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
Nigel Farage named Briton of the year by the Times
Topic Started: Dec 27 2014, 03:42 PM (2,922 Views)
AndyK
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
The 50-year-old was described as "game-changing" politician and was honoured for "bulldozing" his party into the political mainstream during 2014.


http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/548896/Nigel-Farage-Ukip-UK-Independence-Party-Briton-of-the-Year-2014-The-Times
Edited by AndyK, Dec 27 2014, 03:43 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
krugerman
Jan 5 2015, 10:58 AM
In Yorkshire and elsewhere it is becoming ( becoming(bɪˈkʌmɪŋ) 1 any process of change 2 any change from the lower level of potentiality to the higher level of actuality ) more common to wait half an hour or longer for emergency ambulances, it is a more frequent occurance, whereas at one time it was a very rare occurance.

The ambulance service together with the NHS has gone downhill since this government took over, not a debatable opinion, not an assumption or or a theory - its a fact.
But even in the specific area of Yorkshire that is not true Krugerman as you could easily have checked.

Far from your false allegation the fact is that although they are not meeting the national standard, overwhelmingly most emergency cases are reached inside 10 minutes rendering your half hour to an hour "norm" claim preposterous.

Quote:
 
A spokesman for the ambulance service said: “Overall demand for emergency ambulances is increasing year-on-year and this is reflected across the whole country.

“In Yorkshire and the Humber demand for the most seriously ill and injured patients in the first six months of the year was up by 11.5 per cent which equates to nearly 15,000 more ‘Red’ incidents in the year-to-date.

“The October 2014 figures for ‘Red’ response times have shown improvement with 73.83 per cent of incidents responded to within the eight-minute target.



Clicky Link

I would really suggest you stop digging
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
As Labour have nothing to offer wrt to the economy they will run scare stories on the NHS. The current claim is that there will be changes, well I certainly hope so as the NHS will not cope without such and the paltry £1b offered by Labour is not a solution to anything, if anything it is an admission that there is nothing much wrong as £1b in £120b is within the measurement accuracy and would be swamped by efficiency improvements. In truth there is a case for not increasing the NHS budget until it first delivers on productivity.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Jan 5 2015, 09:24 AM
I don't know why but I'm unable to open your website addresses.
. . .

Try this instead as a start point: http://www.nationwide.co.uk/about/house-price-index/download-data#xtab:uk-series

C-too
Jan 5 2015, 09:24 AM
. . .Any suggestion that it was house prices that created our present predicament is utterly ridiculous.

By far the biggest ever real terms rise in house prices, by far the biggest ever taking on of household debt levered on that market.

No they weren't the only cause, government borrowing of £200B over what were supposed to be good years was in the mix too, it really does beggar belief that you don't see the linkage between the UK's reckless debt fuelled mid 2000s boom and why we had such a savage recession, demonstrably one of the worst recessions across the world. Of the G8 countries, only one (Japan) was worse

Posted Image

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
krugerman
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 5 2015, 11:39 AM
krugerman
Jan 5 2015, 10:58 AM
In Yorkshire and elsewhere it is becoming ( becoming(bɪˈkʌmɪŋ) 1 any process of change 2 any change from the lower level of potentiality to the higher level of actuality ) more common to wait half an hour or longer for emergency ambulances, it is a more frequent occurance, whereas at one time it was a very rare occurance.

The ambulance service together with the NHS has gone downhill since this government took over, not a debatable opinion, not an assumption or or a theory - its a fact.
But even in the specific area of Yorkshire that is not true Krugerman as you could easily have checked.

Far from your false allegation the fact is that although they are not meeting the national standard, overwhelmingly most emergency cases are reached inside 10 minutes rendering your half hour to an hour "norm" claim preposterous.

Quote:
 
A spokesman for the ambulance service said: “Overall demand for emergency ambulances is increasing year-on-year and this is reflected across the whole country.

“In Yorkshire and the Humber demand for the most seriously ill and injured patients in the first six months of the year was up by 11.5 per cent which equates to nearly 15,000 more ‘Red’ incidents in the year-to-date.

“The October 2014 figures for ‘Red’ response times have shown improvement with 73.83 per cent of incidents responded to within the eight-minute target.



Clicky Link

I would really suggest you stop digging
Yorkshire Ambulance Service is facing fines of almost £4m for not reaching seriously-ill patients quickly enough.

The service is being penalised for failing to hit tough Government targets to get to 75 per cent of patients thought to be in a life-threatening condition within eight minutes.

The trust, which is in the process of making £10m cuts this year, is forecasting it will face a financial penalty in the region of £3.8m by the end of the current financial year.
(South Yorkshire Times - published Dec 2014 )
--------------------------------------------------------

The Yorkshire Ambulance Service (YAS) is failing to meet national targets on response times in rural North Yorkshire.

Figures for this year show the service is only reaching 57% of call-outs within eight minutes in Hambleton, Richmondshire and Whitby.
(BBC News - York & North Yorkshire )
--------------------------------------------------------

A COUPLE injured in a car crash in one of Hull's busiest roads were forced to wait more than an hour for an ambulance to arrive from Scarborough.
(Hull Daily Mail )
--------------------------------------------------------
The NHS Trust which runs the Yorkshire Ambulance Service has apologised to father of two Kenny Bailey, from Barnsley, after it took more than an hour for an ambulance to reach him when he suffered a massive stroke. MPs are demanding improved response times.
(ITV News-Yorkshire; published Nov 2014)
--------------------------------------------------------

Why do you think ambulance bosses have asked the government to review and recategorise emergency calls ?

If the proposals are accepted, and the government has not ruled out accepting these proposals, all category 2 "Red Calls" will no longer have a required response time of 8 minutes, instead people suffering a stroke or a fit for example, would no longer be a priority.

The cash starved ambulance services are having to consider such drastic measures because they fear they will not be able to cope in the future, do you think this a good sign of one of our most essential front line public services, and something the government should be proud of. ?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Thank you for posting conclusive proof your ridiculous claim about "the norm" being half an hour to an hour was just that - ridiculous

I wish you well in rebuilding your reputation here
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 5 2015, 11:53 AM
C-too
Jan 5 2015, 09:24 AM
I don't know why but I'm unable to open your website addresses.
. . .

Try this instead as a start point: http://www.nationwide.co.uk/about/house-price-index/download-data#xtab:uk-series

C-too
Jan 5 2015, 09:24 AM
. . .Any suggestion that it was house prices that created our present predicament is utterly ridiculous.

By far the biggest ever real terms rise in house prices, by far the biggest ever taking on of household debt levered on that market.

No they weren't the only cause, government borrowing of £200B over what were supposed to be good years was in the mix too, it really does beggar belief that you don't see the linkage between the UK's reckless debt fuelled mid 2000s boom and why we had such a savage recession, demonstrably one of the worst recessions across the world. Of the G8 countries, only one (Japan) was worse

Posted Image

You either do not understand or you are too stubborn to accept the fact that the UK debt/deficit increases post 2007 were a product of the International financial meltdown.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
I confess I stubbornly rely on facts over dogma anytime

What more evidence do we need to show you
- The UK had the worst pile up of household and government debt 2000 to 2007
- The UK was showing signs of trouble before the meltdown
- The UK was in the vanguard of banks getting into trouble
- The UK suffered worse than just about every other economy

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 5 2015, 02:07 PM
I confess I stubbornly rely on facts over dogma anytime

What more evidence do we need to show you
- The UK had the worst pile up of household and government debt 2000 to 2007
- The UK was showing signs of trouble before the meltdown
- The UK was in the vanguard of banks getting into trouble
- The UK suffered worse than just about every other economy

But you only now come near to being clean on the subject.

Yes, if the UK had less debt when the financial tsunami hit and the hit had not hit us in our most vulnerable area, i.e. the financial sector, then of course our economic difficulties would be less.

But then we would still have kids attending run down schools and sharing dilapidated text books. And we would still have huge waiting lists for the NHS along with waiting times of up to 18 months for operations. We would still have over three million people living in relative poverty. And still have millions of people earning less than the minimum wage, and not helped by tax credits. All of these things were inherited from the previous Tory government in 1997, after 18 years of Conservative magic. LOL

Doing your best to put the blame on NL only exposes your inability to approach this problem in an objective way.
Edited by C-too, Jan 5 2015, 02:30 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Jan 5 2015, 02:27 PM
Steve K
Jan 5 2015, 02:07 PM
I confess I stubbornly rely on facts over dogma anytime

What more evidence do we need to show you
- The UK had the worst pile up of household and government debt 2000 to 2007
- The UK was showing signs of trouble before the meltdown
- The UK was in the vanguard of banks getting into trouble
- The UK suffered worse than just about every other economy

But you only now come near to being clean on the subject.

Yes, if the UK had less debt when the financial tsunami hit and the hit had not hit us in our most vulnerable area, i.e. the financial sector, then of course our economic difficulties would be less.

But then we would still have kids attending run down schools and sharing dilapidated text books. And we would still have huge waiting lists for the NHS along with waiting times of up to 18 months for operations. We would still have over three million people living in relative poverty. And still have millions of people earning less than the minimum wage, and not helped by tax credits. All of these things were inherited from the previous Tory government in 1997, after 18 years of Conservative magic. LOL

Doing your best to put the blame on NL only exposes your inability to approach this problem in an objective way.
"But you only now come near to being clean on the subject."

And you wonder why you get into scrapes here with cheap snide offensive shite like that. If you call being open, backing my posts with referenced facts and always admitting mistakes not "being clean" then you and I will be drawing swords in the dungeon.

As for the rest of your post it singularly misses the point that this whole line of debate has been about Brown allowing a hopeless consumer boom to inflate GDP (go on go back to post 18 where it started). Far from schools the debts being piled up went on flat screen TVs and new cars.

Your position seems to be along the lines of we must have all our vanity projects and we must have them NOW (might need an election in 2007). What's better? A child has to be educated in a less than spic and span school building that has served well for years but doesn't meet someone's low carbon desires OR we saddle that child with interest payable debts they may well never ever repay?

Anyone that knows how to run even a whelk stall understands the concept of "make do"

If indeed that money ever went on those schools. This was Gordon that thought it smart to throw money at single mothers to be in the deluded belief they'd spend it on fresh vegetables and in general went on to splurge £Billions on a massive increase in welfare when the economy was supposed to be booming and so should have been getting people off welfare and into work

Posted Image

That "clean" enough for you?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
johnofgwent
Member Avatar
It .. It is GREEN !!
[ *  *  *  * ]
Lewis
Dec 28 2014, 08:24 PM
Rich
Dec 28 2014, 08:06 PM
C-too
Dec 28 2014, 10:52 AM
jaguar
Dec 27 2014, 06:12 PM
Farage has become the fly in the ointment, with the possibility of the SNP taking Labour seats in Scotland, and many disillusioned labour supporters up North voting UKIP.....................

One thing that modern British electoral history conclusively shows is that we never elect Labour weirdos e.g.Foot, or lightweights e.g. Kinnock, Labour now have Miliband.

Whatever the outcome (and my bet is on another Tory-led coalition of some kind), my prediction is that this is the most open election in years and nobody has the faintest idea what the result will be.


I would agree that M.Foot was not PM material, nor IMO was Brown.

But the Tories do do elect weirdos. Cameron is an example but in particular Thatcher. She totally misled the electorate. Her policies finished up doing more social and economic damage to this country than any Labour PM or for that matter, than any action taken by unions.


And would you care to recall what irreversible social damage and long term economic damage has been inflicted on this country between 1997 upto 2010, I do not blame anyone for having a go at the present administration, but one must be evenhanded when apportioning blame, one will only have to ask the next generation that will be paying for this to see the truth.
There has been no irresversible damage caused between 1997 and 2010, especially compared to that after that date, caused by the incompetents. Of course the right wingers will insinuate otherwise but that is mainly Tory propaganda.
NO IRREVERSIBLE DAMAGE !!!

!jk! !jk! !jk! !jk! !jk! !jk! !jk! !jk! !jk!

Well, I suppose not, but the BNP will need to geta LOT more credible in order to repair the damage Blair did to this country.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 5 2015, 07:12 PM
This was Gordon that thought it smart to throw money at single mothers to be in the deluded belief they'd spend it on fresh vegetables and in general went on to splurge £Billions on a massive increase in welfare when the economy was supposed to be booming and so should have been getting people off welfare and into work


That "clean" enough for you?


Four Charts, each on having a different criteria for UK Welfare Spending.
The comparisons tell a more accurate story than will be heard from political commentators.

Posted Image
Cost in £ terms

Posted Image
Cost £ adjusted for Inflation = Real Terms
Rising both as the Population (plus immigrants) increases, as the population ages (people living longer with now over half the population over 50). = Increase in demand for services.

Posted Image
Cost per head of Population - Again, an aging population = Baby Boomers

Posted Image
= Affordability. What the Government spend as a proportion of the Nations Wealth.

Edited by Affa, Jan 5 2015, 09:25 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
I suggest they all beg the same question: why was welfare going up so much in what were supposed to be boom years?

And that has always been my biggest criticism of NewLab - that they did so so little to address unemployment and the rich poor divide.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 5 2015, 07:12 PM
C-too
Jan 5 2015, 02:27 PM
Steve K
Jan 5 2015, 02:07 PM
I confess I stubbornly rely on facts over dogma anytime

What more evidence do we need to show you
- The UK had the worst pile up of household and government debt 2000 to 2007
- The UK was showing signs of trouble before the meltdown
- The UK was in the vanguard of banks getting into trouble
- The UK suffered worse than just about every other economy

But you only now come near to being clean on the subject.

Yes, if the UK had less debt when the financial tsunami hit and the hit had not hit us in our most vulnerable area, i.e. the financial sector, then of course our economic difficulties would be less.

But then we would still have kids attending run down schools and sharing dilapidated text books. And we would still have huge waiting lists for the NHS along with waiting times of up to 18 months for operations. We would still have over three million people living in relative poverty. And still have millions of people earning less than the minimum wage, and not helped by tax credits. All of these things were inherited from the previous Tory government in 1997, after 18 years of Conservative magic. LOL

Doing your best to put the blame on NL only exposes your inability to approach this problem in an objective way.
"But you only now come near to being clean on the subject."







Anyone that knows how to run even a whelk stall understands the concept of "make do"

If indeed that money ever went on those schools. This was Gordon that thought it smart to throw money at single mothers to be in the deluded belief they'd spend it on fresh vegetables and in general went on to splurge £Billions on a massive increase in welfare when the economy was supposed to be booming and so should have been getting people off welfare and into work

Posted Image

That "clean" enough for you?
Quote:
 
And you wonder why you get into scrapes here with cheap snide offensive shite like that. If you call being open, backing my posts with referenced facts and always admitting mistakes not "being clean" then you and I will be drawing swords in the dungeon.
There is nothing cheap or snide about my comment. From your post it is clear that I have hit a raw nerve.
Quote:
 
As for the rest of your post it singularly misses the point that this whole line of debate has been about Brown allowing a hopeless consumer boom to inflate GDP (go on go back to post 18 where it started). Far from schools the debts being piled up went on flat screen TVs and new cars.
So there were no new schools, no refurbishment programme of school, no re equipping of schools just "flat screen TVs and new cars". Your political bias is showing through.
Quote:
 
Your position seems to be along the lines of we must have all our vanity projects and we must have them NOW (might need an election in 2007). What's better? A child has to be educated in a less than spic and span school building that has served well for years but doesn't meet someone's low carbon desires OR we saddle that child with interest payable debts they may well never ever repay?
Thanks to Thatcher's Grant Maintained school system which created a two tier system in state schools, most schools were deteriorating year on year and lacked equipment. Amongst other things, computers were supplied by NL. One local school where I lived called in parents to ask if they could offer their services for school repairs.
The problem WAS NOT THE DEBTS it was the damage done to the Banks and the loss of income to the government caused by the international meltdown.

Millions of skilled and semi skilled individuals had been thrown into the low pay bracket. The rich had got richer and the poor had got poorer under the Tories while those living in relative poverty increased.
The UK, one of the richest countries in the world, had the most unequal distribution of wealth of the developed countries.
And you want to put forward the increase in welfare spending as wrong?

If you add that lot to your thought processes, you may begin to clean up your act, which at the moment is single minded and is adding to the confusion that is making UKip appear almost acceptable.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
johnofgwent
Member Avatar
It .. It is GREEN !!
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Jan 4 2015, 08:25 PM
C-too
Jan 4 2015, 08:08 PM
Tigger
Jan 4 2015, 06:11 PM
C-too
Jan 4 2015, 10:42 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
I'm blaming them because despite several warnings from some very prominent people Labour allowed the hosing market to spiral out of control.

And lets just remind ourselves that thick Brits almost consider it a birthright to make money from just owning a house and Labour simply copied the Tory policies that encourage feckless borrowing and property speculation, and that is all there is too it!

Guilty as charged!
"Spiral out of control" is an exaggeration for something that came and went despite the worst international financial meltdown for 60 years.

The only time the economy spiralled out of control was after the meltdown. THAT IS A FACT, no meltdown then nothing to worry about. End of.

Drop your bias and open your eyes or you will continue to be guilty of misleading people and of giving support to the misguided.
House prices virtually tripled between 1995 and 2008, that by my book is spiralling out of control, wages did not triple to cover the increase in personal debt that was needed to prop up this house of cards.

Only dopes think they are getting rich when their wages stagnate but their house "earns" more than they do, any socially responsible person can see this is one big con, except of course when an alleged "socialist" government does it!

Accept it, move on, these are the facts.
Nigel Lawson stood up and said that he was going to abolish the living in sin multiple MIRAS Tax relief.

Not immediately, but in SIX MONTHS.

A house that was £32,995 the day he said that (49 NP9 6QQ) rose to £39,995 by the time I bought it - with a contract signed the same day - two weeks later.

The week before multiple MIRAS ended a nutter in red braces and an XR3 came to my door offering me £89,995 for it. Two months later the price had collapsed to £55,000 but not before the fuckers from the inland revenue had come round to "revalue" it and the rest of the f*cking street for water rates and for what would replace thatcher's poll tax.

The value crawled back up to £68,500 by 1997. That's what I sold it for when it became obvious we needed more rooms at the expense of a (much) smaller garden.

In April 1997 12 NP19 7LJ was sold to me for £94,950

In June 2008 it was valued at £350,000.

It is currently valued at £220 - £240K and that's with a whole extra floor where the loft used to be.

Now, anyone else want to arm wrestle me over house price boom and bust ?

And for the record

In 1930, Number 7, CF24 iHU was sold to its first buyer - my grandmother for £300

It was valued at £5,500 when it was bought off her by my father in 1965, who spent a further £500 on an over the driveway bedroom on steel / concrete piles, a block garage and a rear single storey living room and conservatory

It was valued at £55,000 in 1983 when I bought my forst house for £24,850

It was sold for £155,000 when my father and mother moved out to the home my mother still owns near the M4 J30

It was valued at £350,000 in September 2008 and I believe it was on offerfor £240,000last year

All those prices are estate agency valuations against which multiple offers were made.

















Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 5 2015, 09:11 PM
I suggest they all beg the same question: why was welfare going up so much in what were supposed to be boom years?

And that has always been my biggest criticism of NewLab - that they did so so little to address unemployment and the rich poor divide.

I've edited the post to explain some of explanations for why spending has increased.

None of which would answer the question if that question were to ask why Welfare Spending doubled when Mrs T was PM.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 5 2015, 09:11 PM
I suggest they all beg the same question: why was welfare going up so much in what were supposed to be boom years?

And that has always been my biggest criticism of NewLab - that they did so so little to address unemployment and the rich poor divide.
Unemployment was less than 1 million in 2006. IIRC unemployment peaked around 4 million and never fell below 2 million during the 18 years of Conservative administration.

Because pay was so low NL introduced the Minimum Wage, Working Tax Credits and other welfare benefits. This was treating the underlying effect of reduced earnings ability mainly caused by the Deregulation, Financial Services, Free Market Economy that favoured some parts of society at the expense of other parts of society.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
johnofgwent
Member Avatar
It .. It is GREEN !!
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 3 2015, 05:03 PM
krugerman
Jan 3 2015, 03:40 PM
. . . and as it is now becoming the norm to wait half an hour or 45 minutes for an emergency ambulance, . . .
Go on I challenge you to see if you can back that up with any evidence.

Even in the worst performing area (the Labour run Wales Health Service) most emergency calls are attended to in 8 minutes
If they are doing an average of eight minutes an AWFUL lot of people are dropping right outside an A and E dept

I have yet to see an emergency ambulance turn up to a Newport emergency in less than fourteen minutes and that includes collecting me collapsed in the carriageway at the side of the M4 junction 28 after a fuckwit in an NTL van slammed into my car, and the wagon that turned out to carry my daughter off after a fuckwit who could not work out which side of the road they should be on slammed the suzuki alto off the road backwards with her driving it.

My elder daughter has records of the times the ambulances jhave taken to collect collapsed oap's coll;ecting their pension and / or shopping when sh ehas been the nearest first aider ...

As tyto ? said, people in wales get used to needing to know advanced first aid. They have to, they will die before an ambulance gets there.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Jan 5 2015, 09:23 PM
Steve K
Jan 5 2015, 07:12 PM
C-too
Jan 5 2015, 02:27 PM
Steve K
Jan 5 2015, 02:07 PM
I confess I stubbornly rely on facts over dogma anytime

What more evidence do we need to show you
- The UK had the worst pile up of household and government debt 2000 to 2007
- The UK was showing signs of trouble before the meltdown
- The UK was in the vanguard of banks getting into trouble
- The UK suffered worse than just about every other economy

But you only now come near to being clean on the subject.

Yes, if the UK had less debt when the financial tsunami hit and the hit had not hit us in our most vulnerable area, i.e. the financial sector, then of course our economic difficulties would be less.

But then we would still have kids attending run down schools and sharing dilapidated text books. And we would still have huge waiting lists for the NHS along with waiting times of up to 18 months for operations. We would still have over three million people living in relative poverty. And still have millions of people earning less than the minimum wage, and not helped by tax credits. All of these things were inherited from the previous Tory government in 1997, after 18 years of Conservative magic. LOL

Doing your best to put the blame on NL only exposes your inability to approach this problem in an objective way.
"But you only now come near to being clean on the subject."







Anyone that knows how to run even a whelk stall understands the concept of "make do"

If indeed that money ever went on those schools. This was Gordon that thought it smart to throw money at single mothers to be in the deluded belief they'd spend it on fresh vegetables and in general went on to splurge £Billions on a massive increase in welfare when the economy was supposed to be booming and so should have been getting people off welfare and into work

Posted Image

That "clean" enough for you?
Quote:
 
And you wonder why you get into scrapes here with cheap snide offensive shite like that. If you call being open, backing my posts with referenced facts and always admitting mistakes not "being clean" then you and I will be drawing swords in the dungeon.
There is nothing cheap or snide about my comment. From your post it is clear that I have hit a raw nerve.
Quote:
 
As for the rest of your post it singularly misses the point that this whole line of debate has been about Brown allowing a hopeless consumer boom to inflate GDP (go on go back to post 18 where it started). Far from schools the debts being piled up went on flat screen TVs and new cars.
So there were no new schools, no refurbishment programme of school, no re equipping of schools just "flat screen TVs and new cars". Your political bias is showing through.
Quote:
 
Your position seems to be along the lines of we must have all our vanity projects and we must have them NOW (might need an election in 2007). What's better? A child has to be educated in a less than spic and span school building that has served well for years but doesn't meet someone's low carbon desires OR we saddle that child with interest payable debts they may well never ever repay?
Thanks to Thatcher's Grant Maintained school system which created a two tier system in state schools, most schools were deteriorating year on year and lacked equipment. Amongst other things, computers were supplied by NL. One local school where I lived called in parents to ask if they could offer their services for school repairs.
The problem WAS NOT THE DEBTS it was the damage done to the Banks and the loss of income to the government caused by the international meltdown.

Millions of skilled and semi skilled individuals had been thrown into the low pay bracket. The rich had got richer and the poor had got poorer under the Tories while those living in relative poverty increased.
The UK, one of the richest countries in the world, had the most unequal distribution of wealth of the developed countries.
And you want to put forward the increase in welfare spending as wrong?

If you add that lot to your thought processes, you may begin to clean up your act, which at the moment is single minded and is adding to the confusion that is making UKip appear almost acceptable.


[/small]

I give up on you. You accuse me of posting dishonestly and when that is fully rebutted you think the original cheap shot is some sort of success to be celebrated. It's not, it's the tactic of the poster who has lost the argument and now loses all principles.

But it was amusing to see you go and post in effect that the additional £800B of household debt went on schools and not flat screen TVs and cars. You've lost it big time.

If anyone wants to endorse C-Too's points above I will reply to them. For now I'm just ignoring what has become a long trail of abject C-Too denial now topped with offensive insults.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
johnofgwent
Member Avatar
It .. It is GREEN !!
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Dec 30 2014, 09:17 AM
Pro Veritas
Dec 30 2014, 09:02 AM
Posting an image or link without comment is against the rules.

A picture says a thousand words and it is a picture very relevant to this thread.
!mod!

But it IS a breach of the rules not to post opinion. The reason for the "post opinion" is to make it obvious what you are saying. And there are many on here who do not do that at times
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
johnofgwent
Jan 5 2015, 09:40 PM
Steve K
Jan 3 2015, 05:03 PM
krugerman
Jan 3 2015, 03:40 PM
. . . and as it is now becoming the norm to wait half an hour or 45 minutes for an emergency ambulance, . . .
Go on I challenge you to see if you can back that up with any evidence.

Even in the worst performing area (the Labour run Wales Health Service) most emergency calls are attended to in 8 minutes
If they are doing an average of eight minutes an AWFUL lot of people are dropping right outside an A and E dept . .
I didn't say it was 'the average', I said most.

57% attended to in 8 minutes

They're supposed to meet 65% and that looks like a weakened target for Wales that they can't meet. It was the absurd hyperbole that "the norm" for emergencies is half hour to an hour that needed rebutting.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 5 2015, 09:49 PM
C-too
Jan 5 2015, 09:23 PM
Steve K
Jan 5 2015, 07:12 PM
C-too
Jan 5 2015, 02:27 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
"But you only now come near to being clean on the subject."

Anyone that knows how to run even a whelk stall understands the concept of "make do"

If indeed that money ever went on those schools. This was Gordon that thought it smart to throw money at single mothers to be in the deluded belief they'd spend it on fresh vegetables and in general went on to splurge £Billions on a massive increase in welfare when the economy was supposed to be booming and so should have been getting people off welfare and into work

Posted Image

That "clean" enough for you?
Quote:
 
And you wonder why you get into scrapes here with cheap snide offensive shite like that. If you call being open, backing my posts with referenced facts and always admitting mistakes not "being clean" then you and I will be drawing swords in the dungeon.
There is nothing cheap or snide about my comment. From your post it is clear that I have hit a raw nerve.
Quote:
 
As for the rest of your post it singularly misses the point that this whole line of debate has been about Brown allowing a hopeless consumer boom to inflate GDP (go on go back to post 18 where it started). Far from schools the debts being piled up went on flat screen TVs and new cars.
So there were no new schools, no refurbishment programme of school, no re equipping of schools just "flat screen TVs and new cars". Your political bias is showing through.
Quote:
 
Your position seems to be along the lines of we must have all our vanity projects and we must have them NOW (might need an election in 2007). What's better? A child has to be educated in a less than spic and span school building that has served well for years but doesn't meet someone's low carbon desires OR we saddle that child with interest payable debts they may well never ever repay?
Thanks to Thatcher's Grant Maintained school system which created a two tier system in state schools, most schools were deteriorating year on year and lacked equipment. Amongst other things, computers were supplied by NL. One local school where I lived called in parents to ask if they could offer their services for school repairs.
The problem WAS NOT THE DEBTS it was the damage done to the Banks and the loss of income to the government caused by the international meltdown.

Millions of skilled and semi skilled individuals had been thrown into the low pay bracket. The rich had got richer and the poor had got poorer under the Tories while those living in relative poverty increased.
The UK, one of the richest countries in the world, had the most unequal distribution of wealth of the developed countries.
And you want to put forward the increase in welfare spending as wrong?

If you add that lot to your thought processes, you may begin to clean up your act, which at the moment is single minded and is adding to the confusion that is making UKip appear almost acceptable.

Quote:
 
I give up on you. You accuse me of posting dishonestly and when that is fully rebutted you think the original cheap shot is some sort of success to be celebrated. It's not, it's the tactic of the poster who has lost the argument and now loses all principles.
I will accuse you of posting in single minded fashion yes, with bias yes, of ignoring things you wish to ignore yes, but not dishonestly. The loss of principle is all yours in making such an allegation.
Quote:
 
But it was amusing to see you go and post in effect that the additional £800B of household debt went on schools and not flat screen TVs and cars. You've lost it big time.
I never posted such, so you are the loser.
Quote:
 
If anyone wants to endorse C-Too's points above I will reply to them. For now I'm just ignoring what has become a long trail of abject C-Too denial now topped with offensive insults.
The biggest single denial that has taken place in this exchange is your denial of the effect the international financial meltdown has had on the UK economy.
Edited by C-too, Jan 5 2015, 10:07 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Anyone want to endorse that post by C-Too? (Assuming they can decypher the corrupting of the quote system) Otherwise it's ignored
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
johnofgwent
Member Avatar
It .. It is GREEN !!
[ *  *  *  * ]
SteveK: I didn't say it was 'the average', I said most.


OK. I read the link, and marvelled at the link I found there to Jeremy Hunt's taking to twitter (should that be twatter I wonder) to "deal" with "outrage" at a secret plan to increase target times from eight to nineteen minutes.

I COULD suggest that, speaking as one with an O level in Additional Mathematics and A levels in the sciences I seem to recall being taught something about "arithmetic mean", "median" and "mode", and then point you back at that link where the welsh ambulance service talk about MEDIAN values so "moat" would in fact be "average" in their handbook

BUT on the other hand I've spent a fucking HOUR deleting the punch and judy crap out of this thread and I really don't have the fight in me to bother.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Jan 5 2015, 09:32 PM
Steve K
Jan 5 2015, 09:11 PM
I suggest they all beg the same question: why was welfare going up so much in what were supposed to be boom years?

And that has always been my biggest criticism of NewLab - that they did so so little to address unemployment and the rich poor divide.

I've edited the post to explain some of explanations for why spending has increased.

None of which would answer the question if that question were to ask why Welfare Spending doubled when Mrs T was PM.

Well the short answer is that Mrs T loved having high unemployment as it takes away union power. Pretty despicable as a tactic but seems to be what happened when she constrained the money supply while raking in North Sea revenue to maintain GDP.

Posted Image

BTW that uses the old unemployment metric as I can't find data back that far using the now accepted ILO definition which runs about double that rate.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Jan 5 2015, 12:50 AM
Tigger
Jan 4 2015, 10:30 PM
somersetli
Jan 4 2015, 10:25 PM
Rich
Jan 4 2015, 07:49 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
Well Rich you have a point.
If the electorate had been so timid in 1926, they would never have tried the Labour Party.
Like all other governments since then, they could always be turned out in 2020. Or before if necessary.
UKIP is based on fear, distrust and outright lies that will explode in it's face should it ever get anywhere near the levers of power.

You cannot take on the challenges of the 21st century if you have a mindset from the nineteen fifties.
All politicians spout the same shite, which of any party is telling the truth O fount of all knowledge?
And UKIP have made a point of telling some people exactly what they want to hear, only retards would accept that our biggest problems are caused by outsiders. A policy that is as old as the hills.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Jan 5 2015, 09:35 AM
;D Get real.

I suggest you shift the local conversation away from desperately seeking to find some way of attacking NL, and get to grips with the reality of the worst international financial tsunami for sixty years. That's the real fly in the ointment the rest is mostly political biased red herrings.
Get real? Here is some reality experienced first hand by me.

We had an worker who had just got married and then decided to buy a house, he was not on the books but self employed, he first of all went to our accountant and discretely asked him if he would falsify some pay slips, he was of course told no as it's a criminal offence. I heard about this but took little notice at the time knowing (so I thought) that the building society in question would contact us to find out if his stated income matched his true income, we heard nothing.

A few months later he told us he was moving into his new house, again nobody took much notice, that was until someone mentioned the price of the place! Discounting the fact he'd had a windfall and that his missus was not turning tricks we wondered how on earth he'd raised the money.

Simple, he got a self certificated mortgage where you just offer up some (forged) payslips and the lender looks the other way, needless to say he struggled after the initial low rates ended, he buggered off shortly afterwards to god knows where and the house was auctioned off about a year later.

Now I suspect tens of thousands of other dickheads did this. It looks suspiciously like SUB PRIME to me.........
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 5 2015, 10:23 PM
Affa
Jan 5 2015, 09:32 PM
Steve K
Jan 5 2015, 09:11 PM
I suggest they all beg the same question: why was welfare going up so much in what were supposed to be boom years?

And that has always been my biggest criticism of NewLab - that they did so so little to address unemployment and the rich poor divide.

I've edited the post to explain some of explanations for why spending has increased.

None of which would answer the question if that question were to ask why Welfare Spending doubled when Mrs T was PM.

Well the short answer is that Mrs T loved having high unemployment as it takes away union power. Pretty despicable as a tactic but seems to be what happened when she constrained the money supply while raking in North Sea revenue to maintain GDP.

Posted Image

BTW that uses the old unemployment metric as I can't find data back that far using the now accepted ILO definition which runs about double that rate.


Interesting fall of 1.5 million (approx) between 1985 and 1991.
Quote:
 

Prior to 1979, the unemployment rate was anyone registered as unemployed, this was converted to a percentage of the total workforce and that was the published unemployment rate. Then some changes came in:

Redefining Unemployment: originally defined as those ‘registered’ unemployed, changed to only count ‘claimants’ – this obviously reduced the number greatly as many unemployed people do not, for various reasons, claim benefits.
Cutting Benefit Entitlements: By making changes to the benefit system (who is eligible and not) the government can magic away unemployment numbers by simply removing eligibility for benefits. If the person cannot claim, they are not classed as unemployed.
Training Schemes & Work Programmes: the conservative government of the 80’s began to double count those in training & work programmes. First, they excluded them from the unemployed figures, then they added them to the total workforce figures – this means that simply by recruiting people into a work programme, the government has reduced the unemployment figures. Prior to Thatcher, these schemes were not counted as employment.
The Thatcher government was able to show a drop in unemployment of 550,000 in July 1986, and 668,000 in 1989 by transferring those unemployed into work programmes. They also kept an average 90,000 unemployed under 18 year olds off the books by making them ineligible to claim benefits.


Much the same as now under the Tory led coalition.

Edited by Affa, Jan 5 2015, 11:08 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
krugerman
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
johnofgwent
Jan 5 2015, 10:22 PM
SteveK: I didn't say it was 'the average', I said most.


OK. I read the link, and marvelled at the link I found there to Jeremy Hunt's taking to twitter (should that be twatter I wonder) to "deal" with "outrage" at a secret plan to increase target times from eight to nineteen minutes.

I COULD suggest that, speaking as one with an O level in Additional Mathematics and A levels in the sciences I seem to recall being taught something about "arithmetic mean", "median" and "mode", and then point you back at that link where the welsh ambulance service talk about MEDIAN values so "moat" would in fact be "average" in their handbook

BUT on the other hand I've spent a fucking HOUR deleting the punch and judy crap out of this thread and I really don't have the fight in me to bother.

Steve K is twisting things just a little, what I stated was that "it is becoming the norm to wait" and not "it is the norm".

The people in the town near where I live are apathetic, it is becoming more common to wait unacceptable lengths of time for an ambulance, paramedics actually told my sister that quite a few people have died because of long waits for ambulances, if something happens on a regular basis, then people often just accept it as the way it is.

As I write this, our local DGH (District General Hospital) is in crisis, there is a winter beds crisis, just like we used to have under the last Tory government, the hospital (Scarborough Hospital) has cancelled routine operations, it has declared a "major incident" because it cannot cope.

People are clogging up A&E because they cannot get to see a GP, the waiting lists are too long, worried people with concerns resort to going to A&E.

Today the Conservatives complained that a pledge by Labour to reducec GP waiting times would cost too much - COST TOO MUCH W T F - they know the cost of everything, and the value of nothing.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
krugerman
Jan 6 2015, 12:11 AM
Steve K is twisting things just a little, what I stated was that "it is becoming the norm to wait" and not "it is the norm".

The people in the town near where I live are apathetic, it is becoming more common to wait unacceptable lengths of time for an ambulance, paramedics actually told my sister that quite a few people have died because of long waits for ambulances, if something happens on a regular basis, then people often just accept it as the way it is.

As I write this, our local DGH (District General Hospital) is in crisis, there is a winter beds crisis, just like we used to have under the last Tory government, the hospital (Scarborough Hospital) has cancelled routine operations, it has declared a "major incident" because it cannot cope.

People are clogging up A&E because they cannot get to see a GP, the waiting lists are too long, worried people with concerns resort to going to A&E.

Today the Conservatives complained that a pledge by Labour to reducec GP waiting times would cost too much - COST TOO MUCH W T F - they know the cost of everything, and the value of nothing.

Well I wasn't twisting but yes you did indeed say it was becoming the norm.

We need a serious debate on the NHS. It is not that Cameron's funding promise was broken, the problem is just to protect the funds in real terms was never enough if we are to meet people's expectations. But that debate has to be based on facts.

We have escalating demands on the NHS but we don't easily have escalating funds to solve those. Just last week I was in A&E with a patient for hours while she waited for the right treatment and rightfully the otherwise bleeding to death cases took the needed resources first. It was teeming with patients and it then took 18 hours to find a bed for the patient to be admitted.

The NHS costs ~£4k a year for every person in work in the UK, that's more than the average earner pays in income tax and NI combined. But we can't just say the rich will continue to pay more and more for a better NHS for all. They won't especially if the NHS is to remain over protected from competitive initiatives that would improve efficiency.

I don't have clever answers, I hope someone has but I rather suspect the out turn will be less clever than some of the answers I do have:

- adopt the system (I believe France uses) where you pay up front and then claim back
- incentivise opting out of the NHS by giving tax relief on private health contributions
- remove the bans on cigarette adverts and smoking in pubs (that have adequate ventilation).
- A&E treatment for accidents to be payable by the person to blame for the accident - similar for sporting injuries. Want to take risks- get insurance.
- make nurses and other NHS trained staff pay back the cost of their training if they sod off to Oz or the USA for higher salaries as too many do
- force anyone that moans about migration to spend a day per moan in a UK hospital - to see how they would collapse without the migrants filling the places of the staff that sodded off to Oz and the USA etc
- make it very very clear that expensive new niche treatments are not going to be NHS funded
- and same for those that have made themselves ill. Sorry self made fatties.
- and bring in more competition in delivering of services.


And please just don't mention that vacuous tart that got a boob job on the NHS to further her career.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
krugerman
Jan 6 2015, 12:11 AM
johnofgwent
Jan 5 2015, 10:22 PM
SteveK: I didn't say it was 'the average', I said most.


OK. I read the link, and marvelled at the link I found there to Jeremy Hunt's taking to twitter (should that be twatter I wonder) to "deal" with "outrage" at a secret plan to increase target times from eight to nineteen minutes.

I COULD suggest that, speaking as one with an O level in Additional Mathematics and A levels in the sciences I seem to recall being taught something about "arithmetic mean", "median" and "mode", and then point you back at that link where the welsh ambulance service talk about MEDIAN values so "moat" would in fact be "average" in their handbook

BUT on the other hand I've spent a fucking HOUR deleting the punch and judy crap out of this thread and I really don't have the fight in me to bother.

Steve K is twisting things just a little, what I stated was that "it is becoming the norm to wait" and not "it is the norm".

The people in the town near where I live are apathetic, it is becoming more common to wait unacceptable lengths of time for an ambulance, paramedics actually told my sister that quite a few people have died because of long waits for ambulances, if something happens on a regular basis, then people often just accept it as the way it is.

As I write this, our local DGH (District General Hospital) is in crisis, there is a winter beds crisis, just like we used to have under the last Tory government, the hospital (Scarborough Hospital) has cancelled routine operations, it has declared a "major incident" because it cannot cope.

People are clogging up A&E because they cannot get to see a GP, the waiting lists are too long, worried people with concerns resort to going to A&E.

Today the Conservatives complained that a pledge by Labour to reducec GP waiting times would cost too much - COST TOO MUCH W T F - they know the cost of everything, and the value of nothing.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I do believe that apart from London and the south east, Yorkshire has the largest influx of immigrants, do you think that maybe this may be a cause of the pressures that YAS is feeling seeing as how it was created to cope with the problems of the indigenous population and that is what local authorities based their budgets on and now they cannot cope with the demands laid at it's door due to an unknown influx of peoples needing treatment?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
johnofgwent
Member Avatar
It .. It is GREEN !!
[ *  *  *  * ]
krugerman
Jan 6 2015, 12:11 AM
johnofgwent
Jan 5 2015, 10:22 PM
SteveK: I didn't say it was 'the average', I said most.


OK. I read the link, and marvelled at the link I found there to Jeremy Hunt's taking to twitter (should that be twatter I wonder) to "deal" with "outrage" at a secret plan to increase target times from eight to nineteen minutes.

I COULD suggest that, speaking as one with an O level in Additional Mathematics and A levels in the sciences I seem to recall being taught something about "arithmetic mean", "median" and "mode", and then point you back at that link where the welsh ambulance service talk about MEDIAN values so "moat" would in fact be "average" in their handbook

BUT on the other hand I've spent a fucking HOUR deleting the punch and judy crap out of this thread and I really don't have the fight in me to bother.

Steve K is twisting things just a little, what I stated was that "it is becoming the norm to wait" and not "it is the norm".

He also did a most impressive IMO demolition job on your extrapolation ...

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
johnofgwent
Member Avatar
It .. It is GREEN !!
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Jan 6 2015, 12:59 AM
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I do believe that apart from London and the south east, Yorkshire has the largest influx of immigrants, do you think that maybe this may be a cause of the pressures that YAS is feeling seeing as how it was created to cope with the problems of the indigenous population and that is what local authorities based their budgets on and now they cannot cope with the demands laid at it's door due to an unknown influx of peoples needing treatment?
Well I worked in york and leeds for the best part of a year in 1998 before labour destroyed our country's identity and did the same again for 6 months last year ...

I would say leeds/bradford was pretty well stacked with asians befire blair dud his stuff ...

My feelings having lived and worked there are this is the home of some massive conurbations combined with some bloody remote terrain including the motorway most often shut by bad weather.

Any figures are likely to be bad in such an area.

The wales figures stevek keeps harping on about show something interesting though. The area with tge most piss poor servuce is caerphilly a tiny town with a bloody good small hospital on tap - I had the pleasure of a week there on intravenous antibiotics when it looked like I might have blood poisoning ... and they are only six minutes by mad bastard from the biggest a and e at uhw cardiff for miles ... I know i once drove a mate with arm in tatters squiting claret over caerphilly mountain to said faciluty.

I also know ambulances are notorously bad at rallying which is the drivingvstyle you need to achieve that ...

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 5 2015, 10:11 PM
Anyone want to endorse that post by C-Too? (Assuming they can decypher the corrupting of the quote system) Otherwise it's ignored
You appear to be running and hiding from information you do not like..

The international financial meltdown was a reality from which you have no escape. End of.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HIGHWAY
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Jan 6 2015, 09:28 AM
Steve K
Jan 5 2015, 10:11 PM
Anyone want to endorse that post by C-Too? (Assuming they can decypher the corrupting of the quote system) Otherwise it's ignored
You appear to be running and hiding from information you do not like..

The international financial meltdown was a reality from which you have no escape. End of.
Which NL was part of
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 5 2015, 10:23 PM
Affa
Jan 5 2015, 09:32 PM
Steve K
Jan 5 2015, 09:11 PM
I suggest they all beg the same question: why was welfare going up so much in what were supposed to be boom years?

And that has always been my biggest criticism of NewLab - that they did so so little to address unemployment and the rich poor divide.

I've edited the post to explain some of explanations for why spending has increased.

None of which would answer the question if that question were to ask why Welfare Spending doubled when Mrs T was PM.

Well the short answer is that Mrs T loved having high unemployment as it takes away union power. Pretty despicable as a tactic but seems to be what happened when she constrained the money supply while raking in North Sea revenue to maintain GDP.

Posted Image

BTW that uses the old unemployment metric as I can't find data back that far using the now accepted ILO definition which runs about double that rate.

The move to the ILO count for unemployed was introduced early on by NL. The move added quite a few to the count, can't recall just how many.

Most of the problems with the unions were actually caused by the non-union action of wild cat strikes, once they were made illegal along with other legal restraints on the unions (two of the few things I give Thatcher credit for) there was no necessity for long term high unemployment.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 5 2015, 10:11 PM
Anyone want to endorse that post by C-Too? (Assuming they can decypher the corrupting of the quote system) Otherwise it's ignored
As anyone can see for themselves there was no corruption.

Your single minded approach has been noted. It was time for you to take a fuller view of the situation, but as you were not prepared to do that then silence is your best option.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 6 2015, 12:58 AM


The NHS costs ~£4k a year for every person in work in the UK,


You want to pay more?

It is less than most comparable countries are expected to pay for their own health service ......... you went to the efficiency argument, but the NHS is top rated for efficiency by the OECD (or was - maybe not now after four years of Osborne).
That 'efficiency' argument used to usher in privatisation has worn away its credibility - few ever truly believed it anyhow.
Privatisation INCREASES costs, that £4k made to look a bargain price.



Edited by Affa, Jan 6 2015, 01:38 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Jan 6 2015, 01:35 PM
Steve K
Jan 6 2015, 12:58 AM


The NHS costs ~£4k a year for every person in work in the UK,


You want to pay more?

It is less than most comparable countries are expected to pay for their own health service ......... you went to the efficiency argument, but the NHS is top rated for efficiency by the OECD (or was - maybe not now after four years of Osborne).
That 'efficiency' argument used to usher in privatisation has worn away its credibility - few ever truly believed it anyhow.
Privatisation INCREASES costs, that £4k made to look a bargain price.



Dear Affa,

Can you remember what thread you posted the comparison links for health and defence on?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
ACH1967
Jan 6 2015, 04:24 PM
Dear Affa,

Can you remember what thread you posted the comparison links for health and defence on?

Politics - BBC News Agenda - post #131

http://w11.zetaboards.com/UK_Debate_Mk_2/single/?p=8254485&t=10851431

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Jan 6 2015, 09:28 AM
Steve K
Jan 5 2015, 10:11 PM
Anyone want to endorse that post by C-Too? (Assuming they can decypher the corrupting of the quote system) Otherwise it's ignored
You appear to be running and hiding from information you do not like..

The international financial meltdown was a reality from which you have no escape. End of.
No, you decided to try to make this an offensive insult throwing contest. Not doing that.

I do note that no one has yet endorsed what passes for logic in your later posts so as stated I will ignore them.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply