Anything Political

[DJ360 6,720]

12 hours ago, Brew said:

Labour I'm sure are going to win and wish washy Starmer will prove to be a bad PM

 

Too soon to say what sort of P.M. Starmer will be and I wouldn't rule out a leadership challenge after the election.  As I've just pointed out to Letsavagoo.. he's saddled with an almost universally hostile 'meedja', which is poised to pounce on the slightest hint of 'Tax and Spend' etc.. and yet which does not apply the same scrutiny to either Tories or Reform.

[Jill Sparrow 10,302]

What about "doolally"?  I use that one quite a bit. Connotations of empire, though. Tut, tut.  Doubt I'll change my ways.

[Beekay 5,133]

@Jill Sparrow, I see your'e talking about me again. 

[DJ360 6,720]

On 2/15/2024 at 8:05 PM, Brew said:

Screaming at the Tories and accusing them of theft is quite frankly something we long ago dismissed, they have stolen nothing!

 

They have systematically enabled 'legalised theft', by not only the headline grabbers such as Mone and Harding, but by creating Privatised Cartels from former publicly owned assetts such as water, transport etc., etc.

 

They have also utterly failed to pursue those responsible for huge misappropriation of public money, such as Crapita, Carillion etc..and continue to fail to bring to account those responsible for the Post Office scandal, Grenfell, and many, many other iniquities which originate from the Tory onsession with privatiastion and refusal to 'take on' big business, no matter how 'bent'.

 

In the case of Carillion, hundreds of £millions in 'dividends' were paid out, £29 million went in fees to the Auditor KPMG who then sued when they were blamed for their part in Carillion's failure. Meanwhile, nobody went to gaol, the big money quietly settled matters among themselves and it was just 'business as usual', while several hospitals and other projects were delayed and sent 'overbudget'. Another triumph for the wonders of Privatisation and 'Outsourcing'.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/feb/17/kpmg-pays-13bn-to-settle-negligent-auditing-claim-by-carillion-creditors

 

From which:

Quote

A separate report by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Select Committee, in July 2018, blamed the UK government for outsourcing contracts based on lowest price, saying its use of contractors such as Carillion had caused public services to deteriorate.

 

It never stops with these crooks.

 

Allowing Water Companies to charge more, to fund the cleaning up of their own act, which is entirely down to their business failure and circumvention of regulation..whilst continuing to pay shareholder dividends AND 'fat cat' salaries/bonuses.. might not fall within the legal definition of theft, but it clearly is theft in reality.

[Brew 5,404]

45 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

They have systematically enabled 'legalised theft',

 

An oxymoron and serves no purpose other than to pad out your diatribe with rhetoric. I don't take issue with most of your criticisms but I say again if it's legal and you don't like it - change the law. 

 

Grenfell had little to do with government, although they make a convenient whipping boy. The apology by Gove was for not knowing how building regs were applied. Do we really expect government to be au fait with the minutiae of council decisions?

The blame is with Kensington council who have been declared responsible by the high court. 

 

The Post Office scandal is still progressing.. For someone who favours due process, I suggest you're  jumping the gun in apportioning blame

 

1 hour ago, DJ360 said:

A separate report by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Select Committee, in July 2018, blamed the UK government for outsourcing contracts based on lowest price, saying its use of contractors such as Carillion had caused public services to deteriorate.

 

Interesting that you didn't mention the same committee  after it criticised pretty much the same thing when Brown was PM ("an over-reliance "on a small 'oligopoly' of large suppliers") or the fiasco that came to light regarding the NHS IT system that cost over £10 Billion before it was scrapped, or the recent complaint of the outrageous interest payment now falling due on NHS PFI contracts.  Another triumph for Blair opening the doors to private finance.

[philmayfield 6,113]

I’m reminded of the man who was shipwrecked on a desert island.

His first words were ‘what’s the government ‘cause I’m agin it!’ 

[letsavagoo 960]

6 hours ago, DJ360 said:

every single policy statement from Labour is greeted with howls of 'How you gonna pay for that?, with added fantasies about Labour's alleged 'Tax and Spend' record.

We’ll surely that’s the cue to say how they’re going to pay. 
Alleged?

[DJ360 6,720]

2 hours ago, Brew said:

An oxymoron and serves no purpose other than to pad out your diatribe with rhetoric. I don't take issue with most of your criticisms but I say again if it's legal and you don't like it - change the law. 

 

Here's a 'back of a fag packet' set of proposals I offered on another site a week or so back...

 

Quote

• Feb 9, 2024

•  

ks.234 said:

Labour have done this to themselves.

(I said)
That is a valid interpretation though not quite in line with mine.

If I was making Labour policy pronouncements, they'd be along these lines, though possibly with some input from someone who knows more about the true workings of the Treasury, or how to deflect the inevitable Tory attack. If pushed I'd call this 'Economic Populism'.

1. I would either scrap or seriously re constitute Ofwat, to give it real teeth. I would legislate to cap Water Company Chief Exec's Salaries and Bonuses, plus Shareholder Dividends until they became genuinely compliant with Water Supply, Flood Management and Sewage Outflow standards. If they didn't like it, or comply, I'd Nationalise them.
This is definitely a Green proposal.

2. I'd make similar proposals around Energy and Public Transport..especially Rail. A Green element here too.

3. I would legislate to stop any further 'Absentee' a.k.a. foreign investment in UK housing stock and consider the threat of compulsory purchase to 'encourage' sale of such back into UK ownership.
4. I would use similar tactics to end the ownership and control of UK infrastructure, transport, waste disposal energy and other essentials by foreign companies, especially where those companies are in turn owned by foreign govt.s

5. I would aim to reduce Legal Migration of otherwise non vulnerable individuals into such as Health Care, Social Care, Hospitality etc.., by increasing training of UK citizens to resolve self inflicted labour shortages and by ensuring minimum salaries.

6. I would end numerous Tax loopholes. I'm not talking about just 'Taxing the Rich', which is too vague and too easily attacked, but issues such as 'Non Dom Status' etc. Also I'd be asking serious questions about why it is that someone whose salary allows them to invest say £50k per year in investments and THEN get tax relief on top and still have take home pay of multiples of most people's Gross pay?.....

7. I would seriously 'go after' the crooks responsible for Grenfell, The Post Office Scandal etc.

8. I would end the tax breaks and 'Charitable Status for ALL religions and for ALL Independent Schools.
Why do they and their membership deserve benefits which Atheists and Agnostics, or even those of 'independent' faith do not enjoy?
The likes of Eton College already supply us with a disproportionately high number of (mostly Right Wing) Politicians etc. Why should we subsidise them?

I reckon that most habitual Labour and huge numbers of Lib Dem, Left Wing Tory etc. voters would find little to disagree with in that lot. It might even hoover up a few of the dummies who support 'Reform' because they only really see its immigration drivel and haven't read the rest of its horrific manifesto.

 

Although clearly in need of expansion and refinement, several agreed with the general thrust of my proposals.

One suggested that it would get 'monstered' by the Press, although I suspect it would only get that because it was from Labour.  As I've already said, the Press do not examine Right Wing parties in the same way...

 

 

2 hours ago, Brew said:

Grenfell had little to do with government, although they make a convenient whipping boy. The apology by Gove was for not knowing how building regs were applied. Do we really expect government to be au fait with the minutiae of council decisions?

The blame is with Kensington council who have been declared responsible by the high court. 

 

Do you not think that the manufacturers of the cladding hold the major responsibility?  The stuff is clearly not fit for purpose and yet was sold to numerous developers and property owners. The manufacturers KNEW it wasn't suitable.

And do you not think that Govt. taking its eye off the 'Regulation' ball was another factor? And finially, I certainly hold Govt. to account for taking so long to resolve all of this. Manufacturers etc., will not own up, so they need holding to account.  By Govt.

 

2 hours ago, Brew said:

The Post Office scandal is still progressing.. For someone who favours due process, I suggest you're  jumping the gun in apportioning blame

 

I'm not sure 'progressing' is a word I'd use.  Only yesterday one of the victims was on TV explaining that the actual settlement and payment of compensation has been booted down the road yet again.. until after the election.  At the same time the former Post Office  Chief Exec (Staunton?) and Badenoch are in a very public spat, though Badenochj seems to like using Parliamentary Privelege to respond to him. I don't know who's right, but this Pantomime does nothing for the victims.

 

2 hours ago, Brew said:

Interesting that you didn't mention the same committee  after it criticised pretty much the same thing when Brown was PM ("an over-reliance "on a small 'oligopoly' of large suppliers") or the fiasco that came to light regarding the NHS IT system that cost over £10 Billion before it was scrapped, or the recent complaint of the outrageous interest payment now falling due on NHS PFI contracts.  Another triumph for Blair opening the doors to private finance.

 

I'm not defending Blair or Brown here, but let's not forget that it was Major who started PFI to get public Debt 'off the books'  Also, Osborne, for the Tories simultaneously argued that PFI was wrong and yet..

 

Quote

Despite being so critical of PFI while in opposition and promising reform, once in power George Osborne progressed 61 PFI schemes worth a total of £6.9bn in his first year as Chancellor.^[27]

 

Fundamentally, PFI is a NeoCon 'wheeze', which is supposedly attractive to Govt., because both the Debt AND much of the risk, are transferred to the Private Sector.  How very noble of them..

The reality is that PFI simply replaces Govt. borrowing on the Bond markets with much more expensive borrowing via the Private Sector, which is also tied up in ridculously complex 'contracts' which involve facility management and maintenance schemes which again are ludicrously expensive. In short PFI is a massive con.

 

 

[DJ360 6,720]

2 minutes ago, letsavagoo said:

We’ll surely that’s the cue to say how they’re going to pay. 
Alleged?

 

Well no..for the reasons I've already outlined. The 'meedja' work from the ASSUMPTION that Labour will Tax and Spend, and yet I don't hear the 'meedja' complaining about the huge increase in UK debt under the Tories.  Since 2016 alone.. and that is the backdrop against which Truss thought it a good idea to borrow even more to fund tax cuts for the rich..

 

Quote

Table 1: General government gross debt
General government gross debt, UK, financial year ending March 2016 to financial year ending March 2021

Financial year ending March²	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021
Debt (£ billion)¹	1,651.0	1,719.8	1763.2	1,820.6	1,875.7	2,223.0
Debt (as % GDP)³	84.5	84.3	83.5	82.8	83.0	103.7

Source: Office for National Statistics - UK government debt and deficit

 

As I keep sayiong, the Media and especially the Print Media aply totally different assumptions and standards to Labour, which is why they have little choice but to play their cards close to their chests.  It's also a fairly reasonable position to argue that they don't know what they'll have to deal with by the time the Tories finally call an election.

 

All above said, I'm a bit less bothered about Govt Debt than many seem to be and I don't fully subscribe to 'conventional economic wisdom' around debt/taxation etc..  But then I don't write headlines for the DM or the Mirror.

[DJ360 6,720]

From another place... and complete with another confirmation of Godwin's Law.

 

Quote

Ponty said:

Thatcherism isn’t a failure. If it were, you”d think there would be an electable party proposing to ‘reverse” Thatcherism. Where are they?

Really?

Thatcherism has failed even on it’s own terms;

Controlling inflation = fail
Stabilising the economy = fail
cutting public spending = fail

more relevant is the failure of privatisation to deliver the promised benefits to energy, trains, water, elderly Care, dentistry

deregulation has delivered 2008, a housing crisis, work insecurity and weakened Health and Education

also, lets not forget growing inequality, in work poverty the rise of food banks.

Thatcherism has been good for the rich, which seems to be all that counts for some.

Your defence of Thatcher on the grounds of popularity is also a defence of the rise of Hitler.

 

Also:

Quote

Money in our economy is an IOU, and accounting mechanism, or a scorekeeper. Which is why saying that we've run out of money is just as absurd as saying we’ve run out of numbers. The score board in cricket is the tally keeper, to say the scoreboard has run out of numbers is illiterate.

I maintain that economics is quite simple, it’s about the allocation of resources and in modern times it is a question of either allocating public money to public good, or private pockets, or more simply, is government spending on public services a good thing, or a bad thing? Economics gets complicated when economists start to devise complex mathematical models that purport to demonstrate supposed universal laws and rules. They speak a foreign language to explain that spending is a bad thing because it always and everywhere leads to inflation. But if you dig down into those models they all rest on ‘if = then’ models in which ‘if’ is assumed to be true even when it is not. And it does take a fair bit of digging, which is of course how they get away with it.

It is like all those pre-reformation priests who read the latin bible, then tell their congregation what it means. You have to be able to understand latin in order to realise that the ‘meaning’ that they pass on serves a political purpose. And as you say, part of that purpose was to maintain that the earth was the centre of the universe. Nowadays these ‘priests’ from the Treasury try to tell us that our taxpayers money is at the centre of the universe. It isnt

 

[DJ360 6,720]

P.S. Even more revelations on BBC News as I speak, confirming skulduggery and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice within the Post Office.

[Brew 5,404]

1 hour ago, DJ360 said:

The likes of Eton College already supply us with a disproportionately high number of (mostly Right Wing) Politicians etc. Why should we subsidise them?

The vast majority if independents are not like Harrow, Eton or Roedean. they are quite small, Iona, Hollygirt etc with pupils in the ten, hundreds. Perhaps you could propose a rebate for the the cost of a place at state school that they forgo? 

 

1 hour ago, DJ360 said:

Do you not think that the manufacturers of the cladding hold the major responsibility?  The stuff is clearly not fit for purpose and yet was sold to numerous developers and property owners. The manufacturers KNEW it wasn't suitable.

This I don't doubt and the ongoing investigation will, I hope, eventually bring those responsible to book, Did HMG take their eye of the ball? - no.

No matter what you legislate for or how draconian you make the laws someone will always looks for ways to circumvent the rules. there will always be corruption and criminal activity regardless of what flavour the government of the day.

They need holding account by the government? No!  the law should take it's course without pressure from the executive. It's a fundamental principle of our democracy.

 

 

1 hour ago, DJ360 said:

I don't know who's right, but this Pantomime does nothing for the victims.

 Exactly, all we have at the moment is hearsay, rumour and conjecture, he said she said. Those affected have been treated abominably, but who do you want making decisions, the courts or civil servants  whispering in dark corners?

 

PFI?  There are 719 such agreements with a cost to the tax payer of over £300 Billion! one of which has  seen the collapse of an NHS trust (South London), due to payments. It's also worth remembering the majority came about under labour. It's part of Blair/Brown legacy that is helping to cripple the NHS.

The jibe about neoCon is a bit of a worrabout.

 

 

1 hour ago, DJ360 said:

don't hear the 'meedja' complaining about the huge increase in UK debt under the Tories. 

 

Perhaps because they recognise vast amount covid cost, and is sill costing, this country:

From the treasury.

 

The Covid-19 pandemic resulted in very high levels of public spending. Current estimates of the total cost of government Covid-19 measures range from about £310 billion to £410 billion. This is the equivalent of about £4,600 to £6,100 per person in the UK.

 

Even Labour are not making that much fuss about it knowing full well they will inherit it.

 

One last point;

Thatcher inherited 0ver 17% inflation, with two years had it down to single figures - how is another matter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Oztalgian 3,265]

10 hours ago, Brew said:

Synonyms for loony:

Australian words used for looney

Nutjob

Bonko

Batty

Drongo

Galah

[Brew 5,404]

Not heard of Bonko before

[letsavagoo 960]

12 hours ago, DJ360 said:

The 'meedja' work from the ASSUMPTION that Labour will Tax and Spend

Well they do.

12 hours ago, DJ360 said:

little choice but to play their cards close to their chests.

Otherwise known as haven’t a clue.

 

I won’t attempt to defend the current governments record on borrowing but you don’t mention covid which has been, to put it mildly, a huge fly in the ointment and unprecedented in recent history. You have to at least acknowledge that. Brew mentions this above.
 

I constantly hear and read plenty of criticism and alarm at the current government in general, the levels of borrowing, debt and policies. You can’t miss it. How come you don’t. You must be reading the Tory bias press. I am surprised. I thought you’d more likely subscribe to ‘the socialist worker’

[Oztalgian 3,265]

9 hours ago, Brew said:

Not heard of Bonko before

He's gone bonko, insane or mad.

[Oztalgian 3,265]

2 hours ago, letsavagoo said:

I thought you’d more likely subscribe to ‘the socialist worker’

Is the Morning Star still going?

[letsavagoo 960]

7 minutes ago, Oztalgian said:

Is the Morning Star still going?

Apparently it is, both in printed form and pdf. I honestly meant to put the Morning Star in the above comment but wrote socialist worker for some reason. 

[Oztalgian 3,265]

1 minute ago, letsavagoo said:

I honestly meant to put the Morning Star in the above comment but wrote socialist worker for some reason. 

Some of the more "red" labour voters in the village I delivered paper to took the Morning Star

[Brew 5,404]

I look at the  online Morning Star on a semi-regular basis, they allow five free articles a month. I do not subscribe but it's occasionally interesting to see things from a different perspective

[DJ360 6,720]

14 hours ago, Brew said:

The vast majority if independents are not like Harrow, Eton or Roedean. they are quite small, Iona, Hollygirt etc with pupils in the ten, hundreds. Perhaps you could propose a rebate for the the cost of a place at state school that they forgo? 

 

Irrelevant.

I'm talking about removing 'charitable' status. If Private schools cannot exist without that, plus the fees they charge. then why do they exist? You know as well as I do that parents pay for private education because they perceive it as advantageous to their kids and in terms of pupil teacher ratios etc, and the 'advantages' of selection, then it probably is, but I fail to see how that warrants charitable status.  There are also deeply ingrained perceptions in some quarters that the fact of having been to a Private school somehow means that someone is 'better' in some way. There are similar attitudes to 'Oxbridge' graduates, which are not borne out by reality.

 

The idea of a rebate has been raised before. It could be implemented, but isn't, and whenever I've heard parents of those at private fee paying schools questioned over it, they generally don't seem bothered.  Maybe because it would actually reveal the difference in spending per pupil between Public and Private?

 

As an aside, I note that 'Independent' schools are subject to a different inspection regime to 'state' schools and do not seem to fall victim to 'One Word' assessments.

https://www.etoncollege.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Eton-ISI-Educational-Quality-Inspection-Report-2021.pdf

 

14 hours ago, Brew said:

They need holding account by the government? No!  the law should take it's course without pressure from the executive. It's a fundamental principle of our democracy.

 

Well yes, Govt. is not and should not be above the Law, but it does ultimately make and alter the Law. It seems to have a distorted perception of priorities, having invested huge amounts of its own and Parliaments' time in pursuit of , for e.g., the Rwanda Bill.. i.e. effectively changing the Law, but very little on making sure that the Law is effective in bringing to book those responsible for Grenfell and other iniquities, or indeed preventing future repeats.  As ever, the forces of self interest are quietly carrying on business as usual.

Here is the last entry in Hansard which I can find:

 

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2022-06-16/debates/46295776-85FD-4B4E-B044-D6FE22A9F1FA/GrenfellTowerFifthAnniversary

 

...and after several thousands of words of debate, the conclusion, from Labour member Richard Burgon, said:

 

Quote

I want to finish with two brief quotes. One is from the journalist Peter Apps, who wrote in a recent article:

“What has emerged is a profoundly depressing portrait of a private sector with a near psychopathic disregard for human life, and a public sector which exists to do little more than serve or imitate it.”

However, I want the final words of this debate, fittingly, to be from the families, the bereaved and the survivors of Grenfell United, who said:

“We must pave a new way forward. We must hold those responsible to account.”

Mr Deputy Speaker

(Mr Nigel Evans)

Share this specific contribution

Our thoughts are with all those families affected by this awful tragedy, but particularly at this time.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the fifth anniversary of the Grenfell Tower fire.

 

It's not good enough is it?

 

15 hours ago, Brew said:

Exactly, all we have at the moment is hearsay, rumour and conjecture, he said she said. Those affected have been treated abominably, but who do you want making decisions, the courts or civil servants  whispering in dark corners?

 

No. We have an admission by the Post Office that hundreds of people were wrongfully prosecuted and convicted, up to 20 years ago. We also have a process of compensation in place. That compensation is way too late for some, who have died of natural causes or even taken their own lives. There can be NO justification for continuing delays in paying compensation because there is no legal impediment to doing so.

The historical facts and legal issues surround blame for the issues with Horizon, the roles of the Post Office, Fujitsu, Post Office 'enforcers', Civil Servants and Govt.etc.,etc. and should not be used to delay payments of compensation.

 

15 hours ago, Brew said:

PFI?  There are 719 such agreements with a cost to the tax payer of over £300 Billion! one of which has  seen the collapse of an NHS trust (South London), due to payments. It's also worth remembering the majority came about under labour. It's part of Blair/Brown legacy that is helping to cripple the NHS.

The jibe about neoCon is a bit of a worrabout.

 

It is within Govts power to end ALL PFI contracts tomorrow if they wished. They don't 'wish', because there is too much at stake for the PRIVATE contractors who are hoovering up our cash.

I'm not defending Brown, Blair, but neither am I ignoring the origins with Major, nor the continuation with Osborne. It's 14 years since the Tories came to power and they have done nothing to stop this legalised theft.

The NeoCon comment is not a jibe, it's a fact. PFI originates from NeoCon ideology.

 

15 hours ago, Brew said:

Perhaps because they recognise vast amount covid cost, and is sill costing, this country:

From the treasury.

 

We all know Covid cost a fortune.  The real question is around how effectively that money was spent, and where huge chunks of it actually went. Govt borrowing was rising before Covid.

 

16 hours ago, Brew said:

One last point;

Thatcher inherited 0ver 17% inflation, with two years had it down to single figures - how is another matter.

 

Yep, and that 'other matter' consisted of destroying British manufacturing, massively increasing interest rates and unemployment all for a temporary appearance of 'success'.  The woman was a psychopath and I will never be convinced otherwise.

[DJ360 6,720]

5 hours ago, letsavagoo said:

Well they do.

 

All govt.s tax and spend. The present lot are exceptional in that regard.  It is debateable whether Labour live up to the label they are constantly saddled with by the UK print media.  In addition, you know as well as I do that even the relatively balanced BBC, still start their questioning of Labour politicians from those assumptions, and yet they do not focus on Debt, etc., in the same way with Tories. They don't focus on Tory spending cuts, privatisation etc.. etc.

 

5 hours ago, letsavagoo said:

Otherwise known as haven’t a clue.

 

No. It's a reasonable electoral strategy. WHATEVER labour propose in terms of specifics, will attract the same bile and it's clear from recent election results that Labour don't need to expose themselves to that.

OTOH, the Tories came in promising to:

-Halt illegal immigration.  Fail.

-Get Brexit dun. Fail

-Implement Brixit 'benefits' Fail

-Fix Adult Social Care. Fail, etc.,. etc..

After 14 years, trying to blame everything on Covid is frankly pathetic.

5 hours ago, letsavagoo said:

I constantly hear and read plenty of criticism and alarm at the current government in general, the levels of borrowing, debt and policies. You can’t miss it. How come you don’t. You must be reading the Tory bias press. I am surprised. I thought you’d more likely subscribe to ‘the socialist worker’

 

I don't buy ANY newspaper. Only the Guardian has anything approaching a neutral stance based on facts and internationally acknowledged as such. It's not owned by big business, or foreigners.  A look at the headlines on display in the local newsagent is enough to put me off.  I don't doubt that there is criticism of govt. within the pages of most/all newspapers, but that is not the overt stance suggested by their headlines, or adopted by broadcast media.

Your comment about the Socialist Worker, or the Morning Star, or whatever you meant..is unnecessary and borderline Ad Hom. You know full well that I have repeatedly defined my politics as Democratic and Centre Left.

[Brew 5,404]

5 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Irrelevant.

I'm talking about removing 'charitable' status. If Private schools cannot exist without that, plus the fees they charge. then why do they exist?

Why? What reason has any charity to exist?

 

In light of full disclosure both my children after infants were educated in the private sector. Why? various reasons but mainly because I could.

 

Schools have been given charitable status for what they do. The don't run a factory making widgets and  profits.

Like other Charites they provide a service that benefits society as a whole. Charities exist because they feel the system is not good enough or is failing to satisfy a need. Help for Heroes, Cancer Research, MIND, Anthony Nolan, Great Ormand Street; the list goes on and on. Giving them charitable status is a way of providing help and support.

To deny such as The Macmillan Trust and the whole charity sector simply on the basis  that Eton provides PMs you don't agree with is surprisingly petulant.

 

Most parents are not too bothered about a a rebate as you say, and in my case that's true, just as I now contribute to state education and council facilities but don't use them.

 

5 hours ago, DJ360 said:

There are also deeply ingrained perceptions in some quarters that the fact of having been to a Private school somehow means that someone is 'better' in some way.

 

And?

Are you're advocating we should all have the same opinions and world view?

I could ask why did you or anyone else go to a Grammar school? after all they were given a bigger slice of the pie and better resources.  Are they not also seen as advantageous? Isn't there also a perception someone with a grammar school education are better in some way?

 

 

5 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Well yes, Govt. is not and should not be above the Law, but it does ultimately make and alter the Law. It seems to have a distorted perception of priorities, having invested huge amounts of its own and Parliaments' time in pursuit of , for e.g., the Rwanda Bill.. i.e. effectively changing the Law, but very little on making sure that the Law is effective in bringing to book those responsible for Grenfell and other iniquities, or indeed preventing future repeats.  As ever, the forces of self interest are quietly carrying on business as usual.

 

It 'seems',  - means what you're saying is merely your perception and not evidence.

The Rwanda debacle is parliament and the legal system butting heads. Parliament, as it should, gave way to due process which is why it's taking so long and costs the legal aid system so much.

Prevent future repeats? like that's even going to happen. How times have we heard " it must never happen again"... didn't we fight a war to end all wars?

The Peter Apps quote is quite frankly meaningless.

 

5 hours ago, DJ360 said:

No. We have an admission by the Post Office that hundreds of people were wrongfully prosecuted and convicted, up to 20 years ago

 

Did they? is that what they said?

You think the Tories should have been aware of the fraudulent work and disregard if the rules at Grenfell, so by the same metric it puts Labour firmly in the frame for failing to see the Post Office fiasco.

Both ideas are clearly nonsense.

It may seem insensitive to say it but Grenfell and the Post Office must run their course and resist knee jerk reactions.

 

 

5 hours ago, DJ360 said:

The NeoCon comment is not a jibe, it's a fact. PFI originates from NeoCon ideology.

 

And Labour having no idea of their own took it to heart and ran with it. Trying to reassociate it to the Tory side is merely  obfuscation.

It's true PFI contracts can be terminated  with nothing more than political will, but...

PPP_terminations_policy_note.pdf (publishing.service.gov.uk)

It's not so easy, or cheap.

 

 

 

5 hours ago, DJ360 said:

We all know Covid cost a fortune.  The real question is around how effectively that money was spent, and where huge chunks of it actually went. Govt borrowing was rising before Covid.

 Fact check. No it wasn't. Labour held borrowing reasonably steady until the '08 crash when it massively increased. The debt was then handed on the the Tories who kept it fairly stable and actually falling 2018/19 - until Covid.

The level of borrowing was pretty much forced on to both governments. Asking where the money went is another attempt to disparage the Tories and divert from the subject without recognising or acknowledging the the root cause.

 

5 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Yep, and that 'other matter' consisted of destroying British manufacturing

I was merely pointing out you were wrong to claim she did not reduce inflation.

Simply because  we feel she was the devil incarnate does not mean we should not be accurate

 

 

[Brew 5,404]

5 hours ago, DJ360 said:

It is debateable whether Labour live up to the label they are constantly saddled with by the UK print media. 

From the Guardian.

"The frightening thing is not that Tories are paraded as more fiscally competent. It’s that even Labour believes it"

 

Starmer says cancel 28 billion green plan, Raynor say it's still on but a bit modified. Left hand right hand?

 

 

5 hours ago, DJ360 said:

No. It's a reasonable electoral strategy. WHATEVER labour propose in terms of specifics, will attract the same bile and it's clear from recent election results that Labour don't need to expose themselves to that.

OTOH, the Tories came in promising to:

-Halt illegal immigration.  Fail.

-Get Brexit dun. Fail

-Implement Brixit 'benefits' Fail

-Fix Adult Social Care. Fail, etc.,. etc..

After 14 years, trying to blame everything on Covid is frankly pathetic.

 

Actually Lets is right, if they had a credible plan they'd shout if from the rooftops. To say they are afraid of what those nasty journalists will say is ridiculous and I for one don't want a government that keeps secrets until after they're in power.

 

Halt illegal immigration.  Fail. but with the help of Labour who want to keep twisting the thorn in Sunaks side

Get Brexit dun. Fail

Implement Brixit 'benefits' Fail

did both... just not in a way anyone wanted.

Fix Adult Social Care. Fail,

It was Labour who abolished the poor laws and made local authorities responsible for social care, and it was Labour who introduced care in the community due to the rising costs.

 

The poor laws provided for each parish to levy for support of the sick and the lame. The howls now about poor social care would be drowned out by the howls of protest should they be reintroduced. The social care problem is not new.

In a country with an aging population this will be a never ending saga regardless of government, but granted the Tories could do better.

 

 

5 hours ago, DJ360 said:

don't buy ANY newspaper. Only the Guardian has anything approaching a neutral stance based on facts and internationally acknowledged as such. It's not owned by big business, or foreigners.  A look at the headlines on display in the local newsagent is enough to put me off.  I don't doubt that there is criticism of govt. within the pages of most/all newspapers, but that is not the overt stance suggested by their headlines, or adopted by broadcast media.

Your comment about the Socialist Worker, or the Morning Star, or whatever you meant..is unnecessary and borderline Ad Hom. You know full well that I have repeatedly defined my politics as Democratic and Centre Left.

 

Lets be real the Guardian is about as neutral as Johnson and for any left leaning reader it's more like a mutual admiration society.

Garnering sufficient information from headlines on different publications to make an informed opinion is quite a trick Col but I'm afraid vague impressions don't usually tell the whole story.

Unless you're referring to Fox News or GB News I can't see any overt bias in the BBC or mainstream TV news, indeed Ofcom are quite keen on keeping it that way.

 

"You know full well that I have repeatedly defined my politics as Democratic and Centre Left."

 

It's a brave man that can analyse himself, if only we could ourselves as other see us...

[letsavagoo 960]

23 hours ago, DJ360 said:

I don't buy ANY newspaper. Only the Guardian has anything approaching a neutral stance based on facts and internationally acknowledged as such.

I don’t read the Guardian but a little internet research indicates it has a centre left stance so would suit you. It would not appear to have the internationally acknowledged neutral stance you claim.