Energy - EDF Energy has successfully been approved to build a Nuclear Power station in Somerset, but they had to seek approval from the EU while the goverment gave the go-ahead ages ago. The EU controls far too much.
.
Just one question, Disco
Do you approve of EDF Energy's role in our strategic national energy system?
I don't really have much of a opinion to be honest.
I just have a issue with the EU's interference on what goes on that only affects the UK, regardless whether its potentially good for the UK or not.
It shows, clearly and in a very readable style, how British privatisation means that huge swathes of our most important essential national utilities, Power, water, telecoms, rail, post, municipal housing, are now in foreign hands.
I hear a lot of UKippers banging on about loss of "sovereignty". Well this is the biggest loss of sovereignty I can identify and like many other things it has got feck all to do with the EU and everything to do with national politics. What's UKIP's policy on this then? Re-nationalise the lot?
That's why I asked. EDF is French. And the French thought and think we were complete nuts to allow our national assets to fall into their hands. They are laughing all the way to the bank.
You know that EDF is a state company owned 85% by the French Govt.?
Privatisation of natural monopolies was a terrible thing. Very much doubt that we can afford to renationalise them though.
Problem is, that there is no one else left to build our Nukes - just the Japanese and the French.
The reason for the delay in starting is because the EU quite rightly stepped in when they realised that the Govt's deal with EDF consisted of vast subsidies - most of them long term.
EDF have a guaranteed MegaWatt price for electricity generated at Hinkley at £95 - roughly double the current price.
And of course, guess who's going to have to pay for it?
I dunno, after the war Labour managed to creates the NHS, undertake a massive nationalisation programme, host the Olympics, introduce the country's first planing system and start development of the atom bomb. And those were days of real austerity.
We do live in a much more globalised world but there's lots Labour could do if it could grow some cajones. Instead of the stupid mansion tax it could extend Council tax bands; it could disincetivise second homes, increase the minimum wage to aim at a living wage. If it was really brave it could stop the ringfencing of the NHS and teh expense of everything else.
The achievements you list in your first paragraph cannot really be claimed by Labour - there was a post-war cross-party consensus on all of those things and the Americans basically funded all of it thanks to the Marshall Plan and other global economic initiatives.
.
That's not true. The Tories vigorously opposed teh creation of the NHS (as did most doctors)
Categorically not true, the NHS was a direct result of the recommendations of the Beveridge report which received cross-party support. In fact the Tories accepted the idea of a national health service once the report was published, the only reason why it took until 1946 to found the NHS was because of the small matter of the country fighting World War 2.
So why did the Tories vote against the formation of the NHS 21 times before the act was passed, including both the Second and Third reading?
Remember that prior to the '45 election there was a coalition government.
After that the parties had different policies. The liberals wanted an NHS (Beveridge was a liberal peer after all). Even the tories wanted better and wider health services but not a free at the point of delivery NHS. Hence why they voted against it so often.
I dunno, after the war Labour managed to creates the NHS, undertake a massive nationalisation programme, host the Olympics, introduce the country's first planing system and start development of the atom bomb. And those were days of real austerity.
We do live in a much more globalised world but there's lots Labour could do if it could grow some cajones. Instead of the stupid mansion tax it could extend Council tax bands; it could disincetivise second homes, increase the minimum wage to aim at a living wage. If it was really brave it could stop the ringfencing of the NHS and teh expense of everything else.
The achievements you list in your first paragraph cannot really be claimed by Labour - there was a post-war cross-party consensus on all of those things and the Americans basically funded all of it thanks to the Marshall Plan and other global economic initiatives.
.
That's not true. The Tories vigorously opposed teh creation of the NHS (as did most doctors)
Categorically not true, the NHS was a direct result of the recommendations of the Beveridge report which received cross-party support. In fact the Tories accepted the idea of a national health service once the report was published, the only reason why it took until 1946 to found the NHS was because of the small matter of the country fighting World War 2.
So why did the Tories vote against the formation of the NHS 21 times before the act was passed, including both the Second and Third reading?
Remember that prior to the '45 election there was a coalition government.
After that the parties had different policies. The liberals wanted an NHS (Beveridge was a liberal peer after all). Even the tories wanted better and wider health services but not a free at the point of delivery NHS. Hence why they voted against it so often.
I dunno, after the war Labour managed to creates the NHS, undertake a massive nationalisation programme, host the Olympics, introduce the country's first planing system and start development of the atom bomb. And those were days of real austerity.
We do live in a much more globalised world but there's lots Labour could do if it could grow some cajones. Instead of the stupid mansion tax it could extend Council tax bands; it could disincetivise second homes, increase the minimum wage to aim at a living wage. If it was really brave it could stop the ringfencing of the NHS and teh expense of everything else.
The achievements you list in your first paragraph cannot really be claimed by Labour - there was a post-war cross-party consensus on all of those things and the Americans basically funded all of it thanks to the Marshall Plan and other global economic initiatives.
.
That's not true. The Tories vigorously opposed teh creation of the NHS (as did most doctors)
Categorically not true, the NHS was a direct result of the recommendations of the Beveridge report which received cross-party support. In fact the Tories accepted the idea of a national health service once the report was published, the only reason why it took until 1946 to found the NHS was because of the small matter of the country fighting World War 2.
So why did the Tories vote against the formation of the NHS 21 times before the act was passed, including both the Second and Third reading?
Remember that prior to the '45 election there was a coalition government.
After that the parties had different policies. The liberals wanted an NHS (Beveridge was a liberal peer after all). Even the tories wanted better and wider health services but not a free at the point of delivery NHS. Hence why they voted against it so often.
There was a coalition because elections were suspended due to WW2. The Tories still held a huge majority and the coalition was only formed to legitimise the decision not to hold any further elections until the war was over. It was a hardly a case of the Labour tail wagging the Tory dog.
The reasons why the Tories voted against Labour's NHS Act was because Labour went further than Beveridge's proposals and wanted to place every hospital and health centre under direct government control as well as make the private practice of medicine illegal. The Tories were going along with doctors and other health professionals on this one and Labour were the ones ignoring their advice, which is the same charge Labour levelled at the Tories when the Tories wanted GPs to control healthcare funding & allocation. Of course Labour twisted it then as evidence that the Tories opposed the creation on an NHS (not true), when they merely opposed the structure and restrictions Labour were sticking in with the legislation. This is where Bevan's oft-repeated 'lower than vermin' quote comes from, and which is still parroted by lefties who have run out of arguments.
Personally I like the way I can drive to the shops without having to steer around bin bags and corpses due to the binmen and undertakers not being on strike, and that the shop isn't shut thanks to rolling blackouts, but apart from that, 1978 doesn't sound too bad.
but don't you think having dead bodies and bin bags everywhere just, you know, drove us together and gave us a real sense of community. We were all really in that together. Not anymore, thanks to the WITCH.
I know it was tongue-in-cheek but thanks for addressing her by her rightful title ;-)
Up until recently there was some graffiti on a building beside the railway tracks between New Cross and London Bridge which appeared after Thatch carked it.
"The witch is dead but the spell lives on". Have to say I still agree with that sentiment.....
this gets my goat, the hypocrisy when lefties claim conservatives are vile when they do and defend things like that. Fair enough dislike the woman, hate her and call her a witch, free speech and all that but to go on and say conservatives are nasty and evil and you're the good guys when you sink to things like that.
It's mind boggling.
It's not even fair enough for most lefties to dislike the woman since they have a rather warped perception of her thanks to the continuous rewriting of history by the BBC, Channel 4, the Guardian, the Labour Party & the SNP. If you believed everything these organisations say, you'd think 1978 UK was a powerful nation of hardworking socialists, all signed-up to trade unions and all with perfect healthcare and government funded homes and jobs, and that the sum of all Government actions between 1979 and 1997 was to transfer the entirety of the nation's wealth into the 5 richest men in the UK and everyone else living on and in sewage.
The only real reason why she winds Lefties up is because she successfully showed there was a better way forward than socialism and British socialism has been on the downslide ever since.
i'm pretty suspicious when some one says highly respected media outlets have rewritten history but i agree with the last half of your statement. Thatcher was the antithesis of the left at the time. One reason i find the left deeply suspicious is their demonisation of thatcher, it's not healthy for a democracy for one side to demonise the other in the way the left tend to do in this country. This is why i am also reluctant to dismiss farage as a racist facist and any one who votes ukip is racist. I don't agree with their policies (what are they again?) but to demonise the political will of a significant group of people in this country is rather dangerous, whether you agree with it or not.
One thing i don't really like/understand is political contributions. I don't see how or why the rich and trade unions should donate and so gain leverage on a political party. But i guess that's an arguement for another day.
The important thing for this thread is that the majority of britons (including myself) think that we should stay part of the eu, from a recent poll in the mail (bleugh)
I agree about the demonising but I see it from both the left and right.
For every "witch" there is a "PC loony"
For every "racist" there is a "leftie middle class tosser"
For every "blame maggie" there is "blame Blair/Brown"
Two sides of the same coin
oh quite, but apart from "PC looney" (which i think is a lazy and like saying "i'm not racist but...") the other two seem to come from people in response of the right wing hate. "This all started with thatcher" is often said, no one seems to accept blair and brown inherited one of the strongest economies in the world and turned it into one with the largest deficit since ww2, with half the gold reserves and the tax payer £4 billion out of pocket as a result. It's done for balance more than anything else.
We don't hear david cameron saying "the labour party want to destroy the economy" they say "the labour party's policies will destroy the economy", whilst mr miliband and co say "the tories would like nothing more to make the rich richer and the poor poorer". One appeals to reason, for you to take a look at the arguements and see if you agree, the other is a very emotive and provocative statement. I find this kind of argument in a democratic society rather uncomfortable and dangerous. It's also why i find russell brand's arguments and his supporters rather dangerous. I see comments on his parklife parody of a parody video saying cameron will be "Swinging from the tower" and those that oppose brand will "be the ones sweeping the street" after the "revolution". I would rather live in a world where there are rich and poor than one where everyones poor and the rich are being hung.
And what planet do you currently live on ;0)
The Planet 'Bedroom in his parents house' I suspect. Certainly doesn't sound like he has ever had to survive on the minimum wage on a zero hours contract that he is so fond of.
Sorry but you are wrong and you really need to read your history.
The 1945 election took place while the war was still being fought.
Labour won in 1945 with a huge landslide including a very big vote from serving men and women.
The labour government then passed the legislation for the NHS.
You are now saying that the tories were against the Labour NHS Act and are citing that they voted against it as proof
So nothing like the cross party consensus you claimed when you tried to state that Labour couldn't claim credit for the introduction of the NHS.
you can't have it both ways.
No, I'm afraid you are completely and utterly wrong. Not only are your facts off-base, you've completely misread what I've said. The fact is everything in my previous post came from the same website you copied and pasted your previous statement about Tories voting against it 21 times, it was just slightly further down the page (I guess you stopped reading at the point you had something convenient to try to attack the Tories with, rather than actually read the whole page to get the whole story).
Also, your point about the war being fought is a bit of a red herring. Yes, Japan was still in the war but Europe had achieved peace and the UK was not in any imminent danger, therefore there was no further justification to continue to postpone elections. To suggest that the UK held a general election whilst it was still fighting in Europe is completely insidious and fits a pattern of you selectively picking facts whilst ignoring others to fit an agenda.
As I said before, the Tories never opposed the creation of an NHS, however they opposed the Act that Labour were proposing because of the additional measures Labour were bunging into the legislation that were at the time receiving heavy criticism from charities, medical experts and the entire medical profession.
I know its National Novel Writing Month but this isn't the place for your fiction.
Sorry but you are wrong and you really need to read your history.
The 1945 election took place while the war was still being fought.
Labour won in 1945 with a huge landslide including a very big vote from serving men and women.
The labour government then passed the legislation for the NHS.
You are now saying that the tories were against the Labour NHS Act and are citing that they voted against it as proof
So nothing like the cross party consensus you claimed when you tried to state that Labour couldn't claim credit for the introduction of the NHS.
you can't have it both ways.
No, I'm afraid you are completely and utterly wrong. Not only are your facts off-base, you've completely misread what I've said. The fact is everything in my previous post came from the same website you copied and pasted your previous statement about Tories voting against it 21 times, it was just slightly further down the page (I guess you stopped reading at the point you had something convenient to try to attack the Tories with, rather than actually read the whole page to get the whole story).
Also, your point about the war being fought is a bit of a red herring. Yes, Japan was still in the war but Europe had achieved peace and the UK was not in any imminent danger, therefore there was no further justification to continue to postpone elections. To suggest that the UK held a general election whilst it was still fighting in Europe is completely insidious and fits a pattern of you selectively picking facts whilst ignoring others to fit an agenda.
As I said before, the Tories never opposed the creation of an NHS, however they opposed the Act that Labour were proposing because of the additional measures Labour were bunging into the legislation that were at the time receiving heavy criticism from charities, medical experts and the entire medical profession.
I know its National Novel Writing Month but this isn't the place for your fiction.
Calm down, calm down
You were factually wrong. The war was still being fought. FACT.
You can try and pretend that it wasn't but it was. The Atom bomb hadn't been dropped when the '45 election took place so few if anyone would have known the WORLD war would end so soon. Labour won, despite the war leader being a tory, largely on the promise of a welfare state including a free at the point of use NHS.
And I didn't get it from a website but you by your own admission did. Maybe try reading a book sometime.
Did you not think that that quote came from somewhere else. Like maybe a book about politics in 1945?
And you seem to have "forgotten" that what isn't disputed is that YOU got you stuff from that website and what you cut and pasted was quickly trashed by the people making comments on that site.
Have a view for sure but at least let it be your own view not something you've copied off the internet.
Going to accept that you were wrong about elections during the war as well? No, though not.
This is basically you not being honest enough to admit you've been comprehensively proven wrong on pretty much every point and ducking out because you've been exposed as a fraud. Especially since all this has descended into is me pointing out facts, you ignoring the facts and you accusing me of either being wrong and copying things off the internet after I've accused you of the same thing, which is basically no better than playground arguing.
Whats all this about the formation of the NHS to do with Germany Ready to Accept UK's ExIt From the EU? Another interesting discussion thread that has gone completly off track.
Whats all this about the formation of the NHS to do with Germany Ready to Accept UK's ExIt From the EU? Another interesting discussion thread that has gone completly off track.
The link is that the NHS was set up about the time that Germany accepted defeat in WW2. I think.
Whats all this about the formation of the NHS to do with Germany Ready to Accept UK's ExIt From the EU? Another interesting discussion thread that has gone completly off track.
The link is that the NHS was set up about the time that Germany accepted defeat in WW2. I think.
Is it just me that sees a certain irony in us allowing a country we supposedly helped defeat to "accept" our leaving the EU rather than act in what we consider to be our best interests one way or the other regardless?
Whats all this about the formation of the NHS to do with Germany Ready to Accept UK's ExIt From the EU? Another interesting discussion thread that has gone completly off track.
The link is that the NHS was set up about the time that Germany accepted defeat in WW2. I think.
Is it just me that sees a certain irony in us allowing a country we supposedly helped defeat to "accept" our leaving the EU rather than act in what we consider to be our best interests one way or the other regardless?
I think that 'accept' is used here in the context of 'coming to terms with' rather than 'The UK' going cap in hand to the Hun and asking for and being granted permission to quit ..
it's interesting that even now, 100 years from WW1, there is still a large factor in the whole scenario of 'the balance of European power' ... that Germany now dominates Europe economically is a fact, the withdrawal of the UK would only strengthen that domination .. I suspect that the whole 'EU Question' hinges on military and strategic issues as much as on economics and trade and Britain no longer has a huge and subservient Empire on which to fall back on
Whats all this about the formation of the NHS to do with Germany Ready to Accept UK's ExIt From the EU? Another interesting discussion thread that has gone completly off track.
The link is that the NHS was set up about the time that Germany accepted defeat in WW2. I think.
Is it just me that sees a certain irony in us allowing a country we supposedly helped defeat to "accept" our leaving the EU rather than act in what we consider to be our best interests one way or the other regardless?
Interesting observation Len. I can see the thread moving off in yet another direction now!
Regarding this discussion about the centralisation of UK Politics - there is no centre ground. Left-wing and right-wing are largly outdated concepts in the age of post neo-liberalism. Instead you have the economic and the social spectrums, where the spectrum goes from 'liberal' to 'authoritarian'. Labour are economically and socially authoritarian, Tories are economically liberal and socially authoritarian, LibDems are economically authoritarian but socially liberal and UKIP are economically liberal and on some issues socially liberal and other issues socially authoritarian. Most issues will have a consensus across at least 2 of the parties above. And some issues a party will take a stance on it depending on whether they're either in government or in opposition.
Well you have certainly illustrated why in the UK it is difficult to establish a centre ground. Can you explain why in what you call the "age of post neo-liberalism" (WTF, BTW) all over Northern Europe there are parties of "the centre"? Or are they all far away countries of which we know little, and care less, which is the impression I get of your viewpoints?
The key phrase in my post was 'UK Politics'. Can't really be compared to socialist-leaning France or Germany which is still dealing with the consequences of division and reunification following Soviet settlement.
Fine up to a point. My point is that is a peculiarly British problem that we can't find a centre path, (and a small example was the reaction to @kentaddick, from both sides of a tribal wall.)
Go right back to the beginning of the 80's (long before German reunification). Take the Thatcher government and find a "right wing" government in Germany as hard right as hers. You won't find one. Nor in the Netherlands, nor Denmark nor Sweden. They are all big believers in Europe, all have their moans about the EU but committed to the idea of Europe. And it has done all those countries a lot of good, despite the fact that they are all net contributors. Maybe, just maybe, there is something to learn from this more consensual and collaborative approach to life that these countries exhibit?
Energy - EDF Energy has successfully been approved to build a Nuclear Power station in Somerset, but they had to seek approval from the EU while the goverment gave the go-ahead ages ago. The EU controls far too much.
.
Just one question, Disco
Do you approve of EDF Energy's role in our strategic national energy system?
I don't really have much of a opinion to be honest.
I just have a issue with the EU's interference on what goes on that only affects the UK, regardless whether its potentially good for the UK or not.
It shows, clearly and in a very readable style, how British privatisation means that huge swathes of our most important essential national utilities, Power, water, telecoms, rail, post, municipal housing, are now in foreign hands.
I hear a lot of UKippers banging on about loss of "sovereignty". Well this is the biggest loss of sovereignty I can identify and like many other things it has got feck all to do with the EU and everything to do with national politics. What's UKIP's policy on this then? Re-nationalise the lot?
That's why I asked. EDF is French. And the French thought and think we were complete nuts to allow our national assets to fall into their hands. They are laughing all the way to the bank.
Ah yes but the french economy is in a mess partly because they refuse to liberate markets and sell off assets. Their refusal to sort their prospects and their deficit is one one of the main threats to the Eurozone.
I personally agree with selling assets and using the cash to build more. And raising tax from the profits plus strong state / eu regulations to protect consumers, workers and the environment. Why on earth put politicians in charge of big corporations when they can't tie their own shoelaces?!
But I also have no truck with offshore private equity funds loading UK utilities with debt so that the interest wipes out the profits so no tax receipts. The thing is that a well run privatised utility like BT should run decent profits and pay tax.
Seriously France Italy and Spain all need to get their shit together.
Whats all this about the formation of the NHS to do with Germany Ready to Accept UK's ExIt From the EU? Another interesting discussion thread that has gone completly off track.
The link is that the NHS was set up about the time that Germany accepted defeat in WW2. I think.
Is it just me that sees a certain irony in us allowing a country we supposedly helped defeat to "accept" our leaving the EU rather than act in what we consider to be our best interests one way or the other regardless?
Not sure what you are referring to, Len. Surely not John Major's speech in Berlin tonight? (which I personally think is bang on the money).
I cannot otherwise imagine who is asking the Germans to accept that we should leave, since I don't remember that we agreed it among ourselves.
Energy - EDF Energy has successfully been approved to build a Nuclear Power station in Somerset, but they had to seek approval from the EU while the goverment gave the go-ahead ages ago. The EU controls far too much.
.
Just one question, Disco
Do you approve of EDF Energy's role in our strategic national energy system?
I don't really have much of a opinion to be honest.
I just have a issue with the EU's interference on what goes on that only affects the UK, regardless whether its potentially good for the UK or not.
It shows, clearly and in a very readable style, how British privatisation means that huge swathes of our most important essential national utilities, Power, water, telecoms, rail, post, municipal housing, are now in foreign hands.
I hear a lot of UKippers banging on about loss of "sovereignty". Well this is the biggest loss of sovereignty I can identify and like many other things it has got feck all to do with the EU and everything to do with national politics. What's UKIP's policy on this then? Re-nationalise the lot?
That's why I asked. EDF is French. And the French thought and think we were complete nuts to allow our national assets to fall into their hands. They are laughing all the way to the bank.
Your getting the wrong impression about UKIP Prague.
UKIP have not mentioned they want to nationalise the whole lot because the companies that own them are not British. We are one of the biggest exports in Europe and we are happy to continue to receive foreign investment. Have you ever heard me say that our owner should be British? It's the political union we want to leave and not abolish foreign investment in companies.
Now you mentioned about nationalising, so you think the NHS should become private?
I dunno, after the war Labour managed to creates the NHS, undertake a massive nationalisation programme, host the Olympics, introduce the country's first planing system and start development of the atom bomb. And those were days of real austerity.
We do live in a much more globalised world but there's lots Labour could do if it could grow some cajones. Instead of the stupid mansion tax it could extend Council tax bands; it could disincetivise second homes, increase the minimum wage to aim at a living wage. If it was really brave it could stop the ringfencing of the NHS and teh expense of everything else.
The achievements you list in your first paragraph cannot really be claimed by Labour - there was a post-war cross-party consensus on all of those things and the Americans basically funded all of it thanks to the Marshall Plan and other global economic initiatives.
.
That's not true. The Tories vigorously opposed teh creation of the NHS (as did most doctors)
Categorically not true, the NHS was a direct result of the recommendations of the Beveridge report which received cross-party support. In fact the Tories accepted the idea of a national health service once the report was published, the only reason why it took until 1946 to found the NHS was because of the small matter of the country fighting World War 2.
Did you not think that that quote came from somewhere else. Like maybe a book about politics in 1945?
And you seem to have "forgotten" that what isn't disputed is that YOU got you stuff from that website and what you cut and pasted was quickly trashed by the people making comments on that site.
Have a view for sure but at least let it be your own view not something you've copied off the internet.
Going to accept that you were wrong about elections during the war as well? No, though not.
Whats all this about the formation of the NHS to do with Germany Ready to Accept UK's ExIt From the EU? Another interesting discussion thread that has gone completly off track.
The link is that the NHS was set up about the time that Germany accepted defeat in WW2. I think.
Is it just me that sees a certain irony in us allowing a country we supposedly helped defeat to "accept" our leaving the EU rather than act in what we consider to be our best interests one way or the other regardless?
Not sure what you are referring to, Len. Surely not John Major's speech in Berlin tonight? (which I personally think is bang on the money).
I cannot otherwise imagine who is asking the Germans to accept that we should leave, since I don't remember that we agreed it among ourselves.
What were you referring to exactly?
Simply extrapolating from the title of the thread.
Energy - EDF Energy has successfully been approved to build a Nuclear Power station in Somerset, but they had to seek approval from the EU while the goverment gave the go-ahead ages ago. The EU controls far too much.
.
Just one question, Disco
Do you approve of EDF Energy's role in our strategic national energy system?
I don't really have much of a opinion to be honest.
I just have a issue with the EU's interference on what goes on that only affects the UK, regardless whether its potentially good for the UK or not.
It shows, clearly and in a very readable style, how British privatisation means that huge swathes of our most important essential national utilities, Power, water, telecoms, rail, post, municipal housing, are now in foreign hands.
I hear a lot of UKippers banging on about loss of "sovereignty". Well this is the biggest loss of sovereignty I can identify and like many other things it has got feck all to do with the EU and everything to do with national politics. What's UKIP's policy on this then? Re-nationalise the lot?
That's why I asked. EDF is French. And the French thought and think we were complete nuts to allow our national assets to fall into their hands. They are laughing all the way to the bank.
Your getting the wrong impression about UKIP Prague.
UKIP have not mentioned they want to nationalise the whole lot because the companies that own them are not British. We are one of the biggest exports in Europe and we are happy to continue to receive foreign investment. Have you ever heard me say that our owner should be British? It's the political union we want to leave and not abolish foreign investment in companies.
Now you mentioned about nationalising, so you think the NHS should become private?
Well you indirectly brought up the subject of privatisation. At the same time your lot are always banging on about loss of "sovereignty", a word you all throw around without really clarifying what it means. So I wanted to suggest that the biggest loss of sovereignty has already happened through privatisation. The book I mentioned will help you understand the truth of that.
No I definitely don't want to see the NHS privatised. However your man Farage does...
Did you not think that that quote came from somewhere else. Like maybe a book about politics in 1945?
And you seem to have "forgotten" that what isn't disputed is that YOU got you stuff from that website and what you cut and pasted was quickly trashed by the people making comments on that site.
Have a view for sure but at least let it be your own view not something you've copied off the internet.
Going to accept that you were wrong about elections during the war as well? No, though not.
No point carry on this non-debate so bye bye.
Don't let it go Henry. You had him on the ropes.
I don't see how him lying, hurling childish abuse and then running away counts as having me on the ropes. But then I view the world with logic and facts, not through the myopic lens of Labour's apologists who contort themselves to convince themselves that the Tories are the root of every single problem in the world.
I thought a John Majors speech was very good and summed up a strong case for reform of the EU. I have always admired his stance on Europe.
I think the point about all of this, including the title of the thread, is that this is just the opening of posturing and negotiations on both sides of what will be a long process and one I think may well continue whoever wins next May.
Regardless of whether there is a post election vote on membership I think it would be a brave government indeed who would impose future treaties without a referendum.
I really do get the arguments re resources - I live in an area where there has been a great deal of house building and this has not always been matched with increased infastructure, and education and health spending and does put a great strain on local communities.
I believe that it is well known that immigrants to any country tend to head to poorer and therefore cheaper areas - Very often the places with the highest burden on housing amd services already.
My main problem with UKIP is that I am not convinvnced that this line of reasoning, for many member and activists, does not simply mask an underlying dislike of foreigners and in many cases full on racism. I also think that they have deliberately targeted people with similar opinions and have exaggerated some elements of EU membership and immigration so as to frighten people. All understandable as a part of politics but not something I like.
Also I don't agree with many of the other policies they have and seriously question the costing of these plans. They are a right wing party based upon a breakaway Conservative rump and frankly they have as much appeal to me with a democratic centre left / liberal perspective as the Conservative party. I just don't buy this view that they are something fresh, radical and new.
The last thing is that all political parties move about policy wise and I have always felt the UKIP were only a couple of policy changes away from the far Right. One last thing. I just don't buy Farrage at all.
Energy - EDF Energy has successfully been approved to build a Nuclear Power station in Somerset, but they had to seek approval from the EU while the goverment gave the go-ahead ages ago. The EU controls far too much.
.
Just one question, Disco
Do you approve of EDF Energy's role in our strategic national energy system?
I don't really have much of a opinion to be honest.
I just have a issue with the EU's interference on what goes on that only affects the UK, regardless whether its potentially good for the UK or not.
It shows, clearly and in a very readable style, how British privatisation means that huge swathes of our most important essential national utilities, Power, water, telecoms, rail, post, municipal housing, are now in foreign hands.
I hear a lot of UKippers banging on about loss of "sovereignty". Well this is the biggest loss of sovereignty I can identify and like many other things it has got feck all to do with the EU and everything to do with national politics. What's UKIP's policy on this then? Re-nationalise the lot?
That's why I asked. EDF is French. And the French thought and think we were complete nuts to allow our national assets to fall into their hands. They are laughing all the way to the bank.
Your getting the wrong impression about UKIP Prague.
UKIP have not mentioned they want to nationalise the whole lot because the companies that own them are not British. We are one of the biggest exports in Europe and we are happy to continue to receive foreign investment. Have you ever heard me say that our owner should be British? It's the political union we want to leave and not abolish foreign investment in companies.
Now you mentioned about nationalising, so you think the NHS should become private?
Well you indirectly brought up the subject of privatisation. At the same time your lot are always banging on about loss of "sovereignty", a word you all throw around without really clarifying what it means. So I wanted to suggest that the biggest loss of sovereignty has already happened through privatisation. The book I mentioned will help you understand the truth of that.
No I definitely don't want to see the NHS privatised. However your man Farage does...
Funny the Daily Mirror has reported this, considering Labour have been banging about saying UKIP want to make the NHS private. The Daily Mirror backs the Labour Party.
Everyone has the right to change their minds? Don't they? Afterall, Blair was once anti-EU before he became PM.
Anyway, the reason why I bought up the NHS, it is under threat. The EU is working on a deal with the US that, says 'is making NHS privatisation permanent'. The deal is called TTIP. If it passes, our NHS will be sold off, forever.
I will certainly be interested in reading that book, however would it make me change my mind about the EU? definitely not!
Did you not think that that quote came from somewhere else. Like maybe a book about politics in 1945?
And you seem to have "forgotten" that what isn't disputed is that YOU got you stuff from that website and what you cut and pasted was quickly trashed by the people making comments on that site.
Have a view for sure but at least let it be your own view not something you've copied off the internet.
Going to accept that you were wrong about elections during the war as well? No, though not.
No point carry on this non-debate so bye bye.
Don't let it go Henry. You had him on the ropes.
I don't see how him lying, hurling childish abuse and then running away counts as having me on the ropes. But then I view the world with logic and facts, not through the myopic lens of Labour's apologists who contort themselves to convince themselves that the Tories are the root of every single problem in the world.
It happens more than you'd expect amongst adults, apparently.
Impressive speeches from Major and Milliband today.
Comments
The reason for the delay in starting is because the EU quite rightly stepped in when they realised that the Govt's deal with EDF consisted of vast subsidies - most of them long term.
EDF have a guaranteed MegaWatt price for electricity generated at Hinkley at £95 - roughly double the current price.
And of course, guess who's going to have to pay for it?
Or was that Herbert Morrison?
The reasons why the Tories voted against Labour's NHS Act was because Labour went further than Beveridge's proposals and wanted to place every hospital and health centre under direct government control as well as make the private practice of medicine illegal. The Tories were going along with doctors and other health professionals on this one and Labour were the ones ignoring their advice, which is the same charge Labour levelled at the Tories when the Tories wanted GPs to control healthcare funding & allocation. Of course Labour twisted it then as evidence that the Tories opposed the creation on an NHS (not true), when they merely opposed the structure and restrictions Labour were sticking in with the legislation. This is where Bevan's oft-repeated 'lower than vermin' quote comes from, and which is still parroted by lefties who have run out of arguments.
The 1945 election took place while the war was still being fought.
Labour won in 1945 with a huge landslide including a very big vote from serving men and women.
The labour government then passed the legislation for the NHS.
You are now saying that the tories were against the Labour NHS Act and are citing that they voted against it as proof
So nothing like the cross party consensus you claimed when you tried to state that Labour couldn't claim credit for the introduction of the NHS.
you can't have it both ways.
Also, your point about the war being fought is a bit of a red herring. Yes, Japan was still in the war but Europe had achieved peace and the UK was not in any imminent danger, therefore there was no further justification to continue to postpone elections. To suggest that the UK held a general election whilst it was still fighting in Europe is completely insidious and fits a pattern of you selectively picking facts whilst ignoring others to fit an agenda.
As I said before, the Tories never opposed the creation of an NHS, however they opposed the Act that Labour were proposing because of the additional measures Labour were bunging into the legislation that were at the time receiving heavy criticism from charities, medical experts and the entire medical profession.
I know its National Novel Writing Month but this isn't the place for your fiction.
You were factually wrong. The war was still being fought. FACT.
You can try and pretend that it wasn't but it was. The Atom bomb hadn't been dropped when the '45 election took place so few if anyone would have known the WORLD war would end so soon. Labour won, despite the war leader being a tory, largely on the promise of a welfare state including a free at the point of use NHS.
And I didn't get it from a website but you by your own admission did. Maybe try reading a book sometime.
http://www.libdemvoice.org/setting-the-record-straight-labour-and-the-nhs-15930.html
So not only are you wrong, you're a liar.
Did you not think that that quote came from somewhere else. Like maybe a book about politics in 1945?
And you seem to have "forgotten" that what isn't disputed is that YOU got you stuff from that website and what you cut and pasted was quickly trashed by the people making comments on that site.
Have a view for sure but at least let it be your own view not something you've copied off the internet.
Going to accept that you were wrong about elections during the war as well? No, though not.
No point carry on this non-debate so bye bye.
it's interesting that even now, 100 years from WW1, there is still a large factor in the whole scenario of 'the balance of European power' ... that Germany now dominates Europe economically is a fact, the withdrawal of the UK would only strengthen that domination .. I suspect that the whole 'EU Question' hinges on military and strategic issues as much as on economics and trade and Britain no longer has a huge and subservient Empire on which to fall back on
Go right back to the beginning of the 80's (long before German reunification). Take the Thatcher government and find a "right wing" government in Germany as hard right as hers. You won't find one. Nor in the Netherlands, nor Denmark nor Sweden. They are all big believers in Europe, all have their moans about the EU but committed to the idea of Europe. And it has done all those countries a lot of good, despite the fact that they are all net contributors. Maybe, just maybe, there is something to learn from this more consensual and collaborative approach to life that these countries exhibit?
I personally agree with selling assets and using the cash to build more. And raising tax from the profits plus strong state / eu regulations to protect consumers, workers and the environment. Why on earth put politicians in charge of big corporations when they can't tie their own shoelaces?!
But I also have no truck with offshore private equity funds loading UK utilities with debt so that the interest wipes out the profits so no tax receipts. The thing is that a well run privatised utility like BT should run decent profits and pay tax.
Seriously France Italy and Spain all need to get their shit together.
I cannot otherwise imagine who is asking the Germans to accept that we should leave, since I don't remember that we agreed it among ourselves.
What were you referring to exactly?
UKIP have not mentioned they want to nationalise the whole lot because the companies that own them are not British. We are one of the biggest exports in Europe and we are happy to continue to receive foreign investment. Have you ever heard me say that our owner should be British? It's the political union we want to leave and not abolish foreign investment in companies.
Now you mentioned about nationalising, so you think the NHS should become private?
And have been trying to undermine it ever since.
Don't let it go Henry. You had him on the ropes.
No I definitely don't want to see the NHS privatised. However your man Farage does...
I think the point about all of this, including the title of the thread, is that this is just the opening of posturing and negotiations on both sides of what will be a long process and one I think may well continue whoever wins next May.
Regardless of whether there is a post election vote on membership I think it would be a brave government indeed who would impose future treaties without a referendum.
I really do get the arguments re resources - I live in an area where there has been a great deal of house building and this has not always been matched with increased infastructure, and education and health spending and does put a great strain on local communities.
I believe that it is well known that immigrants to any country tend to head to poorer and therefore cheaper areas - Very often the places with the highest burden on housing amd services already.
My main problem with UKIP is that I am not convinvnced that this line of reasoning, for many member and activists, does not simply mask an underlying dislike of foreigners and in many cases full on racism. I also think that they have deliberately targeted people with similar opinions and have exaggerated some elements of EU membership and immigration so as to frighten people. All understandable as a part of politics but not something I like.
Also I don't agree with many of the other policies they have and seriously question the costing of these plans. They are a right wing party based upon a breakaway Conservative rump and frankly they have as much appeal to me with a democratic centre left / liberal perspective as the Conservative party. I just don't buy this view that they are something fresh, radical and new.
The last thing is that all political parties move about policy wise and I have always felt the UKIP were only a couple of policy changes away from the far Right. One last thing. I just don't buy Farrage at all.
Anyway, an explanation to this story.............http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30039533
Everyone has the right to change their minds? Don't they? Afterall, Blair was once anti-EU before he became PM.
Anyway, the reason why I bought up the NHS, it is under threat. The EU is working on a deal with the US that, says 'is making NHS privatisation permanent'. The deal is called TTIP. If it passes, our NHS will be sold off, forever.
I will certainly be interested in reading that book, however would it make me change my mind about the EU? definitely not!
Impressive speeches from Major and Milliband today.