Brew
-
Content Count
6,570 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
85
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by Brew
-
-
15 minutes ago, DJ360 said:
That is of course undeniable, but it doesn't follow that it was a result of the actions of ANY Govt.
Of course it does, or are you saying it happens by accident regardless? All western economies have grown, true, but we have grown more than any other apart from Germany who have a far bigger population and were given a huge economic kick-start after the war. France is the closest to us, is much larger and has a slightly bigger population. - and the advantage of not being an island.
37 minutes ago, DJ360 said: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.
Can't say you're wrong but even China and Russia has chronic poverty and billionaires.
The number of homeless in the UK peaked to an all-time high in 2004 then steadily declined to a low in 2009. There was slight increase up until 2017 before falling to an all- time low in 2019. Sadly it's on the rise again but there are nowhere near the number we imagine. Still regrettable though.
59 minutes ago, DJ360 said:It's not really appropriate to speak of 'successes and failures', because the question then becomes 'success or failure for whom?
For we the people. Sucesses like the regeneration in London. Liverpool, Manchester and Birmingham. Failure like privatisation of utilities, reduced policing, failure of our care systems, allowing foreign investment in essential services and the total shambles of the NHS.
1 hour ago, DJ360 said:I have no problem whatever with business, large or small, in its proper place
I rather think you do Col. You regularly claim they steal from us; regularly mention they raid the public purse and on many occasions have inferred there is a covert plot by 'big money' to purely line their pockets with 'our' money.
"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"
Not sure what this means but what advantage, and can you really justify calling people deluded?
1 hour ago, DJ360 said:At this stage, neither you nor I know what Starmer means by that
And he expects us to vote for it knowing full well nobody understands what it means or the implications. Your view that he's sending a message to big business and intends to work with them is as obscure as Starmers statement itself.
The view that he's 'keeping his powder dry' is at best naive. Why is he? if he has a viable policy why not shout it from the rooftops! Keeping his powder dry implies he's going to ambush us at a later date.
"Sir I have a cunning plan"...
-
1 hour ago, Oztalgian said:
When, why and how did it all go so wrong!
Looking back I suppose both Labour and Tory are to blame though I suspect Tony Blair started the rot when he stopped recruiting police in favour of PCSOs (Police Community Support Officers) (popularly called plastic police), who wear a police uniform and patrol the streets and in reality had less power than a traffic warden.
The police were further damaged by the austerity measures. Teresa May jumped on the bandwagon and reduced the numbers even more whilst at the same time Chief Constables were mandated to pursue hate crimes, diversity, motorists and virtually anyone who said a rude word.
In Scotland even jokes and comedians can be judged to be guilty of hate crimes.
To make police more accountable and improve public perceptions Police Commissioners were installed in 2012. Most are invisible and I suspect do little more than rubber stamp council and police policies.
From experience having three motorcycles stolen, two cars stolen and two burglaries only one, the first burglary brought police to the door - and that was one week later.
-
1
-
-
90 minutes according an article on the BBC at the weekend.
Not sure how it keeps going, they only open a few hours on a Fridays
-
17 minutes ago, Oztalgian said:
So who is going to police action against these thieves and how are they supposed to do it?
Yet again, it looks like the bad guys are winning or are the police too busy pursuing hate crimes.
It's as I said earlier Oz shoplifting has steadily increased and the rise in population, the apparent lack pf respect for the law plus no fear of punishment must be a large part of the blame for it. Some will claim it's desperation due to the cost-of-living crisis but I don't honestly believe it.
The approved procedure for stopping a thief is so onerous and coupled with the rise in knife crime among the young most don't bother and simply accept it as a fact of life.
One wrong step and the victim is as likely to faces charges as the thief.
-
1
-
-
On 3/26/2024 at 3:10 AM, Oztalgian said:
Brew, my biggest beef with the supermarket giants is that they pay the farmers and producers of fresh product and meat a pittance and then on sell to their customers at vastly inflated prices. Farmers and growers are often "forced" by supermarkets to sell them product at less than the cost of production.
Agriculture is never quite straight forward; I've never met a farmer that wasn't complaining as they climb onto their £100,000 laser and GPS controlled tractors. When we were in the common market there were wine lakes, millions of litres of milk poured down the drain and beef mountains. It was a shambles (maybe still is), under the Common Agriculture Policy.
At the moment we are paying farmers not to grown anything under a system called 'set aside'. The obverse of that is farmers selling good land for housing. There is no easy answer.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, Oztalgian said:
Can anyone (Ben?) tell me what police action is taken in this instance in the UK.
This from last year:
Police will only attend shoplifting incidents if there is violence against a store worker, a suspected thief is detained or officers are needed to secure evidence.
-
1 hour ago, siddha said:
I cannot see why you need to deliberate over such matters.
Would you prefer we simply accept what we're told, blindly complicit and never question the rights and wrongs in society?
You recently implied that Raynors tax investigation would be buried by the press if she was a Tory, from which I assume you are on the left and offering a different point of view.
Am I wrong therefore to counter that and point out the widely reported tax evasion and non-Dom status of Sunak's wife, wife of the Prime Minister? They didn't bury that, and I would also point out that as a result of the press campaign she relinquished her Non-Dom and started paying UK tax.
We need checks and balance.
You must surely see that only by deliberation can we arrived at a consensus.
Why do I personally need to argue? Because I don't know, I'm never a hundred percent sure I'm right and want to hear other views and opinions.
Should anyone want to plod along and play follow my leader that's fine, so far it's a free choice. But to my mind it's a sad fact that politically a vast number of voters never really consider their options and vote the same way every time regardless.
-
3 minutes ago, DJ360 said:
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.
What I know Col is that we as a society have progressed and grown since the war from a bankrupt country to the fifth largest economy on the planet.
What I know is that the standard of living has grown beyond all recognition over the past 70 years. This despite the ups and downs of various governments
Every government has had successes, every parliament has had failures. The obvious riposte to that is the Tories have had more failures that Labour, statistically it would be difficult for that not to be true.
The Labour party is 120 years old and they have been in power for just 30 of them so although we can say they helped, the vast majority of progress was made by Tory governments.
You seem to have a real problem with big business and the Tories so I'll reiterate something I've said many times.
Big business doesn't give a rats tuchuss who is in power they will cosy up to them regardless when they see an opportunity to make money
You have just (quite rightly), vilified the use of PFI. Starmer is, as I posted a while ago, going to climb into bed with and rely on 'strong partnerships' with big business'. I wonder if you will be so disparaging of Labour polices then...
Will you be so enthusiastic in your condemnation of Labour when they refuse to sort out the debacle that was privatisation?
There will always be inequalities and iniquities in every government. Politicians are people some good, some bad and some are a waste of breath.
-
3 hours ago, DJ360 said:
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
But that is the nature of business just as supermarkets are detrimental to the High Streets. It is the nature of competition to grow a business and if that sees off smaller competitors it is seen as a success. Like supermarkets big business can offer economies of scale and again like supermarkets offer better deals than the corner shop. We live in a capitalist society, that's how it works.
The original premise was big business is making unreasonable profits at the taxpayers expense. Looked at dispassionately they're meeting a demand at reasonable rates and making reasonable profits doing so.
You quote £100 a day, having employed several tradesmen over the last few months that seems to be the going rate for one man (some quote much more), and that's without premises and overheads.
-
2 hours ago, DJ360 said:
You seem to be a bit out of touch with this whole issue.
I seriously doubt it. From a recent and an ongoing situation I simply hold a different view. You seem to have entirely missed my point and moved the focus to finance and funding.
The LSE report has a fair synopsis of childcare from 1918 onward and acknowledges that until 1996 the local authorities had power but no duty and thus it was very much a laissez-faire arrangement.
It's focus is on funding, not the control and regulation of or how it radically changed childcare in the late 90s which is the point I was making.
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.
From the BBC:
"A drastic decline in childminders could lead to a shortage of places, early years providers are warning. There were 9,800 fewer childcare workers in 2022 than in 2019, with childminders down by a fifth.
And from Ofsted:
"The number of childminders has declined over the past decade, from 56,200 in 2013 to 27,900 in 2023 - a fall of 50%".
Someone has to meet the demand if not business then who?
Again I really can't agree with the claim of profiteering and the implication the taxpayers coffers are being raided or ripped off despite a few scurrilous headlines.
-
On 3/29/2024 at 6:53 PM, siddha said:
And if she were a Tory there would be nobody hounding her to reveal the details of her tax advice.
Rubbish, obviously you have a selective memory.
The press will go for the throat regardless. It doesn't take much to find stories of cock-ups, corruption and wrong doing in general by our blessed leaders. Why should Starmers foul mouth deputy be different.
-
You what sometimes Oz you can be really cruel....
-
1
-
-
Years ago on a tour of the Williams F1 facility they had a Ferrari given to them under a deal to release Alesi from his contract. The engineering they said was superb, but the electrics were so amateurish they looked like it came from a FIAT500
-
We woke to the staggering sight of bright sunshine... on a bank holiday!
Fearing the the world was about to end and we were to see the end of days, we decide to venture out. But all was well and the world righted it self when after lunch we had a heavy rain downpour mixed with hail.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, DJ360 said:
Commons Priveleges Committee.
Not originally, it was an investigative piece of journalism by the Guardian with The Independent. They carried the story and the rest of the media picked it up and ran it until the CPC had little choice but to take action
-
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.
-
52 minutes ago, DJ360 said:
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.
And the Johnson partygate investigation was the result of pressure by whom?
-
36 minutes ago, DJ360 said:
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?
Except he's not breaking any laws Col and your prejudice has led to a wild exaggeration.
Ofcom has, with provisos, given a green light to serving politicians presenting TV programs..
-
8 hours ago, Oztalgian said:
Is it time to abolish the House of Lords and operate a unicameral Parliament. Queensland has had one since 1922 and it seems to work OK there providing that the electorate do not give an outright majority to any particular party as it did in the days of Joh Bjelke-Petersen. It is the only state in Australia to have this system.
Seem to answer your own question Oz
There are unicameral systems operating in the UK. The Scottish Parliament, Welsh Senedd, The Northern Ireland Assembly and the London Assembly are all unicameral. Having said that the main protection against extremism for them is the overarching powers residing in Westminster. I don't know how that works un the federal system in Australia.
The main criticism of the unicameral system is its perceived lack of checks and balances, the risk of a concentration of power and limited scrutiny.
One considered advantage is the speed legislation and therein lies the danger. I have no doubt Johnson, Truss and Blair with their massive majority would have run amok.
The Lords defeated more of Johnsons legislations than any other PM with the exception of Harold Wilson in the mid '70s
Personally I feel more comfortable with a second chamber.
I
-
5 hours ago, Oztalgian said:
Here in OZ if your age pension is your only source of income you pay no tax on it.
Same here Oz. The personal allowance before tax is due is £12,750, the basic state pension is £10,600.
-
Yesterday Starmer launched Labours campaign...... and oh dear...
I've said many times he has no ideas - at lease none of his own!
Starmer and his slightly dodgy looking deputy acknowledged Johnson for his 'levelling up' program and that his "analysis was good"
He now proposes the Starmer version with legislation called the 'Take Back Control Act' which will mandate councils to make a local growth plan, quite what he thinks they do now is anybody's guess.
Taking, or giving, back control sounds an awful lot like Thatcher who said similar, that and giving people choice.
He claimed in a speech Johnsons plan was sabotaged by Sunak who, as chancellor, denied the funds to carry through levelling up. Will he therefore be allocating more money to fund his TBC act? - in a word no.
Labour’s rehash of Johnson's scheme he said will not have any more money than Sunak allowed, i.e. zilch.
Instead the finance will come from “empowerment,” “benefits of scale” and “strong partnership with the private sector".
In my own simple way I take that seemingly gibberish statement to mean:
Private sector partnerships.
The much discredited Private Finance Initiatives that are crippling the NHS as we speak.
Empowerment
We will have a Mayor in May with hugely increased powers to raise taxes and other schemes to raise money - usually through the pockets of those least able to pay.
Benefits of scale:
Can mean benefiting through greater utility of assets. but can also mean the opposite, saving money through reduction i.e. reducing council services.
---------
So far I've had three communiques by the Tory candidate for the new Mayors job. He seems to have a bee in his bonnet about pot holes. But apparently has nothing to say, not a single word, about Nottingham's debt crisis.
No word at all from Labour, Greens, Independent or Reform
-
3 hours ago, DJ360 said:
Yesterday I received a letter from a company called Outside Clinic, who claim to be delivering NHS Services,
I've had lots of those and and never bothered to read further than the mobility qualifier. Next one that arrives I'll look a little closer...
-
Me too
-
36 minutes ago, DJ360 said:
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?
Without a profit incentive there is no business and in my mind 'essential' is a bit of a stretch.
I would hazard a guess the vast majority of nurseries are for pre-schoolers.
Your description of childminding is of what amounts to an ad hoc school run arrangement with a friendly neighbour.
For many it starts way before school age and he kids were looked after in someone's home for most of the working day.
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.
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.
It is an entirely empathy free zone.
I'm under the impression some think a government or council run scheme is required.
Do we really want a state run system of regimented pre-school education?
Anything Political
in + Av Yer Say +
Posted
Siddha quite what the point of anyone writing anything if it's not to impart your views from which we are to draw conclusions is beyond me, of course I'm going make assumptions.