location of the emergency was approximately half a mile from Whitby ambulance station, and whilst I accept that on ocassion all resources available may be busy, my point is that this is a situation which appears to be getting steadily worse, and half an hour wait for an emergency ambulance is now a frequent occurance, where it never used to be.

The BBC is reporting a deteriorating NHS, including deteriorating ambulance service, response times are getting longer, and the government is now considering altering the response time criteria, because the limited resources are spread so thin, and in my opinion the public would want to know about these very serious issues.

Clearly, some Conservative / government supporters do not like these issues been reported by the BBC, they accuse the broadcaster of been "left wing".

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lewis
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
krugerman
Dec 28 2014, 11:45 AM
papasmurf
Dec 28 2014, 11:13 AM
krugerman
Dec 28 2014, 11:07 AM
.

At 00.15 am the emergency ambulance arrived, the time between putting out the call and the ambulance arriving was between 30 and 35 minutes, we were quite shocked to discover that the crew had actually travelled from Scarborough, which as you know is 21 miles on the A171, a road notorious for hazardous conditions in winter.

Where did you expect the ambulance to have travelled from? It may also have been the only untasked ambulance available.
The location of the emergency was approximately half a mile from Whitby ambulance station, and whilst I accept that on ocassion all resources available may be busy, my point is that this is a situation which appears to be getting steadily worse, and half an hour wait for an emergency ambulance is now a frequent occurance, where it never used to be.

The BBC is reporting a deteriorating NHS, including deteriorating ambulance service, response times are getting longer, and the government is now considering altering the response time criteria, because the limited resources are spread so thin, and in my opinion the public would want to know about these very serious issues.

Clearly, some Conservative / government supporters do not like these issues been reported by the BBC, they accuse the broadcaster of been "left wing".

How very true, if Tories or their supporters see or read something that shows their rotten party in a poor light, they would rather it be buried.

I don't see the Beeb as being particularly left wing, in reality it has drifted more to the right over the past four to five years.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jaguar
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Tigger
Dec 27 2014, 07:20 PM
What a shame the present government did not seek to get these onerous debts written off as a condition of bailing out many of the bankrupt banks that have their fingers in numerous PFI pies.

Instead we have been giving them free money AND repaying these intentionally piss poor deals, all of this is of course a subsidy for these useless parasites and is a stark reminder of who the Tory party really serves, ie not me or you.........
If I was in financial difficulties and asked the banks for a loan, they would charge me interest rates.

WHY didn't the Labour Government ie Brown do the same instead of giving the £Billions of free money, or is this a stark reminder of who the Labour party really serves, ie not me or you.........
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
krugerman
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
I am just thankfull that Darling and Brown actually had a plan to rescue us from the financial crisis and subsequent recession, because Cameron certainly dident have one, infact to this day no one knows what he and Osborne would have done differently.

As professor Paul Krugman said at the time "all David Cameron could do was wave the red flag of fiscal panic"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
krugerman
Dec 28 2014, 11:07 AM
. . According to bar staff, this was the fourth time an ambulance has been called to the club in little over a year, and it seems that on three out the four ocassions, the response time was about 30 minutes, would you agree with me that this situation is not really acceptable. ?
Clubs to avoid #23? Does seem to be a risky place



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
johnofgwent
Member Avatar
It .. It is GREEN !!
[ *  *  *  * ]
krugerman
Dec 28 2014, 11:07 AM
I would like to draw the attention of posters to an email which I wrote to Yorkshire Ambulance Service recently, the point of doing so is to reinforce the deterioration of the service across Yorkshire, and across the country.

The fact that many, indeed most people, have a good experience of the NHS is not only gratifying, but its what we expect.

The BBC, along with other news sources, are reporting the growing number of bad experiences of the NHS because this in NOT what we expect, therefore it is newsworthy, and more impotantly, it is in the public interest that we are informed of what is happening to OUR NHS.

The BBC is not a mouthpiece for either the Conservative Party or the Labour Party, it is a public service broadcaster which if necessary can, and should cause embaressment to either of the political parties, and to government and opposition, without fear of retribution.

____________________________________________________________________






I am writting to you chiefly in my capacity as a committee member of ****************, but also simply as a concerned resident of the Whitby area.

On Saturday last ( 6th December ) a member of staff at ************** called 999 and requested an ambulance because a customer had collapsed and showed some worrying signs of illness, this call was put out at approximately 11.40 pm.

At 00.15 am the emergency ambulance arrived, the time between putting out the call and the ambulance arriving was between 30 and 35 minutes, we were quite shocked to discover that the crew had actually travelled from Scarborough, which as you know is 21 miles on the A171, a road notorious for hazardous conditions in winter.

According to bar staff, this was the fourth time an ambulance has been called to the club in little over a year, and it seems that on three out the four ocassions, the response time was about 30 minutes, would you agree with me that this situation is not really acceptable. ?
Sounds to me like the owner of that bar ought to have his fitness to run a drinking establishment brought into question ...

What the hell does he think he's doing serving a clientele who so demonstrably fail to sustain themselves in an upright position at the witching hour and should therefore have been despatched home to their horlicks dressing gown and slippers HOURS before ...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
jaguar
Dec 28 2014, 12:07 PM
Tigger
Dec 27 2014, 07:20 PM
What a shame the present government did not seek to get these onerous debts written off as a condition of bailing out many of the bankrupt banks that have their fingers in numerous PFI pies.

Instead we have been giving them free money AND repaying these intentionally piss poor deals, all of this is of course a subsidy for these useless parasites and is a stark reminder of who the Tory party really serves, ie not me or you.........
If I was in financial difficulties and asked the banks for a loan, they would charge me interest rates.

WHY didn't the Labour Government ie Brown do the same instead of giving the £Billions of free money, or is this a stark reminder of who the Labour party really serves, ie not me or you.........
When the meltdown began no one fully understood just how bad or just how deep it was. The initial comments were words to the effect of --- this is a problem for the Banks to sort out ---. As the reality emerged the first requirement was to make sure that the growing recession did not turn into a depression. Many of the Banks, if left to their own devices would have gone under, some people think that is what should have happened. If Banks had been left to go under it would have caused a run on other Banks as people tried to protect their savings. That would have led to a run on the Stock Market.

Avoiding a depression helped everyone, especially the average person just like you and me?

Could it have been done differently, well probably. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, except when it is misused for propaganda purposes.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Dec 28 2014, 01:12 PM


Avoiding a depression helped everyone, especially the average person just like you and me?

Could it have been done differently, well probably. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, except when it is misused for propaganda purposes.

I do not for one moment believe the rescue plan that Brown and Darling agreed on was the wrong solution. What is clearly wrong is that these banks escaped financial penalties above those losses they incurred on themselves. It was their duty to forego profits to repay the tax payer first for the investment given. In this instance their stock market value should mean nothing.

edit ... to add that the UK was the most exposed (of all) to a crash! Nobody stood to lose more than the UK bankers/investors did, the 'City' being as huge as it still is.



Edited by Affa, Dec 28 2014, 07:32 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
krugerman
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Truly amazing that coalition / Tory supporters are actually arguing that the banks should pay penalties or interest.

Now there s a thing : Conservatives wishing to punish big banks, its rather like the Salvation Army wishing to punish the homeless.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lewis
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
krugerman
Dec 29 2014, 09:19 AM
Truly amazing that coalition / Tory supporters are actually arguing that the banks should pay penalties or interest.

Now there s a thing : Conservatives wishing to punish big banks, its rather like the Salvation Army wishing to punish the homeless.
...or putting Giddie Ozzie in charge of a blood bank as well as the Nation's finances.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
krugerman
Dec 29 2014, 09:19 AM
its rather like the Salvation Army wishing to punish the homeless.
Unfortunately they are already doing that, the Sally Army is one of the Government's forced labour contractors:-

http://news.salvationarmy.org.uk/response

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ranger121
Member Avatar
Administrator
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Dec 29 2014, 09:45 AM
krugerman
Dec 29 2014, 09:19 AM
its rather like the Salvation Army wishing to punish the homeless.
Unfortunately they are already doing that, the Sally Army is one of the Government's forced labour contractors:-

http://news.salvationarmy.org.uk/response

You really are ridiculous.

How are the Salvation Army 'punishing the homeless' because they offer places in the work programme?

Do you not think that some of the unemployed would rather be stacking shelves in Poundland (even if they don't get paid for it) with the chance of a proper job at the end of the term, or would they rather be sat watching Jeremy Kyle with 2 litres of strong cider and a bag of Doritos?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jaguar
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
krugerman
Dec 29 2014, 09:19 AM
Truly amazing that coalition / Tory supporters are actually arguing that the banks should pay penalties or interest.

Now there s a thing : Conservatives wishing to punish big banks, its rather like the Salvation Army wishing to punish the homeless.
If memory serves me right Conservatives vwere not in power then, Labour were.So I repeat,

If I was in financial difficulties and asked the banks for a loan, they would charge me interest rates.

WHY didn't the Labour Government ie Brown do the same instead of giving the £Billions of free money


Answer the question.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
jaguar
Dec 29 2014, 12:33 PM
krugerman
Dec 29 2014, 09:19 AM
Truly amazing that coalition / Tory supporters are actually arguing that the banks should pay penalties or interest.

Now there s a thing : Conservatives wishing to punish big banks, its rather like the Salvation Army wishing to punish the homeless.
If memory serves me right Conservatives vwere not in power then, Labour were.So I repeat,

If I was in financial difficulties and asked the banks for a loan, they would charge me interest rates.

WHY didn't the Labour Government ie Brown do the same instead of giving the £Billions of free money


Answer the question.
I was under the impression the Government took part ownership of the Banks, which would be returned when the money used to bail them out was repaid?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jaguar
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
C-too
Dec 29 2014, 01:02 PM
jaguar
Dec 29 2014, 12:33 PM
krugerman
Dec 29 2014, 09:19 AM
Truly amazing that coalition / Tory supporters are actually arguing that the banks should pay penalties or interest.

Now there s a thing : Conservatives wishing to punish big banks, its rather like the Salvation Army wishing to punish the homeless.
If memory serves me right Conservatives vwere not in power then, Labour were.So I repeat,

If I was in financial difficulties and asked the banks for a loan, they would charge me interest rates.

WHY didn't the Labour Government ie Brown do the same instead of giving the £Billions of free money


Answer the question.
I was under the impression the Government took part ownership of the Banks, which would be returned when the money used to bail them out was repaid?
The more important question is when will the government and taxpayer recoup these costs, if ever?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ranger121
Member Avatar
Administrator
[ *  *  *  * ]
jaguar
Dec 29 2014, 01:41 PM
The more important question is when will the government and taxpayer recoup these costs, if ever?
Isn't it the case that owning most of a bank is more profitable than sitting on the sidelines taxing the profits?

Isn't it the case that the government is slowly selling off its percentage of ownership of the banks and is slowly recovering what we lent them?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lewis
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
ranger121
Dec 29 2014, 11:59 AM
papasmurf
Dec 29 2014, 09:45 AM
krugerman
Dec 29 2014, 09:19 AM
its rather like the Salvation Army wishing to punish the homeless.
Unfortunately they are already doing that, the Sally Army is one of the Government's forced labour contractors:-

http://news.salvationarmy.org.uk/response

You really are ridiculous.

How are the Salvation Army 'punishing the homeless' because they offer places in the work programme?

Do you not think that some of the unemployed would rather be stacking shelves in Poundland (even if they don't get paid for it) with the chance of a proper job at the end of the term, or would they rather be sat watching Jeremy Kyle with 2 litres of strong cider and a bag of Doritos?
I'm pretty sure that watching Jeremy Kyle whilst scoffing a bag of Doritos and supping 2l of booze is by far more intellectually rewarding then stacking shelves at Poundland, with no hope whatsoever of future employment, as happens in the overwhelming majority of IDSs phoney workfare schemes.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
ranger121
Dec 29 2014, 11:59 AM


How are the Salvation Army 'punishing the homeless' because they offer places in the work programme?


The Sally Army is taking part in the Mandatory Work Activity scam, they are not "offering places."
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Marconi
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Yep if there is work to be done in Poundland or the Sally Army, or anywhere else, then PAY THEM A WAGE.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Marconi
Dec 29 2014, 04:09 PM
Yep if there is work to be done in Poundland or the Sally Army, or anywhere else, then PAY THEM A WAGE.
Such undeniable logic, and yet far beyond the intelligence of our political masters to understand.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Marconi
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Affa
Dec 29 2014, 04:21 PM
Marconi
Dec 29 2014, 04:09 PM
Yep if there is work to be done in Poundland or the Sally Army, or anywhere else, then PAY THEM A WAGE.
Such undeniable logic, and yet far beyond the intelligence of our political masters to understand.

Which goes back to your point - there is plenty of work to be done. I have just come back from a stroll in town, there are many buildings that need a scrub or a lick of paint, fountains to clean out, areas to be tidied up.

I'd jump on those type of jobs if I lost my present one and so would be able to keep my head above water.

It is the short term thinking by politicians that is making the UK lag behind in areas including education, investment, trade deficits and income inequality.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ranger121
Member Avatar
Administrator
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Dec 29 2014, 04:06 PM
ranger121
Dec 29 2014, 11:59 AM


How are the Salvation Army 'punishing the homeless' because they offer places in the work programme?


The Sally Army is taking part in the Mandatory Work Activity scam, they are not "offering places."
Can you tell the rest of us what it is you understand about the work programme?

Like how long you are unemployed before you qualify, and how long it lasts?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Marconi
Dec 29 2014, 04:51 PM
Affa
Dec 29 2014, 04:21 PM
Marconi
Dec 29 2014, 04:09 PM
Yep if there is work to be done in Poundland or the Sally Army, or anywhere else, then PAY THEM A WAGE.
Such undeniable logic, and yet far beyond the intelligence of our political masters to understand.

Which goes back to your point - there is plenty of work to be done. I have just come back from a stroll in town, there are many buildings that need a scrub or a lick of paint, fountains to clean out, areas to be tidied up.

I'd jump on those type of jobs if I lost my present one and so would be able to keep my head above water.

It is the short term thinking by politicians that is making the UK lag behind in areas including education, investment, trade deficits and income inequality.
Are you suggesting that those without employment should be conscripted as Teachers or Investors by the State?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ranger121
Member Avatar
Administrator
[ *  *  *  * ]
Marconi
Dec 29 2014, 04:51 PM
Affa
Dec 29 2014, 04:21 PM
Marconi
Dec 29 2014, 04:09 PM
Yep if there is work to be done in Poundland or the Sally Army, or anywhere else, then PAY THEM A WAGE.
Such undeniable logic, and yet far beyond the intelligence of our political masters to understand.

Which goes back to your point - there is plenty of work to be done. I have just come back from a stroll in town, there are many buildings that need a scrub or a lick of paint, fountains to clean out, areas to be tidied up.

I'd jump on those type of jobs if I lost my present one and so would be able to keep my head above water.

It is the short term thinking by politicians that is making the UK lag behind in areas including education, investment, trade deficits and income inequality.
sure, there is plenty of 'work' to be done.

Who is going to employ and pay people to do these jobs?

Further, if you have been unemployed for 12 months and no sniff of a job in sight, would rather be doing these jobs for the princely sum of £70 a week or sitting in the house burning electric and gas that you can't afford with two litres of cider and a bag of Doritos?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
My original mention of 'there are plenty of jobs that can be done' made the reference to 'who's to pay'.
All it needs to answer is a proper understanding of what Capitalism means. It contains the phrase 'fair exchange'. A point that is lacking. Wealth is not widely distributed, so there are fewer and fewer in a position to 'pay' for work to be done. A wage revival alters everything.
I'd pay to have my house repainted every year if I had more money. An example of how a low wage economy destroys jobs. People on low wages don't have disposable income, the Treasury doesn't get its rewards, and jobs don't get done.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Marconi
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
We have been through this on here lots of times. And normally the poster is shot down in flames when the big question ''Who is going to pay to do these jobs'' is replied. Quite often because profit is always the bottom line.

So I'll stick my head above the parapet and say, with the UK being the 6th richest country, that the big, fat flatulent nanny should pay for these jobs. Pay a wage and that money will go back into the shops and the economy.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ranger121
Member Avatar
Administrator
[ *  *  *  * ]
Marconi
Dec 29 2014, 06:55 PM
We have been through this on here lots of times. And normally the poster is shot down in flames when the big question ''Who is going to pay to do these jobs'' is replied. Quite often because profit is always the bottom line.

So I'll stick my head above the parapet and say, with the UK being the 6th richest country, that the big, fat flatulent nanny should pay for these jobs. Pay a wage and that money will go back into the shops and the economy.



Ah, but then the big bloated state is accused of over-manning, inefficiency and having too many people on the taxpayer's payroll.

Stuffed if they do try something, stuffed if they don't.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
ranger121
Dec 29 2014, 07:16 PM
Marconi
Dec 29 2014, 06:55 PM
We have been through this on here lots of times. And normally the poster is shot down in flames when the big question ''Who is going to pay to do these jobs'' is replied. Quite often because profit is always the bottom line.

So I'll stick my head above the parapet and say, with the UK being the 6th richest country, that the big, fat flatulent nanny should pay for these jobs. Pay a wage and that money will go back into the shops and the economy.



Ah, but then the big bloated state is accused of over-manning, inefficiency and having too many people on the taxpayer's payroll.
Has anybody bothered to compare the size of the UK State to other major economies?

Privatising government departments, services, operations etc does not count as reducing the size of the State as some choose to believe.
AS all here will know the NHS is a low cost health service in comparison to most wealthy nations.
Do a similar comparison of all the departments and with the exception of the defence budget (and possibly Welfare) the UK (under Labour) doesn't spend more proportion of GDP than the rest.
The whole argument is political, driven by dogma, not facts.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Dec 29 2014, 06:50 PM
My original mention of 'there are plenty of jobs that can be done' made the reference to 'who's to pay'.
All it needs to answer is a proper understanding of what Capitalism means. It contains the phrase 'fair exchange'. A point that is lacking. Wealth is not widely distributed, so there are fewer and fewer in a position to 'pay' for work to be done. A wage revival alters everything.
I'd pay to have my house repainted every year if I had more money. An example of how a low wage economy destroys jobs. People on low wages don't have disposable income, the Treasury doesn't get its rewards, and jobs don't get done.



Perhaps you would care to explain why we have a low wage economy and who exactly caused it and admitted that they got it wrong long after the damage had been done to natives of this country already tied into mortgages, direct debits etc, who was it that was willing to pay people to sit at home getting obese and even voting for them by postal voting so that the poor souls would not miss their daytime TV programmes.

If anyone is stupid enough to vote for that shower of British hating shite again then THEY deserve what they get because the taxpayer is sick to the back teeth of carrying dead wood and being led by those that claim they represent the working man whilst all the time they are undermining his living standards by letting all and sundry in to undercut wage levels and claim tax benefits and then send their money back home.

Labour in office?.......god help us if they ever get hold of the purse strings again. !nono! !nono! !nono!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
To Rich

You make it difficult not to get personal.
There are pages of posts here to answer your silly question. as mistakenly wrong as the premis you put on it is!

It was the Tories that declared a minimum wage would destroy jobs, cause businesses to go into bankruptcy ........ you haven't forgotten, you play the idiot.
Your description of others as 'dead wood' earns the Nasty title.

Edited by Affa, Dec 29 2014, 08:06 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lewis
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Dec 29 2014, 07:40 PM
Affa
Dec 29 2014, 06:50 PM
My original mention of 'there are plenty of jobs that can be done' made the reference to 'who's to pay'.
All it needs to answer is a proper understanding of what Capitalism means. It contains the phrase 'fair exchange'. A point that is lacking. Wealth is not widely distributed, so there are fewer and fewer in a position to 'pay' for work to be done. A wage revival alters everything.
I'd pay to have my house repainted every year if I had more money. An example of how a low wage economy destroys jobs. People on low wages don't have disposable income, the Treasury doesn't get its rewards, and jobs don't get done.



Perhaps you would care to explain why we have a low wage economy and who exactly caused it and admitted that they got it wrong long after the damage had been done to natives of this country already tied into mortgages, direct debits etc, who was it that was willing to pay people to sit at home getting obese and even voting for them by postal voting so that the poor souls would not miss their daytime TV programmes.

If anyone is stupid enough to vote for that shower of British hating shite again then THEY deserve what they get because the taxpayer is sick to the back teeth of carrying dead wood and being led by those that claim they represent the working man whilst all the time they are undermining his living standards by letting all and sundry in to undercut wage levels and claim tax benefits and then send their money back home.

Labour in office?.......god help us if they ever get hold of the purse strings again. !nono! !nono! !nono!
You are describing your very own Tory a Party in sayin that they have let even more 'all and sundry' in. Your lot have promised to cut down on immigration, but in reality increased it.

Trust anything that Scameron and his lying rotten party have to say on anything? No way. I would never wish that rotten horrid lot to be in power again. Come next May, we cand get rid of the useless incompetent morons, once and for all.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
ranger121
Dec 29 2014, 02:58 PM

Isn't it the case that the government is slowly selling off its percentage of ownership of the banks and is slowly recovering what we lent them?
I'd like to think so, unfortunately we've lost at least half a billion in flogging of the Former Northern rock to Richard Branson and the taxpayer is still in possession of the bad bit of that bank which has as yet undisclosed final losses, and if you really want to depress yourself Google taxpayer could lose £66bn and the not widely reported comments of Margaret Hodge from earlier this year.

We'll be screwed over, of that I am certain.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Dec 29 2014, 05:27 PM
Marconi
Dec 29 2014, 04:51 PM
Affa
Dec 29 2014, 04:21 PM
Marconi
Dec 29 2014, 04:09 PM
Yep if there is work to be done in Poundland or the Sally Army, or anywhere else, then PAY THEM A WAGE.
Such undeniable logic, and yet far beyond the intelligence of our political masters to understand.

Which goes back to your point - there is plenty of work to be done. I have just come back from a stroll in town, there are many buildings that need a scrub or a lick of paint, fountains to clean out, areas to be tidied up.

I'd jump on those type of jobs if I lost my present one and so would be able to keep my head above water.

It is the short term thinking by politicians that is making the UK lag behind in areas including education, investment, trade deficits and income inequality.
Are you suggesting that those without employment should be conscripted as Teachers or Investors by the State?

Or wet nurses for the elderly and semi senile? After all you could be as thick as shit and do that job.

;-)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Dec 29 2014, 07:40 PM
Affa
Dec 29 2014, 06:50 PM
My original mention of 'there are plenty of jobs that can be done' made the reference to 'who's to pay'.
All it needs to answer is a proper understanding of what Capitalism means. It contains the phrase 'fair exchange'. A point that is lacking. Wealth is not widely distributed, so there are fewer and fewer in a position to 'pay' for work to be done. A wage revival alters everything.
I'd pay to have my house repainted every year if I had more money. An example of how a low wage economy destroys jobs. People on low wages don't have disposable income, the Treasury doesn't get its rewards, and jobs don't get done.



Perhaps you would care to explain why we have a low wage economy and who exactly caused it and admitted that they got it wrong long after the damage had been done to natives of this country already tied into mortgages, direct debits etc, who was it that was willing to pay people to sit at home getting obese and even voting for them by postal voting so that the poor souls would not miss their daytime TV programmes.

If anyone is stupid enough to vote for that shower of British hating shite again then THEY deserve what they get because the taxpayer is sick to the back teeth of carrying dead wood and being led by those that claim they represent the working man whilst all the time they are undermining his living standards by letting all and sundry in to undercut wage levels and claim tax benefits and then send their money back home.

Labour in office?.......god help us if they ever get hold of the purse strings again. !nono! !nono! !nono!
^ So he'll vote UKIP! ;D

Talk about giving someone enough rope to hang themselves with! Zero chance of a Czech style Velvet Revolution where millions simply refused to co operate with the state thus bringing it down and bringing about genuine reform, I guess Britain is just to class riven and self centred for such simplistic and direct action.........
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply