Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
The General Election - June 8th 2017
Comments
-
As above, Tory aids were holding the mics for the journalists. Ready to pull it away if they strayed from what they pre-submitted.Bournemouth Addick said:
They should call her bluff. Either give them some vanilla nonsense in advance and ask a proper question on camera or turn off the cameras, pack up the mics and feck off outside.RedPanda said:
Lynton Crosby's clearly identified she's incapable of thinking on her feet; hence the ridiculously trite slogans she repetitively spews during her every answer, her refusal to put herself up for the leaders debates, hiding inside friendly environments closed to the public and nowtrying to controlcontrolling the press.
The EU are going to eat her alive.0 -
At my local hustings prior to the 2015 election, one question was asked of all the candidates: "why can't we just renationalise the rail industry?"PragueAddick said:
Is that what they tell you? I don't think that has more than a sliver of truth. As far as I understand this most incompetent of privatizations, "network improvements" are solely in the hands of Network Rail currently state-owned. They get revenue from the franchise holders, such as Virgin. However I thought the terms of the franchise were agreed in advance, together with the expenditure on new trains that the franchise holder might commit to. So I would have thought any extra revenue from price increases goes mainly to the franchise holder's bottom line (or helps stop them going bust if they are incompetent, which a large number of them have been)cafcfan said:Bournemouth Addick said:cafcfan said:
As it turns out (not that the Labours were to know at the time) it would have done the exact reverse of protecting consumers! Unintended consequences and all that. The Labours were all geared up to freeze energy prices for 20 months. In the next 20 months there was a massive fall in wholesale energy prices that were, at least partially, passed on to consumers. Ed's plan would have done nothing but increase the power companies' profitability and consumers would have been paying much more than they needed to.SurvivaloftheFittest said:
Of course I realise that the Mail and Sun (and most press in general) have a right wing bias, which is why I wouldn't choose to read them in isolation to form an opinion.MuttleyCAFC said:I don't think you need to read to realise that there is a Tory bias. Rich press barons decide who tjheir paper is going to support and papers like the Mail and teh Sun are hardly subtle.
That said it's way too simplistic to read a Twitter post like that, look at the capital letters and cry hypocrisy. After doing my own research the policies are different.
The labour proposal was blatant market interference. No right wing press are going to support that even if it does protect consumers.
I haven't looked at the latest proposal but frankly it's likely to be less than a rip-roaring success. I've probably lost more this morning with SSE's share price dropping than the Conservatives are going to be saving me on my fuel bills. And who is going to be lining up to fund the construction of the new power stations we so desperately need?
If my recollection is correct the whole point of the price freeze (and I'm not sure if prices could have been dropped under the proposal however unlikely tbh) was to enable the introduction of a new regulatory regime for the energy market. A market that many of us view as seriously in need of reform.cafcfan said:
As it turns out (not that the Labours were to know at the time) it would have done the exact reverse of protecting consumers! Unintended consequences and all that. The Labours were all geared up to freeze energy prices for 20 months. In the next 20 months there was a massive fall in wholesale energy prices that were, at least partially, passed on to consumers. Ed's plan would have done nothing but increase the power companies' profitability and consumers would have been paying much more than they needed to.SurvivaloftheFittest said:
Of course I realise that the Mail and Sun (and most press in general) have a right wing bias, which is why I wouldn't choose to read them in isolation to form an opinion.MuttleyCAFC said:I don't think you need to read to realise that there is a Tory bias. Rich press barons decide who tjheir paper is going to support and papers like the Mail and teh Sun are hardly subtle.
That said it's way too simplistic to read a Twitter post like that, look at the capital letters and cry hypocrisy. After doing my own research the policies are different.
The labour proposal was blatant market interference. No right wing press are going to support that even if it does protect consumers.
I haven't looked at the latest proposal but frankly it's likely to be less than a rip-roaring success. I've probably lost more this morning with SSE's share price dropping than the Conservatives are going to be saving me on my fuel bills. And who is going to be lining up to fund the construction of the new power stations we so desperately need?
So it was possible that longer term we would still have benefited even if prices had remained temporarily higher.
And another thing - why do rail fares go up every year to fund, we are told, the future improvement to the network? Would you pay 5 star hotel rates in a B&B because they told you they wanted a contribution to their upgrade costs. I think not.
Right? Anyone?
The Labour candidate gave a strong answer about how we ought to do so, how the railways in the UK should be seen as an essential resource, how we need to ensure that, as the economy benefits from a fast, efficient railway, the whole country should contribute to its improvements.
The Green candidate said she liked trains because they pollute less than cars.
The Ukip candidate didn't seem entirely certain that *all* members of society should be allowed to use trains.
And then came the turn of the Tory candidate. He explained, in simple terms, that it would not be possible to renationalise the rail industry. Because, right now, it's in private hands. Which means that the money that is used to run the railways is divided up into three, small pots. One is used for the infrastructure, to pay wages and to keep the trains running. One is used to pay into the Treasury, in terms of the franchise's commitment to generate revenues. And the third is used to pay the shareholders of the rail franchises. He then explained what would happen if it were renationalised. There would be two, large pots of money. One for the infrastructure, wages and trains. And one to pay to the Treasury. And there we have it, he explained. We are much better off with only three *small* pots of money, than we would be having to find two *large* pots of money.
Sadly, the assembled audience stared blankly, accepted the answer and voted Michael Fallon back into Parliament.
10 -
*Katrien makes a note for next years troublesome Q&A sessions*Callumcafc said:
As above, Tory aids were holding the mics for the journalists. Ready to pull it away if they strayed from what they pre-submitted.Bournemouth Addick said:
They should call her bluff. Either give them some vanilla nonsense in advance and ask a proper question on camera or turn off the cameras, pack up the mics and feck off outside.RedPanda said:
Lynton Crosby's clearly identified she's incapable of thinking on her feet; hence the ridiculously trite slogans she repetitively spews during her every answer, her refusal to put herself up for the leaders debates, hiding inside friendly environments closed to the public and nowtrying to controlcontrolling the press.
The EU are going to eat her alive.3 -
"De strong and stable cloob".
"De strong and stable cloob".
"De strong and stable cloob"...17 -
Clive Efford knocked at my door on Sunday, thought it was the in-laws. I was only wearing my pants, he shook my hand and we had a little chat. Was a weird experience...9
-
Even our dear CEO doesn't vet questions at q&a meetings. Katrien for PMRedPanda said:1 -
-
2
-
He's just been round. Thanked me for being dressed, as he met a right one the other day!!PopIcon said:Clive Efford knocked at my door on Sunday, thought it was the in-laws. I was only wearing my pants, he shook my hand and we had a little chat. Was a weird experience...
Had a good chat with him. Despite his allegiances, the Spanners not Labour, I told him he had my vote.
I'm not totally comfortable with Corbyn, but I am totally uncomfortable with May, how she has called this election, her obvious lying in her reasons, how she is conducting herself in terms of Brexit and her closed shop meetings with party activists. Not quite "too busy meeting the public", which was her excuse for swerving the TV debates, is it! Not to mention the ongoing investigation by the CPS into her party, which should report by Thursday.
Laughable that, after 7 years in power, she now throws in a policy to cap energy bills. Ridiculed as a loony Marxist policy by her party and their masters in the press when Miliband put it forward.
Laughable that she intends to keep the policy of net migration under 100,000 when she has done nothing in 7 years as FS or PM to control what she could. And that's before considering the positives those migrants bring to this country.
Laughable that she plays up to the Mail, Sun, Express and all her new UKIP voters in her "bloody awkward woman" act to the EU, but knows there are laws we need to deal with that can't simply be glossed over by the great "repeal bill".
Laughable that the NHS is safe with her and the inane rhyming slang at the Department of Health.
And laughable that this has become a "presidential election", with little (as small a font as you can get) or no mention of her party.
There's nothing "strong and stable" about this woman. Weak and Wonky would be more appropriate!21 - Sponsored links:
-
If you want to know who is offering the lowest tariffs go on one of the numerous comparison sites and switch to the cheapest. It takes 30 mins max. If you don't know who is offering the lowest tariffs, I'm afraid that is your fault, not the govenment, whichever party is in power.harveys_gardener said:The boss at Centrica is moaning that such things should be left to the "free market"! The free market you tosser is where you have competition to drive bills down, not a cosy price-fixing regime where the customer has no idea who is offering the lowest tarrifs. Households been overcharged billions while this Tory regime has been in power, 7 years and counting, in the face of criticism from Ofgen and CMA who have been ignored.
As far as the price fixing cartel goes, yes, it's outrageous, as are the Tory proposals to cap prices after having criticised Labour. It is hypocritical.
All the time Corbyn is the leader of Labour. The Tories can do as they please.
The British public will never vote for Corbyn and Abbott to govern us.
Regarding the influence of the press, that is undeniable, but wasn't it ever thus ?
Why all the whinging about it ?
Mail, Express, Telegraph have always been Tory. Mirror and Guardian always been Labour.1 -
Independent is more Labour than the Guardian right now. The Guardian don't seem to know what to do with themselves.0
-
Every time she opens her mouth a piece of my soul dies7
-
And how could I forget the scum that is Iain Duncan Smith. His DWP condemned by the UN for "grave or systemic violations" of the UN's Disability Convention.
FOI request reveals more than 4,000 people died within 6 weeks of being found "fit to work" by IDS's DWP between December 2011 and February 2014. 1,360 of those died after losing an appeal against the Work Capability Assessment forcing them into work.1 -
Those press types are so influential, even Private Eye are on to this revelation.
13 -
So today I learned that Chizz and I share an MP. Possibly. He might have moved in the last two years.Chizz said:
At my local hustings prior to the 2015 election, one question was asked of all the candidates: "why can't we just renationalise the rail industry?"PragueAddick said:
Is that what they tell you? I don't think that has more than a sliver of truth. As far as I understand this most incompetent of privatizations, "network improvements" are solely in the hands of Network Rail currently state-owned. They get revenue from the franchise holders, such as Virgin. However I thought the terms of the franchise were agreed in advance, together with the expenditure on new trains that the franchise holder might commit to. So I would have thought any extra revenue from price increases goes mainly to the franchise holder's bottom line (or helps stop them going bust if they are incompetent, which a large number of them have been)cafcfan said:Bournemouth Addick said:cafcfan said:
As it turns out (not that the Labours were to know at the time) it would have done the exact reverse of protecting consumers! Unintended consequences and all that. The Labours were all geared up to freeze energy prices for 20 months. In the next 20 months there was a massive fall in wholesale energy prices that were, at least partially, passed on to consumers. Ed's plan would have done nothing but increase the power companies' profitability and consumers would have been paying much more than they needed to.SurvivaloftheFittest said:
Of course I realise that the Mail and Sun (and most press in general) have a right wing bias, which is why I wouldn't choose to read them in isolation to form an opinion.MuttleyCAFC said:I don't think you need to read to realise that there is a Tory bias. Rich press barons decide who tjheir paper is going to support and papers like the Mail and teh Sun are hardly subtle.
That said it's way too simplistic to read a Twitter post like that, look at the capital letters and cry hypocrisy. After doing my own research the policies are different.
The labour proposal was blatant market interference. No right wing press are going to support that even if it does protect consumers.
I haven't looked at the latest proposal but frankly it's likely to be less than a rip-roaring success. I've probably lost more this morning with SSE's share price dropping than the Conservatives are going to be saving me on my fuel bills. And who is going to be lining up to fund the construction of the new power stations we so desperately need?
If my recollection is correct the whole point of the price freeze (and I'm not sure if prices could have been dropped under the proposal however unlikely tbh) was to enable the introduction of a new regulatory regime for the energy market. A market that many of us view as seriously in need of reform.cafcfan said:
As it turns out (not that the Labours were to know at the time) it would have done the exact reverse of protecting consumers! Unintended consequences and all that. The Labours were all geared up to freeze energy prices for 20 months. In the next 20 months there was a massive fall in wholesale energy prices that were, at least partially, passed on to consumers. Ed's plan would have done nothing but increase the power companies' profitability and consumers would have been paying much more than they needed to.SurvivaloftheFittest said:
Of course I realise that the Mail and Sun (and most press in general) have a right wing bias, which is why I wouldn't choose to read them in isolation to form an opinion.MuttleyCAFC said:I don't think you need to read to realise that there is a Tory bias. Rich press barons decide who tjheir paper is going to support and papers like the Mail and teh Sun are hardly subtle.
That said it's way too simplistic to read a Twitter post like that, look at the capital letters and cry hypocrisy. After doing my own research the policies are different.
The labour proposal was blatant market interference. No right wing press are going to support that even if it does protect consumers.
I haven't looked at the latest proposal but frankly it's likely to be less than a rip-roaring success. I've probably lost more this morning with SSE's share price dropping than the Conservatives are going to be saving me on my fuel bills. And who is going to be lining up to fund the construction of the new power stations we so desperately need?
So it was possible that longer term we would still have benefited even if prices had remained temporarily higher.
And another thing - why do rail fares go up every year to fund, we are told, the future improvement to the network? Would you pay 5 star hotel rates in a B&B because they told you they wanted a contribution to their upgrade costs. I think not.
Right? Anyone?
The Labour candidate gave a strong answer about how we ought to do so, how the railways in the UK should be seen as an essential resource, how we need to ensure that, as the economy benefits from a fast, efficient railway, the whole country should contribute to its improvements.
The Green candidate said she liked trains because they pollute less than cars.
The Ukip candidate didn't seem entirely certain that *all* members of society should be allowed to use trains.
And then came the turn of the Tory candidate. He explained, in simple terms, that it would not be possible to renationalise the rail industry. Because, right now, it's in private hands. Which means that the money that is used to run the railways is divided up into three, small pots. One is used for the infrastructure, to pay wages and to keep the trains running. One is used to pay into the Treasury, in terms of the franchise's commitment to generate revenues. And the third is used to pay the shareholders of the rail franchises. He then explained what would happen if it were renationalised. There would be two, large pots of money. One for the infrastructure, wages and trains. And one to pay to the Treasury. And there we have it, he explained. We are much better off with only three *small* pots of money, than we would be having to find two *large* pots of money.
Sadly, the assembled audience stared blankly, accepted the answer and voted Michael Fallon back into Parliament.0 -
Remember a couple of weeks ago I compared Theresa May's actions and the actions of those serving her as increasingly comparable to an authoritarian state that you'd only expect to see appearing on the border of Russia? Is this yet more evidence that the Tories are slowly dropping the 'liberal' from 'neo-liberal' in favour of a more authoritarian, less accountable approach?Callumcafc said:
As above, Tory aids were holding the mics for the journalists. Ready to pull it away if they strayed from what they pre-submitted.Bournemouth Addick said:
They should call her bluff. Either give them some vanilla nonsense in advance and ask a proper question on camera or turn off the cameras, pack up the mics and feck off outside.RedPanda said:
Lynton Crosby's clearly identified she's incapable of thinking on her feet; hence the ridiculously trite slogans she repetitively spews during her every answer, her refusal to put herself up for the leaders debates, hiding inside friendly environments closed to the public and nowtrying to controlcontrolling the press.
The EU are going to eat her alive.5 -
May's comments regarding a free vote re. hunting with dogs follows a piece in the Daily Mirror advising that journalists had seen a leaked email from Conservative Peer Lord Mancroft in which he outlined how a Tory landslide at the general election could result in changes to the law. According to the newspaper, Mancroft wrote: "A majority of fifty or more would give us a real opportunity for repeal of the Hunting Act".
Sir Roger Gale, president of 'Conservative Animal Welfare', said he would oppose any attempt to repeal the Hunting Act. Three cheers to him.
For the most part, the public will be unaware of, or ignore, the issue of hunting with dogs during this election campaign. Annoying, but not conclusive. If May wins the election and tries to enact what Cameron could not, the blood-lust Tory hunt-scum will be opposed, all the way, with no relent.5 -
I've not lived in the UK for 5 years now, but the Missus used to work with the disabled and we have a few members of the family being heavily supported by the benefits system. Some of them I think could be doing more to get off the benefits, but some are genuine and deserving recipients.TelMc32 said:And how could I forget the scum that is Iain Duncan Smith. His DWP condemned by the UN for "grave or systemic violations" of the UN's Disability Convention.
FOI request reveals more than 4,000 people died within 6 weeks of being found "fit to work" by IDS's DWP between December 2011 and February 2014. 1,360 of those died after losing an appeal against the Work Capability Assessment forcing them into work.
Through her work and the family I have come across/heard enough incidents now to make me think that there is a blanket policy of turning down the first application for nearly all benefits, regardless of the strength of the claim. To me the policy seems to be designed to target the weakest and most vulnerable applicants who may not have the strength of will or intelligence to fight the decision and will therefore just go away and struggle on their own and be out of the hair of the DWP.
That leaves the few who are either strong willed enough or have a good advocate (this is where my wife came in through work and for some of her family) to fight it, or, unfortunately, those less deserving but who know how to play the system to their favour.
I don't think there are many people who wouldn't agree that the benefits system should be reformed, but I get the feeling sometimes with this lot that they'd simply rather it didn't exist and even if it is a genuine attempt to reform the system, it has been disastrous for so many very vulnerable people.7 - Sponsored links:
-
Dianne abbot is a ...1
-
That list of the Labours' policies in that tweet made me laugh out loud. (And it's "better off" not "better of".)
Let's take one example. "End profit-making within our NHS." Does anyone within the Labours know how that might work or what it might mean? Are hospital bed manufacturers expected to do "at cost" deals for new beds? How long would it be until they went bust and patients would have to be on trolleys because there were no beds anymore?
Take one of my favourite investments: Primary Health Properties. They fund, build, own and rent out state-of-the-art GPs' surgeries and other NHS buildings. GPs are falling over themselves to get into their buildings because they are so nice compared to the crapholes they currently work in. The rent PHP charge is paid by the NHS.
If the Labours want those properties for their own, they'd have to buy them. PHP's assets are valued at £1.2bn. There are just so many examples of this sort of stuff. There policies are the politics of the playground. Is there no one in the party that has even a vague grasp on reality and the cost of reality?
Here's an interesting chart from the ONS:
It's interesting for two reasons. First how public expenditure on healthcare has risen. Second how private spending on healthcare hasn't so much and how, in the years after the financial crisis it actually fell. The Labours proposal to increase tax on private health insurance would have a similar effect. For many it would make the product unaffordable. This would place a significant extra burden on the NHS. Would this be the NHS that no one wants to supply because there's no profit in it? Who knows, it's all bollocks.
(I'm still not voting.)1 -
Bloody hell - how did NHS spending increase from just over £50bn to just over £100bn in just nine years from 1999?0
-
There is no explanation. Nobody can be blamed. There have been no contributing factors that can be highlighted without this place becoming a foam/froth party.Addickted said:Bloody hell - how did NHS spending increase from just over £50bn to just over £100bn in just nine years from 1999?
Just accept that costs rise and don't look to attribute blame or any form of reasoning. It's for the best 1 -
Aging population + obesity levels.Addickted said:Bloody hell - how did NHS spending increase from just over £50bn to just over £100bn in just nine years from 1999?
This is why people say the NHS is a funding "black hole"
0 -
Not quite true @Big_Bad_World
Virginia Bottomly has a lot to answer for. Along with her cousin, Jeremy Hunt and their family history in the health sector and the gradual privatisation of the NHS for their benefit!
http://socialinvestigations.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/meet-baroness-bottomley-financial-links.html?m=12 -
Plus vast improvements to the ability over that timescale to have the facilities to actually treat someone. All those technologies, drugs and specialist staff are expensive. To quote Dr Leonard McCoy from Star Trek: The Voyage Home "My God, what is this the dark ages!"kentaddick said:
Aging population + obesity levels.Addickted said:Bloody hell - how did NHS spending increase from just over £50bn to just over £100bn in just nine years from 1999?
This is why people say the NHS is a funding "black hole"1 -
So, there is a suggestion in that article that individuals in the Commons and Lords should not be allowed to vote if there is a perceived conflict of interest. That's all good isn't it?TelMc32 said:Not quite true @Big_Bad_World
Virginia Bottomly has a lot to answer for. Along with her cousin, Jeremy Hunt and their family history in the health sector and the gradual privatisation of the NHS for their benefit!
http://socialinvestigations.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/meet-baroness-bottomley-financial-links.html?m=1
But hold on, surely, taken to its logical conclusion, that means that no Labours should be allowed to vote on anything as their party is funded to a great extent by the Unions and the Labours' policies are all about protecting the interests of its paymasters and puppet masters.
1 -
NHS expenditure rose from 43.5bn to 125bn = 287%
Private rose 10bn to 25bn = 250%.
Not sure the difference is that significant. Any chance there's any cherry picking?1
This discussion has been closed.
