What a time to be alive when wanting the poor to have enough money to buy food is seen as dangerous loony leftism and unaffordable, whereas the party throwing billions down the drain on pointless ideological pet projects are seen as the strong and stable sensible economic choice.
You keep talking about the poor being able to buy food. Has anyone on here said they want to see people starving or have I missed something?
if good poverty.
???
"...of food poverty..."
Sausage fingers aside I think he's got a point myself don't you? Those planning on electing May need to start owning some responsibility for the policies they are voting for. Like increased homelessness, the rise of food banks, child poverty, cuts to our police, military, prison service, social care system, etc, etc, etc. That's what their voting for after all.
Agree completely. Anyone that votes for a party that wants to kill everyone should be held to account.
How about public stonings?
We'll, ignoring the particularly lame attempt at a strawman argument, put it this way, why do you think Tory voters have no responsibility for the effects, which are entirely foreseeable, of the policies of their party of choice? The Tories have stood on a platform of austerity for the last two elections and we are seeing the results of those policies.
Either you're overall happy with those results and will support them again or you think they've got it wrong. I happen to think the second is all.
Don't think you're gonna get any kind of intelligent response from someone who appears to have just read 'Peppa Pig votes Tory' and appears to have spent all weekend making the same shit joke over and over again.
Thanks, petal.
You seem very angry of late. Name calling extraordinaire.
Very brave man, you.
To be fair you proved me right with your response.
Looks like you can dish it out but not take it. Just like most trolls.
Yep. I'm the one getting angry and calling people names. Big lolz.
You epitomise the 'can give it but not take it' mantra.
You're a very angry little man, as can be seen by the way you spit venom at those that disagree with you.
You are funny though, and at least you don't want children to die. That's a big tick from me.
You spent all weekend making the same joke about dead children. I imagine in an attempt to look edgy and cool. It really hasn't worked. You just look like an angry 14 year old.
What a time to be alive when wanting the poor to have enough money to buy food is seen as dangerous loony leftism and unaffordable, whereas the party throwing billions down the drain on pointless ideological pet projects are seen as the strong and stable sensible economic choice.
You keep talking about the poor being able to buy food. Has anyone on here said they want to see people starving or have I missed something?
if good poverty.
???
"...of food poverty..."
Sausage fingers aside I think he's got a point myself don't you? Those planning on electing May need to start owning some responsibility for the policies they are voting for. Like increased homelessness, the rise of food banks, child poverty, cuts to our police, military, prison service, social care system, etc, etc, etc. That's what their voting for after all.
Agree completely. Anyone that votes for a party that wants to kill everyone should be held to account.
How about public stonings?
We'll, ignoring the particularly lame attempt at a strawman argument, put it this way, why do you think Tory voters have no responsibility for the effects, which are entirely foreseeable, of the policies of their party of choice? The Tories have stood on a platform of austerity for the last two elections and we are seeing the results of those policies.
Either you're overall happy with those results and will support them again or you think they've got it wrong. I happen to think the second is all.
Don't think you're gonna get any kind of intelligent response from someone who appears to have just read 'Peppa Pig votes Tory' and appears to have spent all weekend making the same shit joke over and over again.
Thanks, petal.
You seem very angry of late. Name calling extraordinaire.
Very brave man, you.
To be fair you proved me right with your response.
Looks like you can dish it out but not take it. Just like most trolls.
Yep. I'm the one getting angry and calling people names. Big lolz.
You epitomise the 'can give it but not take it' mantra.
You're a very angry little man, as can be seen by the way you spit venom at those that disagree with you.
You are funny though, and at least you don't want children to die. That's a big tick from me.
You spent all weekend making the same joke about dead children. I imagine in an attempt to look edgy and cool. It really hasn't worked. You just look like an angry 14 year old.
All weekend? You would have had to have been watching me all weekend for that to be proven true. It's more likely, and is actually the case, that I popped in a few times and highlighted the highly emotive buzz word that you've bandied about like confetti.
As for joking about dead children. Nope. Not at all. Show me where I've once, and only the once, referred to a dead child. You'll find a few instances where I've mocked the view that the Tories want to kill everyone and that children are dying as a direct result of Tory policy, but you'll not find one instance of me joking about dead children.
You know that though and you're reverting to the 'shove a few emotive words in a sentence labelling someone in the hope that it discredits them and deflects people away from my huge anger problem' stance.
I still like you though, because I care more than Tories do..
I see the Labour party have started doing what I thought they should - get the numbers out there - let people know that if they earn x they won't be worse off. Let them know that x is quite a high figure! Tomorrow is going to be a big day for them when they provide more detail of their tax plans.
I think people know that Labour are offering popular policies, the issue is convincing them they can deliver them and not empoverish everybody. The more you undertsand economics, the less worried you are about this. The economy can be stimulated and money can be made to work for us. The Tories have created a false reality that makes sense to people who think you can only spend what you have. A massive lie was comparing us to Greece when we were never in that position, but they knew it. A bit of fear works wonders though.
If the Tories win the election, this will be the third parliament of Austerity. It doesn't work. When the economic crisis struck the advanced economies in 2008, almost every government – even Germany – introduced some kind of stimulus programme, increasing spending and/or cutting taxes. There was no mystery why. Even though people who equate this with their household budgets don't undertsand why.
Normally, monetary authorities such as the Bank of England respond to a temporary economic downturn by cutting interest rates; this encourages private spending, especially on housing, and sets the stage for recovery. But there’s a limit to how much they can do in that direction. By late 2008 it was already clear in every major economy that conventional monetary policy, which involves pushing down the interest rate on short-term government debt, was going to be insufficient to fight the financial downdraft. Now what? The economics textbook answer was and is fiscal expansion: increase government spending both to create jobs directly and to put money in consumers’ pockets.
But won’t this lead to budget deficits? Yes, and but that's a good thing. An economy that is depressed with incredibly low interest rates is, in effect, an economy in which the public is trying to save more than businesses are willing to invest. The government does everyone a service by running deficits and giving frustrated savers a chance to put their money to work. Nor does this borrowing compete with private investment. An economy where interest rates cannot go any lower is an economy awash in desired saving with no place to go, and deficit spending that expands the economy is, if anything, likely to lead to higher private investment than would otherwise materialise.
It’s true that you can’t run big budget deficits for ever (although you can do it for a long time), because at some point interest payments start to swallow too large a share of the budget. But it’s foolish and destructive to worry about deficits when borrowing is very cheap and the funds you borrow would otherwise go to waste. As John Maynard Keynes wrote in 1937: “The boom, not the slump, is the right time for austerity at the Treasury.”
I doubt if Tories actively want children to die, but don't give much of a fuck if they do as long as they're somebody elses.
Terrible post
A fair reaction. However it is a response to Big Bad Worlds constant repeated theme that non Tories believe that Tories actively want children to die. It was his or hers attempt to close off discussion regarding NHS cuts in my view. If I am wrong, and Big Bad World has been sincere in those repeated posts I will apologise and donate to Demelza House. Even then my post was modified not an outright declaration.
What a time to be alive when wanting the poor to have enough money to buy food is seen as dangerous loony leftism and unaffordable, whereas the party throwing billions down the drain on pointless ideological pet projects are seen as the strong and stable sensible economic choice.
You keep talking about the poor being able to buy food. Has anyone on here said they want to see people starving or have I missed something?
if good poverty.
???
"...of food poverty..."
Sausage fingers aside I think he's got a point myself don't you? Those planning on electing May need to start owning some responsibility for the policies they are voting for. Like increased homelessness, the rise of food banks, child poverty, cuts to our police, military, prison service, social care system, etc, etc, etc. That's what their voting for after all.
Agree completely. Anyone that votes for a party that wants to kill everyone should be held to account.
How about public stonings?
We'll, ignoring the particularly lame attempt at a strawman argument, put it this way, why do you think Tory voters have no responsibility for the effects, which are entirely foreseeable, of the policies of their party of choice? The Tories have stood on a platform of austerity for the last two elections and we are seeing the results of those policies.
Either you're overall happy with those results and will support them again or you think they've got it wrong. I happen to think the second is all.
Your crystal ball would be worth a fortune on the open market.
So there's only two outcomes that can be equated from the last two terms in office? That seems as narrow a minded view as those that support the killing of children.
Well it didn't take a crystal ball to imagine that taking £b's out of the local government budget might lead to problems delivering local council services did it? Or that laying off 1000's of police or prison officers might lead to some issues around law and order. Or that introducing such significant changes to the benefits system might result in people falling through the cracks.
I could go on but the essential point is that having seen (some of) the effects of austerity policies once...voters went out and voted for more of the same so your argument this was unforeseeable is more crystal balls than anything else isn't it?
I doubt if Tories actively want children to die, but don't give much of a fuck if they do as long as they're somebody elses.
Terrible post
A fair reaction. However it is a response to Big Bad Worlds constant repeated theme that non Tories believe that Tories actively want children to die. It was his or hers attempt to close off discussion regarding NHS cuts in my view. If I am wrong, and Big Bad World has been sincere in those repeated posts I will apologise and donate to Demelza House. Even then my post was modified not an outright declaration.
It was not my intention to close off discussion at all. Your view is wholly wrong. I've even stated why I've said what I've said in response to fiiish.
I don't believe that Tories want children to die. Nor do I believe (well, hope that it isn't the case) that those spewing the line about people dying because of Tory policy actually believe it. If they do then my mocking of that train of thought stands.
I haven't looked at whether the report stands up to scrutiny, and the government provide reasons why they disagree (year on year fluctuations for example). Potentially, cuts to the NHS are starting to cause excess deaths and it is being studied and reported in peer-reviewed academic journals.
I doubt if Tories actively want children to die, but don't give much of a fuck if they do as long as they're somebody elses.
Terrible post
A fair reaction. However it is a response to Big Bad Worlds constant repeated theme that non Tories believe that Tories actively want children to die. It was his or hers attempt to close off discussion regarding NHS cuts in my view. If I am wrong, and Big Bad World has been sincere in those repeated posts I will apologise and donate to Demelza House. Even then my post was modified not an outright declaration.
It was not my intention to close off discussion at all. Your view is wholly wrong. I've even stated why I've said what I've said in response to fiiish.
I don't believe that Tories want children to die. Nor do I believe (well, hope that it isn't the case) that those spewing the line about people dying because of Tory policy actually believe it. If they do then my mocking of that train of thought stands.
It's as I stated previously, too much exaggeration and hyperbole. Makes a far better thread if people keep to rational debate.
What a time to be alive when wanting the poor to have enough money to buy food is seen as dangerous loony leftism and unaffordable, whereas the party throwing billions down the drain on pointless ideological pet projects are seen as the strong and stable sensible economic choice.
You keep talking about the poor being able to buy food. Has anyone on here said they want to see people starving or have I missed something?
if good poverty.
???
"...of food poverty..."
Sausage fingers aside I think he's got a point myself don't you? Those planning on electing May need to start owning some responsibility for the policies they are voting for. Like increased homelessness, the rise of food banks, child poverty, cuts to our police, military, prison service, social care system, etc, etc, etc. That's what their voting for after all.
Agree completely. Anyone that votes for a party that wants to kill everyone should be held to account.
How about public stonings?
We'll, ignoring the particularly lame attempt at a strawman argument, put it this way, why do you think Tory voters have no responsibility for the effects, which are entirely foreseeable, of the policies of their party of choice? The Tories have stood on a platform of austerity for the last two elections and we are seeing the results of those policies.
Either you're overall happy with those results and will support them again or you think they've got it wrong. I happen to think the second is all.
Your crystal ball would be worth a fortune on the open market.
So there's only two outcomes that can be equated from the last two terms in office? That seems as narrow a minded view as those that support the killing of children.
Well it didn't take a crystal ball to imagine that taking £b's out of the local government budget might lead to problems delivering local council services did it? Or that laying off 1000's of police or prison officers might lead to some issues around law and order. Or that introducing such significant changes to the benefits system might result in people falling through the cracks.
I could go on but the essential point is that having seen (some of) the effects of austerity policies once...voters went out and voted for more of the same so your argument this was unforeseeable is more crystal balls than anything else isn't it?
Lifers - let's try and keep the discussion on track and not fall into the trap of having a pop at one another etc. I know the political threads can be very emotive and your passions for your beliefs can run deep.
If you feel yourself getting wound up etc, maybe just come off this thread for a bit. There's some other really good ones on page 1 at the moment such as a would ya on a woman called Nicola Walker and just today we found out St Truiden's gates to their training ground have been locked. And if you go a few pages back now there's one on Garden soil in the Bromley area and bonded resin driveways.
Point taken re children. I would prefer it if we, and I, stuck to trying to make sensible points. I suppose I was irritated by BWW's approach and the constant 'sorrys' earlier in the thread. I mentioned above about talking to a Tory in 2015 and said he was a pleasant bloke, and certainly didn't strike me as vindictive towards anybody's children. What might be going on is some reference to the mysterious beliefs that drive Tory thinking which taken to the extreme (like with left wing beliefs too) can be selfish and destructive. Anyway I apologise generally and will make a donation to Demelza.
Of course the Tories don't want people to die - Tony Blair didn't want children to die when we started bombing Iraq - but that is what happens. Cuts to the health service costs lives - it is wrong to accuse indicuduals of wanting this but we shouldn't pretend this isn't an issue. Even when better funded the NHS has to make life and death decisions in relation to money and those decisions will still be needed under Labour. But the NHS is safer under Labour and to me that is important.
Imagine someone living in a London suburb, earning £80k, driving a Range Rover and with a hefty mortgage. And then, despite the fact that the Bank of England Base Rate hasn't increased since July 2007, he's convinced it's going to increase by 75 basis points. (He knows the last Labour Government saw the BoE Base Rate drop from 6.25% to 0.5%, but he's ignoring that for now).
Poor chap! He's really going to get it bad. Especially seeing that his mortgage will go up (he thinks) by 75 basis points immediately after the Tories lose office.
I hope he can find some consolation in some of the things that would improve for him.
- If the interest rate on his mortgage does increase (and I'm happy he realises it's "stupidly low" - after all, he sounds like a sensible chap that would have factored that into his planning) and if inflation is increasing, it's very likely his big house in the suburbs will increase in value. He'll have a considerable chunk of change in equity. Lucky chap! House will increase in value either way, the amount the interest rate will affect his mortgage however is an intangible cost.
- I hope he drives (excuse the pun) a hard bargain when chopping in his Range Rover. (Why he'd want a car like that in the suburbs, I wouldn't know). He will find it very easy to source a much more cost-effective, appropriate jam jar (after all, dealers are awash with secod hand cars they can't shift and have to lower prices. That will save him a fortune. Lucky chap! I agree with this I hate Land and Range Rovers in Town and Cities that never see their natural habitats. *Second
- He may decide to commute by train instead of driving. I know! It sounds an horrendous prospect - certainly after another seven years of Conservative rule ensuring that fares are expensive, the service is terrible and the money pumped in to the industry (public and private) finds its way - in many cases - to foreign rail companies, many of which are State-owned. I am sure he finds it galling that rail fares are used to prop up foreign governments. So, with all the changes that take place in the UK economy, one that he will be very pleased about is renationalisation of the rail industry, resulting in lower fares, better service and a net increase in Treasury revenue. Lucky chap! Intangible benefits and costs. (comparing to other nations equivalents is not an accurate depiction)
- His employer's fiscal prudence, as described, is likely to preserve good dividends for their shareholders. So I am sure he'll be able to make use of mechanisms to benefit from this increase, such as Share Incentive Plans, Save As You Earn, Company Share Option Schemes, Enterprise Management Incentives and ISAs, none of which are threatened by Labour (and many of which he can thank Labour for introducing). Lucky chap! So no change on this one?
- And, as he's paying less for his car, less for his commute, less for his fuel, less for Road Tax, less for motor insurance, etc, he may decide to invest his newly-found spare money. And what better time to invest than when interest rates are increasing? (Again, I don't think they will, but if they do, why wouldn't he want to take advantage if they do?) Lucky chap! All in bold are completely intangible costs... The past indicates that no matter who is in power, all of these will continue to rise.
- He will benefit from lower crime, probably reducing his home insurance costs, because, thankfully, Labour has committed additional police, ending the Tory cutbacks in policing. Lucky chap! Intangible benefit and cost. Labour do not know how much this policing will cost. £300 million will only pay for 18 months of the police officers salaries, who pays after? Who is to say that crime will not continue to rise? Who pays for their training and equipment?
- And he'll benefit from an improving, protected NHS, meaning his healthcare will be taken care of. And that of his employers. And their staff and customers. He'll get the double bonus of improved health service and the knowledge it's no longer under threat of being sold off. Oh, and, while he's thinking about it, he's pretty damn pleased that he'll be able to visit loved ones in hospital without having to pay car park charges. Lucky chap! REALLY?? Car Parking??? Surely that becomes inconsequential even now when a loved one is in hospital?
- And, while it's of less immediate benefit to him financially (and, after all, unlike some people, he doesn't work out the cost of everything at the expense of understanding the value of everything too) he will sleep better at night knowing we are less likely to fall into the trap of unilaterally bombing foreign countries, which he knows, ultimately, results in death, injury, destruction and increasing refugee numbers and pressure of asylum claims. Lucky everyone! Some forces, whether terrorist or corrupt need bombing... sad but true.
I hope he makes the right decision on 8 June. No matter what decision he makes, it will be the right decision for him personally... Maybe it doesn't match your decision, but hey, guess what you cancel each other out. So that's no longer an issue right?
EVERY BODY NEEDS TO VOTE ON THE 8TH JUNE.... NO IF's OR BUTS
I doubt if Tories actively want children to die, but don't give much of a fuck if they do as long as they're somebody elses.
Terrible post
A fair reaction. However it is a response to Big Bad Worlds constant repeated theme that non Tories believe that Tories actively want children to die. It was his or hers attempt to close off discussion regarding NHS cuts in my view. If I am wrong, and Big Bad World has been sincere in those repeated posts I will apologise and donate to Demelza House. Even then my post was modified not an outright declaration.
It was not my intention to close off discussion at all. Your view is wholly wrong. I've even stated why I've said what I've said in response to fiiish.
I don't believe that Tories want children to die. Nor do I believe (well, hope that it isn't the case) that those spewing the line about people dying because of Tory policy actually believe it. If they do then my mocking of that train of thought stands.
No one has been spewing that line though. Not in the way you are trying to portray it. Yes people have posted that the cuts in benefits and the mismanagement of the NHS have led to preventable death (which is facturally accurate). Not the same as posting 'dying children' 24/7 like you have been trying to portray since last week. Maybe don't make up complete nonsense and people won't treat you like a bored low level troll, which is how you're currently coming off as.
You might also want to change the record, you can't just respond to every post you disagree with by posting 'dying children' mockingly, It's profoundly infantile.
That is desperation from Labour. These rules would have to be accepted by the FA. Good luck with that!
not exactly desperation given it was first in their manifesto in 2014, and emanated from Clive Effords efforts to forge a policy - not sure I agree with how it eventually turned out though, and I mentioned that when we met Clive in Big Ben a few years ago along with some other Trust reps.
Someone needs to get football under control, the Prem has become so powerful now, and other leagues vulnerable to speculators and asset strippers, that only government could actually make the right changes.
The only way ahead in my view is for Trusts to get together and form a truly independent national group/mouthpiece.
Looks like its global so what's it got to do with the General Election thread?
Because any stick will do to bash the current leadership with.
How would Labour have blocked this from happening?
Anyone in power could have not cut the security support as was done in 2016, providing a false economy as the consequences of an attack are much more expensive than protecting against it
I doubt if Tories actively want children to die, but don't give much of a fuck if they do as long as they're somebody elses.
Terrible post
A fair reaction. However it is a response to Big Bad Worlds constant repeated theme that non Tories believe that Tories actively want children to die. It was his or hers attempt to close off discussion regarding NHS cuts in my view. If I am wrong, and Big Bad World has been sincere in those repeated posts I will apologise and donate to Demelza House. Even then my post was modified not an outright declaration.
It was not my intention to close off discussion at all. Your view is wholly wrong. I've even stated why I've said what I've said in response to fiiish.
I don't believe that Tories want children to die. Nor do I believe (well, hope that it isn't the case) that those spewing the line about people dying because of Tory policy actually believe it. If they do then my mocking of that train of thought stands.
No one has been spewing that line though. Not in the way you are trying to portray it. Yes people have posted that the cuts in benefits and the mismanagement of the NHS have led to preventable death (which is facturally accurate). Not the same as posting 'dying children' 24/7 like you have been trying to portray since last week. Maybe don't make up complete nonsense and people won't treat you like a bored low level troll, which is how you're currently coming off as.
You might also want to change the record, you can't just respond to every post you disagree with by posting 'dying children' mockingly, It's profoundly infantile.
You mean like saying I'm posting 24/7?
I haven't seen anyone treat me like a bored low level troll. All I see is you getting angrier with each reply.
Have I responded to every post with 'dying children'? You might want to change the record and stop posting lies in an attempt at backing up your own, false, observations.
I suppose I am being infantile to a certain degree. Then again, when someone calls people names at the drop of a hat purely because people challenge them using very emotive language to marginalise normal people that may vote differently, it seems justifiable.
They don't seem any more ridiculous than Corbyn as Prime Minister and Abbott as his Home Secretary. That's the nub of this election.
Or May as Prime Minister and Johnson as her Foreign Secretary.
In the Charlton Life echo chamber you're of course right. Outside in the real world Corbyn and Labour are despised or at best mistrusted by most of the electorate. He's not the leader
The real world?
If Charlton Life political forums were representative of the electorate the UK would currently be the poster children of EU integration and Labour would be heading for an electoral landslide. This site definitely doesn't reflect the real world.
This site is far to educated, well read and articulate to reflect the wider electorate.
Missed a couple of days on this thread but couldn't less this go. Too
Looks like its global so what's it got to do with the General Election thread?
Because any stick will do to bash the current leadership with.
How would Labour have blocked this from happening?
Anyone in power could have not cut the security support as was done in 2016, providing a false economy as the consequences of an attack are much more expensive than protecting against it
Was it not though NHS policy to remain on XP? I believe this to have been the case, because all of the programmes to run our CT machines etc were written in a way that was not future proofed whilst XP was rife.
The download issue is an odd one, only IT and Senior Staff in the NHS have the ability to download on NHS systems, therefore the issue appears to have originated at a higher level than first thought, these same users would have been able to 'ignore' the anti viru/malware/adware warnings.
Looks like its global so what's it got to do with the General Election thread?
Because any stick will do to bash the current leadership with.
How would Labour have blocked this from happening?
Probably by ensuring full and appropriate funding for the NHS and its systems, taking action when the warnings became clear and not being fixated on false savings.
There's no doubt that, whoever is in charge of Health in the UK should carry the ultimate responsibility. That's Jeremy Hunt.
But, as soon as his replacement is put in place, they should investigate thoroughly every aspect of why the NHS has been allowed to be crippled by this preventable issue. Including why the NHS in England - under Conservative responsibility - was impacted so much worse than the NHS in Wales, for which Labour is responsible.
@Big_Bad_World and @Fiiish obviously emotions are running high, I find this understandable as we're all desperate to ensure the right future for Britain.
Until parties give a pro's and con's list each election, we will not know both sides to each manifesto.
It's not worth ending up in a argument over it.
Just get out on June 8th and vote for YOUR better future.
Looks like its global so what's it got to do with the General Election thread?
Because any stick will do to bash the current leadership with.
How would Labour have blocked this from happening?
Anyone in power could have not cut the security support as was done in 2016, providing a false economy as the consequences of an attack are much more expensive than protecting against it
Was it not though NHS policy to remain on XP? I believe this to have been the case, because all of the programmes to run our CT machines etc were written in a way that was not future proofed whilst XP was rife.
The download issue is an odd one, only IT and Senior Staff in the NHS have the ability to download on NHS systems, therefore the issue appears to have originated at a higher level than first thought, these same users would have been able to 'ignore' the anti viru/malware/adware warnings.
The government was paying Microsoft to continue security updates for xp until 2015 when they decided to no longer do so.
This paragraph: The British hospitals hit by this latest attack, which weaponised a flaw in Microsoft’s Windows operating system revealed in February, are hopelessly outgunned. They’re running Windows XP, an operating system first released in September 2001, and which Microsoft itself gave up supporting in 2014; it has been kept on life support by extra payments to the company, but the Department of Health stopped making those in 2015.
I believe that if they no longer fund that protection, they should fund the upgrades to a new system with consistent updates from whichever supplier they choose. Not just leave it unprotected. Or switch to Linux or something.
I doubt if Tories actively want children to die, but don't give much of a fuck if they do as long as they're somebody elses.
Terrible post
A fair reaction. However it is a response to Big Bad Worlds constant repeated theme that non Tories believe that Tories actively want children to die. It was his or hers attempt to close off discussion regarding NHS cuts in my view. If I am wrong, and Big Bad World has been sincere in those repeated posts I will apologise and donate to Demelza House. Even then my post was modified not an outright declaration.
It was not my intention to close off discussion at all. Your view is wholly wrong. I've even stated why I've said what I've said in response to fiiish.
I don't believe that Tories want children to die. Nor do I believe (well, hope that it isn't the case) that those spewing the line about people dying because of Tory policy actually believe it. If they do then my mocking of that train of thought stands.
No one has been spewing that line though. Not in the way you are trying to portray it. Yes people have posted that the cuts in benefits and the mismanagement of the NHS have led to preventable death (which is facturally accurate). Not the same as posting 'dying children' 24/7 like you have been trying to portray since last week. Maybe don't make up complete nonsense and people won't treat you like a bored low level troll, which is how you're currently coming off as.
You might also want to change the record, you can't just respond to every post you disagree with by posting 'dying children' mockingly, It's profoundly infantile.
To be honest, it is an important part of the issue that needs breaking down and challenging. The Tories are creating this victim approach - everytime a point is made against them, it is taken personally and as an insult, but they are more insulting towards non-Tories and non-Tories are to them. I think it is a form of rabble rousing - they have definitely got people in their ranks who are particularly good at this, using anger as a tactic. I think Labour has to figt them on their own turf. I don't blame individuals, they are just following the bandwagon.
I think you can have the argument that socialism doesn't work, but you can't despise it. Wanting a better, fairer life for people always has to be a good thing. Oh but you can, you can twist the word and create a stereo type that people can hate. I don't like to use the word to describe myself. I am a staunch capitalist, but one who believes that governments need to ensure society has a social conscience left unchecked capitalism doesn't care. Most of the people in the Labour party are capitalists. I want to be successful and make as much money as I can, but not at other people's expense. And I want the old to be respected and cared for and teh sick to be looked after and our children to have the best education we can provide. Ours not just mine.
Some Conservatives want that too. But there are a lot to the right of the party that just don't care as long as they are ok and they don't have to pay any more.
Comments
As for joking about dead children. Nope. Not at all. Show me where I've once, and only the once, referred to a dead child. You'll find a few instances where I've mocked the view that the Tories want to kill everyone and that children are dying as a direct result of Tory policy, but you'll not find one instance of me joking about dead children.
You know that though and you're reverting to the 'shove a few emotive words in a sentence labelling someone in the hope that it discredits them and deflects people away from my huge anger problem' stance.
I still like you though, because I care more than Tories do..
I think people know that Labour are offering popular policies, the issue is convincing them they can deliver them and not empoverish everybody. The more you undertsand economics, the less worried you are about this. The economy can be stimulated and money can be made to work for us. The Tories have created a false reality that makes sense to people who think you can only spend what you have. A massive lie was comparing us to Greece when we were never in that position, but they knew it. A bit of fear works wonders though.
If the Tories win the election, this will be the third parliament of Austerity. It doesn't work. When the economic crisis struck the advanced economies in 2008, almost every government – even Germany – introduced some kind of stimulus programme, increasing spending and/or cutting taxes. There was no mystery why. Even though people who equate this with their household budgets don't undertsand why.
Normally, monetary authorities such as the Bank of England respond to a temporary economic downturn by cutting interest rates; this encourages private spending, especially on housing, and sets the stage for recovery. But there’s a limit to how much they can do in that direction. By late 2008 it was already clear in every major economy that conventional monetary policy, which involves pushing down the interest rate on short-term government debt, was going to be insufficient to fight the financial downdraft. Now what? The economics textbook answer was and is fiscal expansion: increase government spending both to create jobs directly and to put money in consumers’ pockets.
But won’t this lead to budget deficits? Yes, and but that's a good thing. An economy that is depressed with incredibly low interest rates is, in effect, an economy in which the public is trying to save more than businesses are willing to invest. The government does everyone a service by running deficits and giving frustrated savers a chance to put their money to work. Nor does this borrowing compete with private investment. An economy where interest rates cannot go any lower is an economy awash in desired saving with no place to go, and deficit spending that expands the economy is, if anything, likely to lead to higher private investment than would otherwise materialise.
It’s true that you can’t run big budget deficits for ever (although you can do it for a long time), because at some point interest payments start to swallow too large a share of the budget. But it’s foolish and destructive to worry about deficits when borrowing is very cheap and the funds you borrow would otherwise go to waste. As John Maynard Keynes wrote in 1937: “The boom, not the slump, is the right time for austerity at the Treasury.”
If I am wrong, and Big Bad World has been sincere in those repeated posts I will apologise and donate to Demelza House.
Even then my post was modified not an outright declaration.
I could go on but the essential point is that having seen (some of) the effects of austerity policies once...voters went out and voted for more of the same so your argument this was unforeseeable is more crystal balls than anything else isn't it?
I don't believe that Tories want children to die. Nor do I believe (well, hope that it isn't the case) that those spewing the line about people dying because of Tory policy actually believe it. If they do then my mocking of that train of thought stands.
I haven't looked at whether the report stands up to scrutiny, and the government provide reasons why they disagree (year on year fluctuations for example). Potentially, cuts to the NHS are starting to cause excess deaths and it is being studied and reported in peer-reviewed academic journals.
It's as I stated previously, too much exaggeration and hyperbole. Makes a far better thread if people keep to rational debate.
If you feel yourself getting wound up etc, maybe just come off this thread for a bit. There's some other really good ones on page 1 at the moment such as a would ya on a woman called Nicola Walker and just today we found out St Truiden's gates to their training ground have been locked. And if you go a few pages back now there's one on Garden soil in the Bromley area and bonded resin driveways.
All threads to calm you down
I mentioned above about talking to a Tory in 2015 and said he was a pleasant bloke, and certainly didn't strike me as vindictive towards anybody's children.
What might be going on is some reference to the mysterious beliefs that drive Tory thinking which taken to the extreme (like with left wing beliefs too) can be selfish and destructive.
Anyway I apologise generally and will make a donation to Demelza.
(I am still on the fence, just to be clear)
You might also want to change the record, you can't just respond to every post you disagree with by posting 'dying children' mockingly, It's profoundly infantile.
How would Labour have blocked this from happening?
Someone needs to get football under control, the Prem has become so powerful now, and other leagues vulnerable to speculators and asset strippers, that only government could actually make the right changes.
The only way ahead in my view is for Trusts to get together and form a truly independent national group/mouthpiece.
I haven't seen anyone treat me like a bored low level troll. All I see is you getting angrier with each reply.
Have I responded to every post with 'dying children'? You might want to change the record and stop posting lies in an attempt at backing up your own, false, observations.
I suppose I am being infantile to a certain degree. Then again, when someone calls people names at the drop of a hat purely because people challenge them using very emotive language to marginalise normal people that may vote differently, it seems justifiable.
The download issue is an odd one, only IT and Senior Staff in the NHS have the ability to download on NHS systems, therefore the issue appears to have originated at a higher level than first thought, these same users would have been able to 'ignore' the anti viru/malware/adware warnings.
There's no doubt that, whoever is in charge of Health in the UK should carry the ultimate responsibility. That's Jeremy Hunt.
But, as soon as his replacement is put in place, they should investigate thoroughly every aspect of why the NHS has been allowed to be crippled by this preventable issue. Including why the NHS in England - under Conservative responsibility - was impacted so much worse than the NHS in Wales, for which Labour is responsible.
Until parties give a pro's and con's list each election, we will not know both sides to each manifesto.
It's not worth ending up in a argument over it.
Just get out on June 8th and vote for YOUR better future.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/13/nhs-computer-systems-insufficient-funding
This paragraph:
The British hospitals hit by this latest attack, which weaponised a flaw in Microsoft’s Windows operating system revealed in February, are hopelessly outgunned. They’re running Windows XP, an operating system first released in September 2001, and which Microsoft itself gave up supporting in 2014; it has been kept on life support by extra payments to the company, but the Department of Health stopped making those in 2015.
I believe that if they no longer fund that protection, they should fund the upgrades to a new system with consistent updates from whichever supplier they choose. Not just leave it unprotected. Or switch to Linux or something.
I think you can have the argument that socialism doesn't work, but you can't despise it. Wanting a better, fairer life for people always has to be a good thing. Oh but you can, you can twist the word and create a stereo type that people can hate. I don't like to use the word to describe myself. I am a staunch capitalist, but one who believes that governments need to ensure society has a social conscience left unchecked capitalism doesn't care. Most of the people in the Labour party are capitalists. I want to be successful and make as much money as I can, but not at other people's expense. And I want the old to be respected and cared for and teh sick to be looked after and our children to have the best education we can provide. Ours not just mine.
Some Conservatives want that too. But there are a lot to the right of the party that just don't care as long as they are ok and they don't have to pay any more.