What do you mean the crowd was biased?
You know the crowd waiting outside is different from the one in the hall, yes? There's always protestors/supporters that congregate outside political events.
General Election 2017 | Cabinet reshuffle: Hunt re-appointed Health Secretary for record third time
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
You know the crowd waiting outside is different from the one in the hall, yes? There's always protestors/supporters that congregate outside political events.
Bullshit, read the IFS costings.
They haven't offered the impossible - they've not offered anything at all. The idea that the uncertainty of Brexit offers a valid excuse for doing so is a load of shite. Every party can face uncertainty after an election; they're still expected to come up with costed plans as to how they intend to manage the economy. The Tories haven't bothered their arses to do so.
For what it's worth I think there's a lot that can be criticised concerning Corbyn's manifesto: it's perhaps too ambitious and a free-market leaning voter would argue it may drive business away from Britain during the Brexit process, but the whole Labour argument is centred around the idea that austerity and cuts haven't worked for the general working population as a whole, and that something substantial is needed to reverse this. That's fair enough. You may disagree with it, but at least they've come up with a costed, albeit ambitious and perhaps overly ambitious plan for what they want to do.
The Tories haven't done any of that. Rudd quite literally defended it by saying people should look at her parties record...which is...well, what the feck does that mean? They've pretty much neglected policy in this election because they presumed they'd win, and because they're trying to argue we have to have May negotiating Brexit because...well, I'm not sure, really.
It's about insurance. The principle is that the insurers' premiums + contribution from the treasury funds the medical treatments.
I've read it. I've seen the flaws in Labour's manifesto. It's still superior to the Tory's manifesto, though.
My father-in-law got his teeth done there. He's Mauritian and maybe fifth gen Indian, so they have cultural ties. Half of our IT department are Indian- no racist, but they value education.
The costs are unfamothably extortionate though. Lord, the adverts too- the 'self-lubricating catheter' when I was in the Caribbean springs to mind.
You can argue that Labour's funding plans don't add up. However, the argument was that Labour haven't been transparent in how they plan to fund their pledges, which simply isn't true!
But that's already what National Insurance is. If that's cut, then all that's happening is you're outsourcing the collection of that money. And if it isn't cut, you're double taxing people for something. If it is cut it would be a complete disaster because that money goes to more than just healthcare. And if stays intact, but people who earn over a certain amount are mandated to buy another insurance package - what's the point? Why not just raise NI contributions from that group of people?
I guess any hope is better than none at this point, particularly regarding the insanely dangerous and incorrect dead-end that is austerity. I think you make a very balanced point.
Do you believe that the renationalisation of four industries will amount to no additional costs for the taxpayer, even without Labour's pledged salary increases? The electorate is going to face a huge bill, one which Labour has neglected to inform them of.
What do you mean the crowd was biased?
OK Lenin, I'm getting Nick to send me water cannon companies.
I'd also argue that manifestos are never fully enacted and are at best a statement of intent. It's almost an irrelevancy whether the exact sums add up, or the exact policies in it are workable or not because it's merely about what the parties will try to do.
I share concerns with elements of Labour's manifesto too, but I think the manifestos starkly present a clear choice: more of the same old shit with the Conservatives, more austerity, more assaults on the weak, poor and vulnerable, the continued chronic underfunding of the NHS and social services or to be bold and choose something different.
Ok, let's assume that the EU intends to keep free movement in the UK, and this is a red line for them, there would be no need to for a proposal including children and grandchildren of EU citizens having the right to be able to move to the UK, because free movement would automatically give them the right, wouldn't it?
Am I talking to a brick wall here?
I could look it up I suppose (maybe in the morning), but does anyone know what our deficit and debt were when the NHS was founded and we built all those homes and introduced so much of the welfare state? I guess we must have been well flush then, right?
It is true. I accept that the snap election probably resulted in rushed out proposals with errors. Tories fecked up school kids' meals, Labour didn't cost in expropriation costs of various industries.
Would be interesting to see if you can take one woman and one man from tonight and decide who you have a threesome with. Goes downhill if you exclude the saucy presenter.
Of course the taxpayer will be hit. Labour is also a tad disingenuous in its rhetoric about taxing solely the rich when they know it'll be a broad section of society that gets hit. The problem I have is that the Tory manifesto consists of extra austerity which it neglects to properly treat.
The most you can charge Labour with is promising more than they can deliver. The Conservatives on the other hand aren't up front about what they're promising (in terms of what it will mean in reduced NHS and school funding). Both parties are selling something and not being entirely up front, but the Tories are selling more austerity.
Yeah, while I can fundamentally understand the argument that taxes should be lowered to incentivise business in a post-Brexit Britain and that any move to increase them and attempt to eliminate austerity is risky, and while I can understand people who would be tempted to vote for that, I'm just not sure it's an argument Labour should be making. There surely has to be a credible major party who are fundamentally arguing against policies the Tories plan to enact.
And, again, plenty would argue that Corbyn's supposedly radical policies of renationalisation and increased taxes are simply him going back to how things used to be. For the most part his manifesto isn't that absurd or outlandish...it's just that it's one Labour haven't really been willing to put forward for a while. And, again, they have their reasons for doing so, but I've got a certain admiration for Corbyn at least trying to present a strong alternative argument to austerity.
I would ask the same of you, but it would be an insult to brick walls.
The National Insurance is money paid to the government to fund the treasury and not just the NHS. I'm talking about compulsory private health insurance purchased from private health insurance companies to fund medical treatment in the NHS.
I'm not sure what you're trying to debate with me but it seems to me as if you're trying argue I mean something I don't actually mean (as I know exactly what I mean).
My argument is that a free for all NHS is not sustainable. Please debate that if you disagree with what I'm saying
I'd take the presenter and Nuttall: she's of foreign descent, meaning Nuttall would abstain, leaving me alone with her.
Their pledge is that the wealthy will be taxed more to fund their promises on items such as nationalisation.
Personally I think that's naieve as it will make it harder for Britain to attract investment at a time they'll need it the most.
I guess what I'm asking is - what's the difference between mandatory insurance plans and extra taxation? Surely either way, we don't want the NHS to decline anyone healthcare.The National Insurance is money paid to the government to fund the treasury and not just the NHS. I'm talking about compulsory private health insurance purchased from private health insurance companies to fund medical treatment in the NHS.
I'm not sure what you're trying to debate with me but it seems to me as if you're trying argue I mean something I don't actually mean (as I know exactly what I mean).
My argument is that a free for all NHS is not sustainable. Please debate that if you disagree with what I'm saying
What do you mean the crowd was biased?
As someone from Cambridge, this is the least surprising thing ever - it's left wing as feck.
I think he'd enjoy watching to much though. Had you more as an Amber man, with her hippy name.
This is probably the foundation of the PLP v Corbyn, he's an old school Labour man in that respect and at odds with Blairism and Neocons, New-Lab and that ilk. They call it going back to the 70's don't they? We had workers rights then, houses were affordable, the list goes on.
To understand that you need to understand how insurance works. It's all about premiums vs claims. If a healthy somebody is paying premium without using the NHS then that reserve is then spent on the individual using a NHS service.
Basically the government is transferring a large part of their expenditure to the private sector (i.e. insurance companies) and thus freeing up government funds for investments in the NHS like new hospitals or increased wages for NHS staff.
It's effectively what it is though a la Nigeria.Spoiler that word, it's more effective than porn
I need to go bed, the 7am shift is looming.
According to the New Statesman, Labour didn't need to provide any costings because nationalisation falls under infrastructure spending. In all likelihood, further billions each year will either be borrowed or taxed.
That's exactly how taxes work. We all pay our little bit, and the sum is used to benefit everyone. All that would happen with insurance companies is that a middle man is collecting healthcare money instead of HMRC. Maybe I'm missing something, but it just seems like we'd be hiding a tax in the private sector.
They did also go on a huge austerity drive in that period. They needed to after the war. Similarly, Labour in 97 delivered a surplus whilst also massively increasing funding for services.
Except that it's not quite that neat. The government's PFI debt is somewhere in the order of £225bn, which we'll be paying off for years to come.
As bad as that (Tory invented) scheme is, wouldn't really have had an effect on the current budget would it? Was used for capital projects.
The human cost of more Tory rule isn't included in their intangible costings, unsurprisingly; I guess they feel it's of little account.
Only reason to get up and vote.
Labour dabs, torys dont. Labour in
Labour dabs, torys dont. Labour in
He did, but he's just such a laughable character I don't think people are really listening to him.
The Lib Dems suffered from this not becoming the Brexit election (well done to JC for this I suppose), but even still they've failed at gaining any presence or media profile in the campaign. Farron has to take the blame for that. Possibly after the calls for a second referendum (a rubbish idea even for a remoaner like me), the most press attention they've got in the campaign has been focused around Farron's views on gay sex.
This Election is weird, I wasn't expecting this kind of campaign at all. The atmosphere suggests Corbyn has some kind of chance & that the Tories are really not all that popular - whether that idea might melt away in the privacy of the voting booth, who knows.
1 - Corbyn has been impressive. May has been terrible. Their names are not on the ballot paper though.
2 - Tory campaign has been shocking. They don't look like improving. May is already badly damaged for me. One soundbite replaces another - people don't like being treated as stupid.
3 - Media - newspapers not so relevant anymore, there's alternative sources & many of them present alternative views. Jezza needs that (younger) vote coming out.
4 - Brexit - Theresa May might recover a bit of form, if they focus on that from now on, because Labour have very little to say.
However, I found myself wondering if people think Brexit is done because they've voted for it, so the importance is kinda gone now, particularly the 50% who voted against it. Why vote for someone who seems obsessed with the issue?
Probably a drift left along the spectrum, for me. But unless Jezza gets that younger vote out, it's not enough for him.
UKIP --> Con --> LibDem --> Lab
May wins but if it's not enough for her Party, she is in the shit. Next leader of that lot likely to be nastier than her, too.
Supposed to be a straightforward Brexit Election, especially in Tory campaign eyes but Electorate possibly don't seem to be seeing it that way, atm.
1 - Corbyn has been impressive. May has been terrible. Their names are not on the ballot paper though.
2 - Tory campaign has been shocking. They don't look like improving. May is already badly damaged for me. One soundbite replaces another - people don't like being treated as stupid.
3 - Media - newspapers not so relevant anymore, there's alternative sources & many of them present alternative views. Jezza needs that (younger) vote coming out.
4 - Brexit - Theresa May might recover a bit of form, if they focus on that from now on, because Labour have very little to say.
However, I found myself wondering if people think Brexit is done because they've voted for it, so the importance is kinda gone now, particularly the 50% who voted against it. Why vote for someone who seems obsessed with the issue?
Probably a drift left along the spectrum, for me. But unless Jezza gets that younger vote out, it's not enough for him.
UKIP --> Con --> LibDem --> Lab
May wins but if it's not enough for her Party, she is in the shit. Next leader of that lot likely to be nastier than her, too.
Supposed to be a straightforward Brexit Election, especially in Tory campaign eyes but Electorate possibly don't seem to be seeing it that way, atm.
Just as a response to some of the comments from last night, headline on the BBC website is "Rivals attack May for missing TV debate".