DJ360
-
Content Count
9,381 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
95
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by DJ360
-
-
14 hours ago, Brew said:
We live in a capitalist society, that's how it works.
Only because of deliberate bias towards the Private Sector since Thatcher. You know full well that the ascendent economic philosophy and resulting policy decisions since Thatcher has led to an economy where every activity, including pulic services, essential utilities etc.. are seen as cash cows for 'big money'.
You know full well that this approach has been disastrous for public services, and for the majority of ordinary folk in Britain.
You know that privatisation was sold on the basis of lies, and assumptions that Private is always more efficient. And yet, successive Govt's have employed exceptionally dubious business models, ranging from bizarre 'Privatisation' models, to PFI, to 'Preferred Bidders' such as Crapita et.al, to facilitate profit taking from areas where profit should not be the prime motive. You know all of this.
You may also have spotted that once the UK stopped being a major industrial force, 'Big Money', fronted by the Tories, started looking about for other sources of cash.. I.E. the money spent on Public Services and decided they wanted it. This is all so blindingly obvious. Privatisation has nothing to do with 'efficiency' or any of the other tripe trotted out by the Neo Con mob. All that is simply a smokescreen for their incessant raiding of the public finances. The promised efficiencies, the promised 'trickle down' and the promised 'jam tomorrow', NEVER materialise and they never will.
We don't quite yet live in a pure Capitalist society, thank God. We live in a mixed economy, in which for me and many others, unrestrained Capitalism has permeated far too deeply into areas where it really should not be operating. This mostly since Thatcher.
You know what I mean. Water bills rising and service quality falling. Creeping Privatisation in the NHS, Ruined Public Services, etc.. etc.. And everywhere..the constant search for more, more, more, frm the Big Money.
As far as I'm concerned, the development of Private Nursery Provision is just another example of the above.
Other countries manage it properly, as an integral part of the education system, not just another bloody 'investment opportunity' where the model is so obviously flawed that OUR public money ends up in the hands of speculators.
-
49 minutes ago, Brew said:
I agree your point that Early Years or Nursery' Provision is widely accepted and is deeply embedded in Govt. Policy. It's also part of the problem. Childminders came under the scrutiny of Ofsted, Council Social Service, Environmental health etc. plus were expected to become parttime teachers. Childminding started to morph into nursery schools and became commercial enterprises. Many minders could not meet these conditions and obligations so simply gave up leading to the demand we now see filled by businesses.
There has always been a distinction between Childminding and Nursery Care. Yes it's true that as a society we have moved more towards a Nursery Care model..increasingly seen as integral to, or a precursor to.. Compulsory Education.
But that is where we are, and was not my point at the start of this discussion. The rights and wrongs, the purpose or otherwise, and the type of Early Years Education we provide, was not my point. My point was quite simply that strong evidence exists that 'big money', is becoming dominant in the sector, and it is driving out smaller enterprises. That was the point of the article I linked to. It's not much of a stretch to see lobbyists behind the recent increase in funding, which seems more easily exploited by the big money.
Meanwhile, thousands of parents seem unlikely to be able to access the 'promised' 30 hours per week.
QuoteThe analysis shows nurseries backed by investment companies – including private equity firms, asset managers and international pension funds – reported double the profits of other private providers and seven times those of non-profits.
JRF said the findings underlined the need for stricter controls on the sector. In a new report, the anti-poverty thinktank calls for “social licensing” of childcare providers. This would demand commitments on workers’ pay and value for money from nursery chains – potentially including a profits cap. Firms in receipt of public funding would also be expected to be financially transparent.
Abby Jitendra, the JRF’s principal policy adviser on care, said: “Our childcare system is a wild west where the biggest providers cash in while others struggle and workers live on poverty pay – pouring billions into it without proper controls is utterly irresponsible.”
The companies backed by private equity or investment firms covered by the analysis – which represent some of England’s largest childcare providers – reported average profits equivalent to 22% of their turnover over the five-year period between 2018 and 2022.
This is twice the 11% reported by other private providers not backed by investment companies, and more than seven times the 3% reported by the non-profit companies analysed.
Profits are not necessarily paid out to shareholders: they can be used to repay debts or reinvested in the business to improve services.
But Stacey Booth, a national organiser of the GMB union, said: “Too many nurseries are run as a business first and education establishment second. We need more regulation – hopefully an incoming Labour government will deliver this.
“Any profits in education and childcare should be invested back into the sector, lifting the wages of workers and ensuring good career pathways. Happy staff equal happy children.”
The analysis shows that the combined debt of England’s 43 largest childcare companies, regardless of ownership, rose dramatically in the same five-year period from £0.6bn in 2018 to £1.13bn in 2022, an 85% rise. The increase has mainly been driven by providers backed by investment firms, who are more willing to take on larger debts in order to finance rapid expansion.
The research also found a debt disparity between providers backed by global investors and those in other for-profit providers. While other private providers had an average debt of 1.3 times their income, debt among those providers backed by investment firms was three times the size of their income during the period 2018 to 2022.
Unison’s head of education, Mike Short, said: “There’s clearly big bucks to be made in childcare, but this is all so wrong. Large investors have muscled in on the sector, siphoning off the profit, piling on the debt and forcing smaller nurseries out. This is extremely bad news for infants, parents and childcare workers.”
Previous Guardian analysis revealed that the number of nurseries backed by investment companies, including private equity firms, pension funds and venture capital, doubled between 2018 and 2022.
Experts worry that lax financial regulation combined with the financial model of these global investors – profit-focused and with high levels of debt – poses a risk to thousands of nurseries that could be vulnerable to collapse.
Vivek Kotecha, director of Trinava Consulting, said companies “are comfortable taking on more debt with the expectation that their income and profitability will grow over time due to more places and rising fees”.
-
22 minutes ago, Stavertongirl said:
The Nottingham I remember from before I moved away was a vibrant place, weekends were spent at pubs and them nightclubs. It could get a bit rowdy when pubs/nightclubs turned out with the occasional fist fight but mostly it was good natured.
Saturday afternoon was for going round the shops (being seen), Birdcage, Chelsea Girl and C&A ( where you could get a skirt for 50p at one point). Coffee at the Kardoma (is that how you spell it) them home to get ready for the evening. I can remember many late Saturday nights in the Market Square where someone usually ended up in one of the fountains, catching the last bus (sometimes with singing), the endless queue round the square for a taxi or even walking home.Very similar to my memories, though I didn't buy skirts or anything else from Chelsea Girl.. I frequented shops like 'Jeff's' for jeans 'Lord Jeffrey' for slightly more formal stuff and assorted Army Surplus stores where ex-Army white 'Arctic' smocks, assorted old jackets and stuff got 're-purposed'. I was never either mod, or rocker or hippy and probably best described as 'beat', wearing jeans, old suede or cord jackets and so on.
Used to love a 'Russian' Lemon Tea from the Kardomah.. or 'KD' as we called it. Evenings were in assorted 'locals' from Mon to Weds, but the weekend often started on Thursday evening with a trip further afield, then Friday, Saturday and Sunday in one or other of the Boat Clubs, or the Beachcomber..depending who was on...
That all pretty much stopped when I started DJing and ended up glued to the 360 Club, Carlton Hotel, Robinson's Hill, 76 Club in Burton and numerous 'one off' bookings.
Fun while it lasted...
-
1
-
-
On 3/29/2024 at 12:58 PM, Brew said:
Without a profit incentive there is no business and in my mind 'essential' is a bit of a stretch.
You seem to be a bit out of touch with this whole issue.
On 3/29/2024 at 12:58 PM, Brew said:I would hazard a guess the vast majority of nurseries are for pre-schoolers.
Exactly. That is what they are. I'm surprised you need to guess.
The predominant societal model at present is one where both parents (need to) work full time. Our economy is also largely built on presumptions around this model.
It follows that young children will most likely have to be looked after by a third party, before they are old enough to be in full time school. That, plus the desired 'socialising' aspect, is why I described it as 'essential', This is generally known as 'Early Years' or 'Nursery' Provision. It is widely accepted and is deeply embedded in Govt. Policy. Govt. also wants both parents to be working..
It is all here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/early-education-and-childcare--2
On 3/29/2024 at 12:58 PM, Brew said:Your description of childminding is of what amounts to an ad hoc school run arrangement with a friendly neighbour.
That's broadly true, but 'Ad Hoc' is way off. Even 40 years ago, when we employed a Child Minder to drop off and collect our kids from school, the 'Minder' was required to be Registered, properly Inspected, trained Insured etc.
Of course there will be those who are able to rely on friends, relatives and trusted neighbours etc., but the minute a 'commercial' Minder is employed, Regulations apply.
On 3/29/2024 at 12:58 PM, Brew said:For many it starts way before school age and he kids were looked after in someone's home for most of the working day.
By definition, Nursery and Early Years provision is about care prior to 'compulsory' school age. It is 'Pre School Provision.'
The reality for my youngest daughter is that her almost 3 year old is looked after by a combined effort from Mrs Col, Daughter's partner on his days off, and a couple of days in per week 'Nursery' Provision. Nursery provision is prohibitively expensive for many parents, (My daughter pays around £100 per day) so that it becomes a balance between earning potential of the parent, and cost of Nursery. My Daughter is Freelance, working from home and effectively works full time.
On 3/29/2024 at 12:58 PM, Brew said:When political correctness burst on the scene and every officious know-all had something to say it became an industry and regulated to the point it was virtually impossible to continue in a domestic environment.
An entirely different setup to the one you describe and one many thousands relied on.
Without it commerce stepped in to the fill the gap.
That's a very jaundiced (and convenient) analysis on your part.
Try here:
From which:
QuoteHistorical context
The development of publicly-funded early years education and care in England over the
past 100 years has been patchy with little overall planning. Historically, there has been a
clear divide between nursery education and childcare. Following the 1918 Education Act
local authorities could apply for grants to assist with funding nursery education if they
wished to make such provision available. During World War II nursery education expanded
as a result of the widespread employment of women... (et.seq.)On 3/29/2024 at 12:58 PM, Brew said:Do I see a pattern in your links? Yes of course it's called business and the prime objective is business and making profits. Quite why some can't see that beyond legal requirement corporate responsibility doe not extend to social responsibility, is difficult to understand.
The problem with your position is that you ignore the PURPOSE of provision and you are ignoring the point that financial 'big boys' are dominating the scene, hoovering up what is effectively Taxpayer's money... again...
On 3/29/2024 at 12:58 PM, Brew said:I'm under the impression some think a government or council run scheme is required.
That.. broadly, is what we have..except that as ever... it is chaotic, poorly funded and ripe for exploitation by 'big money'.
On 3/29/2024 at 12:58 PM, Brew said:Do we really want a state run system of regimented pre-school education?
Who said anything about 'regimented'. There is a huge difference between regulation in the interests of child safeguarding, quality of provision etc.. and some sort of 'Doctrinaire' approach.
And since you don't ask... I'm quite taken by the general Continental and Scandinavian approach to 'early years' in particular, and education in general, where formal tuition is delayed for a couple of years in favour of play and 'exploration' stuff, which is provided for all, and doesn't seem to damage children's academic progress whatever.
-
On 3/30/2024 at 1:02 PM, Brew said:
Yeahbutnobut?
What you say is true but it's not, so far. illegal. GB News is as we know little more than a right wing mouth piece but unless they break the rules then the right to freedom of speech must prevail and they be allowed their say whether we like it or not.
Yes, but they have been judged to have broken impartiality rules at least FIVE TIMES. It seems to me that there is something very wrong with either the rules, their enforcement, or both.
-
Finding that Acker Track above, reminded me of what is probably my all time favourite Clarinet blues...
Wally Plays the Blues, from the 1954 live album 'Humph at the Conway', by Humphrey Lyttelton and His Band of which I have a very rough copy..minus cover.. acquired about 1960.
Wally Fawkes, as well as being a very fine clarinet player, was possibly better known as the cartoonist Trog. He only died about a year ago..aged 98.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/mar/07/wally-fawkes-obituary
Arguments rage around 'Traditional' Jazz, with many 'purists' looking down on it and questioning its 'authenticity', but for me if it sounds good, it is good... and this sounds superb..
An epic blues, which plumbs the depths of misery, but seems to finish much more hopefully.. That's how I hear it anyway...
-
So, after spending yesterday at a family gathering at my daughter's, for which the weather allowed us to sit outside for at least part of the time and then managing to get grass cutting etc., done today without getting wet..
I got to thinking about Summery songs..
Even 'oblique' references..
Then somehow the songs got a bit more sophisticated...
Add your own faves!
-
3
-
-
I never knew that Den. I shall pass that on to Picko.
-
5 minutes ago, Brew said:
And the Johnson partygate investigation was the result of pressure by whom?
Commons Priveleges Committee.
-
OK, Rees Mogg didn't break laws, but he and other right wing serving Tories were found, by Ofcom to have broken impartiality rules when acting as presenters on GB News. This not the first time, and GB News are 'on notice'.
-
6 hours ago, letsavagoo said:
Obviously the government will exploit this for all they can but I think much of the pressure she faces and demands to publish the tax advice she received comes from the press.
And what do we think is the relationship between the Tory Govt, Tory backers, Tory Donors etc..and 'The Press' ?
-
17 hours ago, letsavagoo said:
If Angela Raynor were a Tory I’m sure we would have heard from Col by now about disgraceful tory corruption. She is being investigated in relation to the sale of one of her homes, a former council house which she purchased under the Tory right to buy policy. She said she was living there although her husband and children were registered living at a separate property and thereby avoided paying certain taxes. Seems she’s on the ropes. Her almost tearful performance at a recent press conference was not convincing nor is her refusal to publish the tax advice she received.
The Police were not originally bothered by whatever allegations were made, but it's pretty clear that someone has been busy persuading the Police to pursue it.
Raynor has stated very clearly that she is entirely happy for the Police to investigate, but that she sees no reason why she should publish her personal tax affairs to satisfy a baying Tory owned media.
I agree with her.
No doubt the Police will pronounce at some point. Until then it is, as she says, a 'non story'.
And, FWIW, even if she turns out to be as guilty as hell, it pales into insignificance c.f. the constant, blatant and endemic corruption within the Tory Party, Tory Govt, Tory Press and Tory Media. It is possible she might have avoided £1500 in tax and even then not deliberately. I'm sure she'd happily pay it found to owe it. You are grasping at straws.
How much are Rees Mogg et.al being paid to to break the law by acting as 'presenters' on GB News whilst being active Politicians?
Tory Donors? Yet another elevated to the Lords only yesterday.
There have been so many Tory scandals in the last ten years that most people have lost count and and are now so inured to them that they barely register. And of course the Tory owned/owning Press and Media don't pursue them equally c.f. Labour and others. You know this.
The whole bloody Tory Government is a Criminal Enterprise.
-
Continuing the Privatisation Scam theme.
Yesterday I received a letter from a company called Outside Clinic, who claim to be delivering NHS Services, and in fact have the NHS logo more prominently displayed on their blurb, than their own company name.
Their basic pitch is that they can deliver FREE HOME EYETESTS, ( to qualifying people ) via a little known NHS Funded scheme.
It is pretty much certain that I do not qualify for this, as I am pretty mobile.
However, I would no doubt, on enquiring, be offered a Home Test anyway, for the 'bargain price' of £60.
Even a Taxi to my nearest Optician would cost a fraction of that, and of course the test would be free.
I've already emailed them, pointing out their dubious marketing practices, and demanding to know how they got my Name and Address.
-
1
-
-
But would they not then claim ownership of whatever 'Assets' Water companies have? Those are considerable I imagine, when you take in reservoirs, etc, etc.
ISTM that Govt, would need to 'seize' all assets in lieu of debt repayment and then finance the required infrastructure work from general taxation or Public borrowing. They are happy enough to borrow for purposes which suit them.
Maybe the profits from the completely unneccessary Rosebank Oilfield will provide a significant taxation contribution to UK Water,
-
22 hours ago, Brew said:
But is it?
To my mind 20% seems a fairly normal profit margin. I can't really see why they're trying to make out it's some sort of outrageous profiteering. They are after all a business like any other.
Why does there need to be any profit at all in what amounts to an essential service for the bulk of parents and a necessary socialising and educative precursor to Mainstream Education?
Childminding is a different issue. We used a Childminder to take our kids to and from school and supervise them for an hour or so until we returned from work. Different thing entirely.
And anyway, you are missing the point.
QuoteThe analysis shows nurseries backed by investment companies – including private equity firms, asset managers and international pension funds – reported double the profits of other private providers and seven times those of non-profits.
QuoteAbby Jitendra, the JRF’s principal policy adviser on care, said: “Our childcare system is a wild west where the biggest providers cash in while others struggle and workers live on poverty pay – pouring billions into it without proper controls is utterly irresponsible.”
The companies backed by private equity or investment firms covered by the analysis – which represent some of England’s largest childcare providers – reported average profits equivalent to 22% of their turnover over the five-year period between 2018 and 2022.
This is twice the 11% reported by other private providers not backed by investment companies, and more than seven times the 3% reported by the non-profit companies analysed.
QuoteThe analysis shows that the combined debt of England’s 43 largest childcare companies, regardless of ownership, rose dramatically in the same five-year period from £0.6bn in 2018 to £1.13bn in 2022, an 85% rise. The increase has mainly been driven by providers backed by investment firms, who are more willing to take on larger debts in order to finance rapid expansion.
Are you seeing any pattern here?
QuoteAs of July 2023, the company (Thames Water) listed its shareholders as: OMERS (32%), the Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS - 20%), Infinity Investments (a subsidiary of the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority) (10%), British Columbia Investment Management Corporation (9%), Hermes Investment Management (manager of the BT Pension Scheme) (9%), the China Investment Corporation (9%), Queensland Investment Corporation (5%), Aquila GP Inc. (5%), and Stichting Pensioenfonds Zorg en Welzijn (2%).[15] Shareholders have not taken a dividend since 2017, though the company has paid internal dividends from the operational business to holding companies to be able to service its debt obligations.[10]
-
21 hours ago, Brew said:
Apart from the oxymoron I quite agree...
I should hope so.. and 'Legalised Theft' is indeed a true oxymoron, since it's an apt descriptor of what has been happening since Thatcher., according to this definition:
QuoteA true oxymoron must be deliberately crafted in advance, with the goal of creating a rhetorical effect or revealing a deeper figurative meaning.
from: https://www.litcharts.com/literary-devices-and-terms/oxymoron
But irrespective of oxymorons and for the benefit of anyone who still doesn't get it.. lets just explore the issues around water companies.
Taking Thames Water as an example, but it seems most privatised water co's are in a similar mess...
The first and most obvious point to me, is that everyone from Water Co CEOs, through Politicians and TV Journalists, seem to start from the position that the Water Companies are simply 'Businesses' which have been mismanaged.. when in fact they are SCAMS from DAY ONE.
They had no debt when created, but they have, since privatisation, borrowed huge sums of money in order to finance huge shareholder dividends and 'Fat Cat' salaries, running into the £Bn10s, or even £Bn100s. Meanwhile, they have consistently underinvested in the their core operation, allowing leakage, sewage overflow etc, to reach epidemic proportions.
That is a bizarre business model which, can only be understood as a deliberate method by 'Investors' many of whom are foreign companies, some even owned by Foreign Govt's, to siphon money out of the British electorate, in return for nothing.
You don't have to be an Economics Graduate to see this SCAM for what it is.
If it weren't so serious, it might actually be seen as funny, that the Privatised Water 'Business Model', of borrowing to finance profit for so called 'Investors', who are in fact shareholders who have invested nothing beyond the share purchase price, literally doesn't hold water. It also echoes Truss's lunatic idea of borrowing to fund tax cuts for the already rich. These ideas can only logically derive from the most extreme NeoCon lobbyists. (Tufton Street..again...)
Add to that, the spectacle of the CEO of Thames Water on TV, arguing that Bills will HAVE TO RISE in order to get them out of the deep mess of their own making, and even trying to blame it all on Climate Change.
And now, when asked to contribute funds to the source of their wealth.. , these criminal speculators are DEMANDING that Water companies increase their charges, which puts Water Companies in conflict with Ofwat, who for now at least seem to be standing their ground, though I'd be surprised if this Tory Govt allowed that to continue.
The main takeaway here though, is that this is just the most currently obvious example of the UTTER FAILURE of Thatcher's Great Privatisation Project. We were promised leaner, more efficient services. We got the opposite.
It was always going to end this way, as many of us said at the time.
And even I don't totally blame Thatcher for this mess. That woman has been dead for 13 years and out of office for 34 years, but her enthusiastic Neo-Con disciples continue in their attempts to 'Sell Britain By The Pound', to the detriment of the majority of us.
If it was me, I would simply inform all shareholders that their dividends stop now, offer them the opportunity to pay off their debts, in light of the profits they have extracted for decades, or failing that, surrender their shares to a new National Water Company, for nothing. In short, I would treat them with equal contempt to that they have shown to the people of the UK.
And that's just water.... Versions of the same scam have been tried with every public utility, every public service, etc.
It has to stop, and it has to be reversed.
-
More Privatisation scandal:
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/mar/12/private-nursery-chains-profits-england
-
Privatisation of UK water by Thatcher has created a system of legalised theft, which customers are paying for in rotten service, ruined rivers and increasing bills.
Water companies are actually borrowing money to fund dividend payments and being legally allowed to charge customers more to service that debt.
When questioned, Ofwat , politicians etc.. all fudge the issue. This has to stop.
-
1
-
-
On 3/24/2024 at 11:11 PM, LizzieM said:
@benjamin1945I thought that was Paper Lace’s Chris Morris, I knew him as a young lad in the 60s as I caught my school bus outside his house on Coppice Road Arnold. He was a few years younger than me.
I can't be 100% certain but that doesn't look like the Mick Vaughan I remember. I first came across him when we booked 'Lambs of the World' into the 360 club. He was I think 16 and lead guitarist of what was essentially Clive Lynch (aka Nottm's Lord Sutch)'s band. At that time Mick Vaughan was widely regarded as a very good guitarist for his age and I have to say he acted the part..
Here's a link to a page on Lambs of the World and their later careers.
https://playedinaband.com/lambs_of_the_world.htm
Mick Vaughan later joined Paper Lace and the rest is history. Young Vaughany was always very keen to get 'in shot' when they were on the telly.
Clive (Sutch) Lynch now works solo as Carrington Brookes.
And Lizzie, our mutual friend Graham Wyvill joined Paper Lace later, and later still The Billy Fury Story, along with , I think John Raynor.
And that's the simplified version....
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, Rob.L said:
That. With CANBUS wiring, everything is controlled by the onboard computer - which will need to be told that the bulb is new.
https://dewesoft.com/blog/what-is-can-bus#
Another nail in the coffin of DIY car repairs.
My last Fiat.. a Grande Punto 'Sporting', used to show an airbag warning light in very cold weather. It was eventually diagnosed as a 'CAN line' fault, but never fixed. It was effectively a 'phantom' fault.
-
12 hours ago, Brew said:
Sounds like a bit of a run around Col, I hope after all that the results are good when you finally get them...
They were pretty good Jim. In fact the Heart Failure Team are now satisfied that I am on optimum medications and stable, so have discharged me back into the care of my GP. It also seems that my last Echocardiogram, 9 weeks ago, showed no measurable deterioration in Left Ventricular function, so I'm still at the 'moderate' HF stage... which is pretty much as good as it gets.
The Phlebotomists said the labelling issues were a product of old style blood forms issued by the HF team, which need the sample bottles labelled in handwriting. However the HF team say they don't Have the more modern system which produces pre printed sample labels.... Go figure...
-
I'm not sure on that. Those cheap diagnostic thingies seem able to 'clear' fault conditions, but that's not quite the same as programming.
-
So... a couple of weeks ago I received a letter from the Heart Failure Clinic, with an appointment for the 27th March and a 'bloods' form.
So.. I set about organising getting my bloods done before the 27th...
After an hour online it was apparent that all of the local 'Bloods' centres were booked up until mid April..,but after going round in circles for about an hour.. I found a single appointment at Newton Community Hospital, which is about as far as it is possible to be from the Grand Duchy and still be in Merseyside...
I turned up on 22nd March and got my blood taken..
Next day I looked at 'Patient Access' to find that my 'bloods' had failed... summat to do with incorrect labelling or somesuch..
So.. I called the Heart Failure Clinic and they arranged for me to pick up another 'bloods' form from them last Friday and take it to St Helens Hospital on Monday 25th. I would have no appointment but was to tell staff it had been arranged by the HF Clinic. I got there and explained. I was close to being refused until the lady in question read the look on my face and asked me to take a seat. A couple of minutes later I was called into the blood letting room and my samples were taken...
Later the same day I checked on Patient Access and my bloods had 'failed' a second time. Again.. a 'labelling' issue.
So.....Tuesday morning I called the HF clinic again and went down there to pick up a THIRD blood test form.. They once more arranged for me to go to St Helens Hospital, where my bloods were taken yet again...
...and finally.. earlier this evening I checked.. and not only have my 'bloods' been successful.. but they seem OK to me. If I don't succumb to extreme blood loss..I'll see what the lovely Trish says in the morning..
And meanwhile.. NINE WEEKS on from the Echocardiogram ordered by the Cardiologist..I'm still none the wiser as to the results...
I suppose if I make it to the HF clinic..it can't be all bad....
-
Main thing Lizzie is that you have a failed/failing bulb. The Mfr handbook should tell you how to replace it, but if you are not confident, Halfords will do it for a few quid. A lot less than some stuck up dealership.
-
1
-
Anything Political
in + Av Yer Say +
Posted
That is of course undeniable, but it doesn't follow that it was a result of the actions of ANY Govt. Living standards have improved in all Western Democratic societies, since WW2, as they also have in many less democratic societies.
Again, true, but far too generalist. You do not mention the huge increase in wealth inequality, homelessness etc.. nor the crumbling state of our infrastructure, public services etc, which I will argue are mostly the result of Conservatism in the post Thatcher period.
It's not really appropriate to speak of 'successes and failures', because the question then becomes 'success or failure for whom?
I'm sure that for e.g.,the 'pro privatisation' lobby regards its progress so far as a huge success. So much so that it keeps lobbying for more. Yes, it's been a success for their bank accounts. But in both societal and national economic terms it has clearly been a disaster.
The NHS has been broadly a huge success for the vast majority of the population and though few would argue that it is perfect or beyond criticism I see little evidence that creeping privatisation has helped.
I have no problem whatever with business, large or small, in its proper place. My 'problem', which I prefer to see as valid criticism, is with business involvement in what should properly be publicly managed AND owned activities. Under no circumstances should business, and by definition, the profit motive, be allowed to control essential public services. What next? Privatise the Armed Forces?
As you rightly point out, 'business has no conscience'. Surely that is all you need to know about the approach 'business' takes to the acquisition and subsequent management of essential Public Services. If and for me it is a big if.. there is any merit in privatisation.. it can only be properly achieved with accompanying and very effective regulation. That has not happened.
The Tories? I've explained this numerous times before. I disagree with much of 'traditional' Conservative thinking, which, for me, is simply a series of hyperbolic justifications for maintaining the unequal 'status quo'. I sincerely believe that the bulk of 'traditional' Conservative voters were either intent on maintaining their current advantage, or were deluded 'working class Tories', who really believed that Conservative Governments would let them into 'the club'. I'm sure we've all met people who were solid Labour voters until they bought a house, whereupon they miraculously transformed into rabid Tories.
So.. up until Thatcher, I simply disagreed with most of the 'traditional conservative' position, especially on Economics.
Since Thatcher, I have grown to detest the Tory Party, which for the last 30 years has been seemingly determined to asset strip the entire UK, resulting in all of the problems currently afflicting our public services, our infrastructure and our society.
Tory Neo Con thinking is so pervasive and all embracing, that even when the Tory Party seems to genuinely seek solutions to social and economic problems, it is clearly incapable of moving away from its 'market' view of both economy and society, so that it continues to fail. ( See 'Definition of insanity'- 'doing the same thing' attributed to 'various')
From the above I can only conclude the following. Either, the Tories know perfectly well that their policies are socially divisive and economically illiterate.. in which case they actually don't want to fix things... or they don't understand that policies are socially divisive and economically illiterate.. either case, they clearly should not hold office whilst in their currently indefensible state, as both a party and a government.
At this stage, neither you nor I know what Starmer means by that, and we'll just have to wait and see. If I were to speculate, I'd see it as Starmer simply putting out a general message that he doesn't intent to 'attack' big business, but wants to work with it. The specifics are not yet known. More generally, I'm not impressed with Starmer's plan of attack, his pronouncements or his lack of real electoral 'hooks'..so far. I do however completely understand him wishing to 'keep his powder dry'.
Again..I think you fail to understand my position on Labour. At one time I was both a Labour Member and a Labour Councillor. At present I am neither.
My politics have not changed. I am Democratic Centre Left, as I have always been since my personal politics matured in the 1970s. I'm not fooled by the Populist Right, nor am I what some would (deeply annoyingly) class as a 'Woke Lefty'.
I believe in a mixed economy, properly regulated for the benefit of society as a whole, in which the excesses of capitalist greed are restrained for the protection of Society and Democratic Governance. We clearly don't have that at present, as 'lobbying' by assorted nefarious 'bad actors' is rife, and apparently effective.
For me, certain key activities and entities MUST remain firmly in public ownership. Pretty much the opposite of what we have at the moment, but in no way extreme.
I have no problem with anyone who is able to make money within the legal framework which I would like us to return to.
Any residual 'loyalty' I have to Labour is at the moment limited to doing my bit to see that they unseat this appalling Government at the next election. They are the only party with a realistic chance of doing so and getting rid of Sunak et.al. is an absolute priority. It is difficult to imagine even the most naive or incompetent Labour Govt actually being worse than what we have. They will however have a long and uphill battle against established financial, press, media etc.. power if they are to put things right.
That is obviously true, but I truly believe that the level of 'inequalities and iniquities' emanating from the policies, the incompetence, the arrogance and the clearly anti democratic ambitions of many on the Tory Right, which are clearly tolerated by whatever the rest of the Tory Party should most properly be described as, has reached such epic and damaging proportions that they HAVE TO GO. Once they are in opposition, I confidently predict that they will tear themselves into at least two parts.