Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"........... you don’t like those that are making the rules it doesn’t make you immune and give a pass to be a hypocrite, but here we are, the country is full of them " We followed the rules. Those that are in power should behave to at least the same standard that they expect the rest of the population too. We lost both our Dads seven days apart during Covid. We had one funeral on the Tuesday and the other on a Thursday. We could only have 15 mourners at each service. We stuck by the rules only to find out about Partygate later on. Not giving either of our Dads a decent send off still hurts knowing what the Tories did behind closed doors. So forgive me if I think they are cunts for doing that to us but also families up and down the country. Mrs x (closed, thread got too big) I hear what you say and please accept my condolences for the loss of your fathers. But if there had been no partygate, and all rules followed by the lawmakers, you still wouldn't have been able to have more than 15 mourners. These people were testing every day, and working hard together to see us through and out of the pandemic asap, what additional risk were they to you and yours? Labour would have been no better, arguably worse. When the full horrors of the pandemic had been playing out for 14 months, arguably Starmer should have been even more careful, not swigging beer down, quaffing curry and 'not noticing' Angela Rayner. I lost 2 relatives. I hated they couldn't have proper send off. But no way do I blame Boris or the Tories, or cake or 'Corbyn at his table of 6+' for any of this. And believe me, if I could find a way to, I would! " Struggling to imagine Reeves rolling out a furlough scheme to pay 10 million peoples wages. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"........... you don’t like those that are making the rules it doesn’t make you immune and give a pass to be a hypocrite, but here we are, the country is full of them " We followed the rules. Those that are in power should behave to at least the same standard that they expect the rest of the population too. We lost both our Dads seven days apart during Covid. We had one funeral on the Tuesday and the other on a Thursday. We could only have 15 mourners at each service. We stuck by the rules only to find out about Partygate later on. Not giving either of our Dads a decent send off still hurts knowing what the Tories did behind closed doors. So forgive me if I think they are cunts for doing that to us but also families up and down the country. Mrs x (closed, thread got too big) I hear what you say and please accept my condolences for the loss of your fathers. But if there had been no partygate, and all rules followed by the lawmakers, you still wouldn't have been able to have more than 15 mourners. These people were testing every day, and working hard together to see us through and out of the pandemic asap, what additional risk were they to you and yours? Labour would have been no better, arguably worse. When the full horrors of the pandemic had been playing out for 14 months, arguably Starmer should have been even more careful, not swigging beer down, quaffing curry and 'not noticing' Angela Rayner. I lost 2 relatives. I hated they couldn't have proper send off. But no way do I blame Boris or the Tories, or cake or 'Corbyn at his table of 6+' for any of this. And believe me, if I could find a way to, I would! Struggling to imagine Reeves rolling out a furlough scheme to pay 10 million peoples wages. " This is why I trust Rishi Sunak. He has a track record of saving jobs and livelihoods and protecting the economy and families. He should be knighted for his courage and diligence throughout covid. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""These people were testing every day, and working hard together to see us through and out of the pandemic asap, what additional risk were they to you and yours?' We both worked through the whole of the pandemic and we were tested every day, I dont understand what the relevance is regarding that. It just gives the wrong image. If they can't follow their own rules why should I? This is what people thought once they found out. Bunch of lying cunts. People dying on their own, petrified, gasping for breath and that lot drinking beers, kissing secretaries and ficking off around the country to test out specs, and you try and justify their behaviour by asking me what additional risk were they to me? It seems to be a topic that we don't agree on but even that's a bit low. Additional risk may be counted in regards to mental health and the problems caused by isolation, even though according to the Tories leadership there was no need to. Mrs x" A lot of it though is press prattle and media mischief. They make out it was a constant party, like a 1983 edition of Top of the Pops featuring Agadoo. Boris was ambushed by cake and there were leaving parties which is customary. There were also people working 18 hours a day to get us out of the hell that is a pandemic. That's the nature of it. I still say I am sorry for your losses (I note, despite your comments about me being 'a bit low', you can't bring yourself to reciprocate re my losses, which is also a bit low if I may say so) but the nightmare scenarios you correctly paint, would still have happened if every last Government official had obeyed every last rule. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There was NO justification for their behaviour during Partygate. Disgusting. All started with Cummings and Johnson standing by him. " The Brexit stalemate of 2019 could not carry on, you’d have had that completely stuck Parliament, staggering into dealing with Covid, tens of thousands more people would have got killed in the pandemic, possibly commie Corbyn as Prime Minister and some kind of second referendum. Thank goodness Cummings and Johnson got together. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There was NO justification for their behaviour during Partygate. Disgusting. All started with Cummings and Johnson standing by him. " . The government did exactly what people expected of them during Covid ,saving many lives and people from Financial ruin. Even the term partygate is ridiculous. Having a drink in an office for ten minutes is hsrdly a party . Those who chose to criticise the government during this period probably had nothing else to do with their lives. A bit thank you to the cabinet for working so hard during the crisis . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"" I still say I am sorry for your losses (I note, despite your comments about me being 'a bit low', you can't bring yourself to reciprocate re my losses, which is also a bit low if I may say so) but the nightmare scenarios you correctly paint, would still have happened if every last Government official had obeyed every last rule. " The government you’re referring to led a protracted campaign with a view to adopting a social isolation strategy for literally every single person in the entire country, with comprehensive guidelines for where exceptions would be made. People were expected to accept the impact of that strategy for the sake of the greater good, causing lasting trauma for millions of people and decimating livelihoods for millions more. Entire industries collapsed. It changed the world. They were then caught breaking those rules themselves for the most frivolous and salacious reasons. Shameful, insulting and inexcusable. Don’t rationalise their behaviour, you are a meaningless peasant to them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"" Strangely those who are so keen to criticise the government are not so keen to apply the same stance to all the NHS workers who ignored social isolation rules during the clap for NHS sessions at 8 pm on Thursdays. " Irrelevant, almost a straw man argument. The NHS workers weren’t making the rules. For the record, I agree; they shouldn’t have done so either. Nobody should have broken the rules. Millions of people did, I repeatedly broke numerous social isolation rules throughout the whole period. However, I wasn’t blustering at a pulpit each day sanctimoniously preaching of their necessity, nor responsible for making them and neither were the NHS workers you speak of. I’m not trying to make the point that their hypocrisy cost lives, of course it didn’t. However, I do feel that the disdain they showed for the general public eclipsed any likelihood of them being seen as heroes and to argue otherwise is to cast the same disdain on those that lost relatives and livelihoods by virtue of those rules being imposed. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The revisionism is strong in this thread "The boot-licking is stronger  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Actually one more thing…politicians by definition are meant to adopt the standards they advocate, at least publicly. In the case of social isolation, the public were expected to take it on faith; it was never more than a hypothetical countermeasure. What harm do you think it did to that faith (and therefore compliance) to see their own leaders disregarding it?" Yes and no. We were in an unprecedented pandemic with uncertain outcomes. I see no problem with locking-down the general population but allowing some the freedom to keep government functioning. With hindsight, they should have stated that at the outset, and (most) people would have accepted it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Actually one more thing…politicians by definition are meant to adopt the standards they advocate, at least publicly. In the case of social isolation, the public were expected to take it on faith; it was never more than a hypothetical countermeasure. What harm do you think it did to that faith (and therefore compliance) to see their own leaders disregarding it? Yes and no. We were in an unprecedented pandemic with uncertain outcomes. I see no problem with locking-down the general population but allowing some the freedom to keep government functioning. With hindsight, they should have stated that at the outset, and (most) people would have accepted it." Absolutely; I mentioned earlier that the social isolation strategy was comprehensive enough to account for necessities like that, the benefits had to outweigh the consequences. I don’t think there were any provisions allowing for Matt Hancock to tongue his secretary in a corridor though, nor any of the other indulges they were caught doing. Personally, I thought even less of them for getting caught. The Matt Hancock thing I almost respected him for; with one simple lapse in judgment, he utterly vaporised his integrity, credibility and character. It was a masterful display of self-sabotage; if only he could have been so effective elsewhere. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The revisionism is strong in this thread
The boot-licking is stronger "Footballisation of politics. Some posters will defend their team no matter what and brook no criticism, even when it is true! There are no excuses for the behaviours during the pandemic. It is simply disgraceful to set rules for the plebs and ignore them yourselves. Disgraceful. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Actually one more thing…politicians by definition are meant to adopt the standards they advocate, at least publicly. In the case of social isolation, the public were expected to take it on faith; it was never more than a hypothetical countermeasure. What harm do you think it did to that faith (and therefore compliance) to see their own leaders disregarding it? Yes and no. We were in an unprecedented pandemic with uncertain outcomes. I see no problem with locking-down the general population but allowing some the freedom to keep government functioning. With hindsight, they should have stated that at the outset, and (most) people would have accepted it." Agree but very boozy parties were not necessary for the continued functioning of govt. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The revisionism is strong in this thread
The boot-licking is stronger
Footballisation of politics. Some posters will defend their team no matter what "“The best sl@ve is the one convinced he is free” | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The revisionism is strong in this thread
The boot-licking is stronger
Footballisation of politics. Some posters will defend their team no matter what
“The best sl@ve is the one convinced he is free”"True true but also interesting to note how two of the regular defenders have either a hidden profile or form for operating multiple profiles. Indicates a lack of backbone to publicly stand for what they believe. While I may disagree with some posters in here, I respect their opinions and accept that we all feel differently about various things. I have little respect for “fake” profiles spouting revisionist nonsense and defending the indefensible. By all means stand up and believe in policies that you think will be better for the UK and/or yourself, but defending past behaviour that has been clearly exposed is simply puerile, propagandist and bordering on religious zealotry! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Actually one more thing…politicians by definition are meant to adopt the standards they advocate, at least publicly. In the case of social isolation, the public were expected to take it on faith; it was never more than a hypothetical countermeasure. What harm do you think it did to that faith (and therefore compliance) to see their own leaders disregarding it? Yes and no. We were in an unprecedented pandemic with uncertain outcomes. I see no problem with locking-down the general population but allowing some the freedom to keep government functioning. With hindsight, they should have stated that at the outset, and (most) people would have accepted it. Agree but very boozy parties were not necessary for the continued functioning of govt." If we held each other to the standards we hold politicians too, maybe we would have a more coherent society | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have little respect for “fake” profiles spouting revisionist nonsense and defending the indefensible. By all means stand up and believe in policies that you think will be better for the UK and/or yourself, but defending past behaviour that has been clearly exposed is simply puerile, propagandist and bordering on religious zealotry! " Maybe, TBH I’m not really interested in the voice as much as I am the words. I don’t like to descend into ad hominem attacks, when people do that to me I know that means I’m playing chess with pigeons. Doesn’t invalidate your point of course. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Actually one more thing…politicians by definition are meant to adopt the standards they advocate, at least publicly. In the case of social isolation, the public were expected to take it on faith; it was never more than a hypothetical countermeasure. What harm do you think it did to that faith (and therefore compliance) to see their own leaders disregarding it? Yes and no. We were in an unprecedented pandemic with uncertain outcomes. I see no problem with locking-down the general population but allowing some the freedom to keep government functioning. With hindsight, they should have stated that at the outset, and (most) people would have accepted it. Agree but very boozy parties were not necessary for the continued functioning of govt." Sure, that was poor judgement that came from the top (Boris). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Actually one more thing…politicians by definition are meant to adopt the standards they advocate, at least publicly. In the case of social isolation, the public were expected to take it on faith; it was never more than a hypothetical countermeasure. What harm do you think it did to that faith (and therefore compliance) to see their own leaders disregarding it? Yes and no. We were in an unprecedented pandemic with uncertain outcomes. I see no problem with locking-down the general population but allowing some the freedom to keep government functioning. With hindsight, they should have stated that at the outset, and (most) people would have accepted it. Agree but very boozy parties were not necessary for the continued functioning of govt. If we held each other to the standards we hold politicians too, maybe we would have a more coherent society" Agree. The principle of probity in public life seems to have gone out the window. That's partly why the general public have such low regard for politicians. It's a pity, because like them or loathe them, they shape our lives. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Actually one more thing…politicians by definition are meant to adopt the standards they advocate, at least publicly. In the case of social isolation, the public were expected to take it on faith; it was never more than a hypothetical countermeasure. What harm do you think it did to that faith (and therefore compliance) to see their own leaders disregarding it? Yes and no. We were in an unprecedented pandemic with uncertain outcomes. I see no problem with locking-down the general population but allowing some the freedom to keep government functioning. With hindsight, they should have stated that at the outset, and (most) people would have accepted it. Agree but very boozy parties were not necessary for the continued functioning of govt. If we held each other to the standards we hold politicians too, maybe we would have a more coherent society Agree. The principle of probity in public life seems to have gone out the window. That's partly why the general public have such low regard for politicians. It's a pity, because like them or loathe them, they shape our lives." Exactly, and we all shape the world around us. I look at our MP’s and Ministers and I see an amplified version of people I see daily, we have the government our society deserves. There is also a lack of understanding towards being human, and who actually advises on policies the government enact. It became obvious the science was locking us down, the government became the PR machine, it also blew a hole in the slender fabric of our infrastructure and services, exposing the chaos and mismanagement of the NHS, which was the reason we went into lockdown in the first place, to not overwhelm. Like Brexit, there are many moving parts and many influences but it seems ridiculously hard for people to join the dots and rationalise, so let’s scream obscenities at the government letting the mismanagement and chaos to continue unabated in the background | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Exactly, and we all shape the world around us. I look at our MP’s and Ministers and I see an amplified version of people I see daily, we have the government our society deserves. There is also a lack of understanding towards being human, and who actually advises on policies the government enact. It became obvious the science was locking us down, the government became the PR machine, it also blew a hole in the slender fabric of our infrastructure and services, exposing the chaos and mismanagement of the NHS, which was the reason we went into lockdown in the first place, to not overwhelm. Like Brexit, there are many moving parts and many influences but it seems ridiculously hard for people to join the dots and rationalise, so let’s scream obscenities at the government letting the mismanagement and chaos to continue unabated in the background " It’s a conundrum. To be fair though, the government is the public face and therefore the ambassador of the chatter and and bureaucracy that shapes their policy. They’re charged with resolving these issues, regardless of how dim the options are. Who else can the general public complain to? If those with the power and influence can’t fix things, those without haven’t a prayer. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Actually one more thing…politicians by definition are meant to adopt the standards they advocate, at least publicly. In the case of social isolation, the public were expected to take it on faith; it was never more than a hypothetical countermeasure. What harm do you think it did to that faith (and therefore compliance) to see their own leaders disregarding it? Yes and no. We were in an unprecedented pandemic with uncertain outcomes. I see no problem with locking-down the general population but allowing some the freedom to keep government functioning. With hindsight, they should have stated that at the outset, and (most) people would have accepted it. Agree but very boozy parties were not necessary for the continued functioning of govt. If we held each other to the standards we hold politicians too, maybe we would have a more coherent society" A nice sentiment but we have already exchanged views on this. I hold those responsible for designing and implementing legislation, laws, rules to a higher standard than the man in the street. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Actually one more thing…politicians by definition are meant to adopt the standards they advocate, at least publicly. In the case of social isolation, the public were expected to take it on faith; it was never more than a hypothetical countermeasure. What harm do you think it did to that faith (and therefore compliance) to see their own leaders disregarding it? Yes and no. We were in an unprecedented pandemic with uncertain outcomes. I see no problem with locking-down the general population but allowing some the freedom to keep government functioning. With hindsight, they should have stated that at the outset, and (most) people would have accepted it. Agree but very boozy parties were not necessary for the continued functioning of govt. If we held each other to the standards we hold politicians too, maybe we would have a more coherent society A nice sentiment but we have already exchanged views on this. I hold those responsible for designing and implementing legislation, laws, rules to a higher standard than the man in the street." I hold them to the same standard. But I would want them to implement laws that they are well written and that they feel are appropriate. This called into question their compentency as much as their character. How they responded shows their character. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Strange how those who are so keen to use services provided by the government are ready to criticise them. A lot of people recognise how hard the government work and how many were saved from financial disaster during Covid . Numerous lives were saved . Standards hardly enter the equation unless you are a fully paid up member of the pious and self righteous brigade. Results matter and that is what the government achieved . Interestingly the pious and self righteous were not bothered about Angrla Raynor and Kier Starmer having a drink during lockdown or the thousands who went to the beach in Brighton . The government prevented many deaths and gave enormous financial support. We should all the very greatfull. " raynor and starmer were within the rules.
Raynor and starmer and the Brighton masses didn't write the laws
The government doesn't have money. Future us gave money to present us.
Spending money doesn't put one above reproach. Not even ten church has indulgences any more. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Strange how those who are so keen to use services provided by the government are ready to criticise them. A lot of people recognise how hard the government work and how many were saved from financial disaster during Covid . Numerous lives were saved . Standards hardly enter the equation unless you are a fully paid up member of the pious and self righteous brigade. Results matter and that is what the government achieved . Interestingly the pious and self righteous were not bothered about Angrla Raynor and Kier Starmer having a drink during lockdown or the thousands who went to the beach in Brighton . The government prevented many deaths and gave enormous financial support. We should all the very greatfull. " They aren’t mutually exclusive and forgive me but the way you speak is just starting to sound like “whataboutism”. Politicians are literally paid extremely well, and are given enormous power and influence to do the things you describe. They operate on a much higher level of access and authority than you and I by virtue of their position, but they are not beyond scrutiny or accountability. When they behave in such ways, they make themselves dictators rather than elected representatives. Of course results matter, I haven’t said otherwise. A more effective solutions may have been to just exterminate anyone with COVID symptoms. The ends don’t always justify the means, that’s a fairly basic concept. Erecting a straw man and attacking him instead. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Strange how those who are so keen to use services provided by the government are ready to criticise them. A lot of people recognise how hard the government work and how many were saved from financial disaster during Covid . Numerous lives were saved . Standards hardly enter the equation unless you are a fully paid up member of the pious and self righteous brigade. Results matter and that is what the government achieved . Interestingly the pious and self righteous were not bothered about Angrla Raynor and Kier Starmer having a drink during lockdown or the thousands who went to the beach in Brighton . The government prevented many deaths and gave enormous financial support. We should all the very greatfull. " So far down the rabbit hole you can’t lift you head back out Pat! I think you’ll find people were outraged and critical but proportional in their criticisms. It has been very clearly established that these were not actually comparable. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"........... you don’t like those that are making the rules it doesn’t make you immune and give a pass to be a hypocrite, but here we are, the country is full of them " We followed the rules. Those that are in power should behave to at least the same standard that they expect the rest of the population too. We lost both our Dads seven days apart during Covid. We had one funeral on the Tuesday and the other on a Thursday. We could only have 15 mourners at each service. We stuck by the rules only to find out about Partygate later on. Not giving either of our Dads a decent send off still hurts knowing what the Tories did behind closed doors. So forgive me if I think they are cunts for doing that to us but also families up and down the country. Mrs x (closed, thread got too big) I hear what you say and please accept my condolences for the loss of your fathers. But if there had been no partygate, and all rules followed by the lawmakers, you still wouldn't have been able to have more than 15 mourners. These people were testing every day, and working hard together to see us through and out of the pandemic asap, what additional risk were they to you and yours? Labour would have been no better, arguably worse. When the full horrors of the pandemic had been playing out for 14 months, arguably Starmer should have been even more careful, not swigging beer down, quaffing curry and 'not noticing' Angela Rayner. I lost 2 relatives. I hated they couldn't have proper send off. But no way do I blame Boris or the Tories, or cake or 'Corbyn at his table of 6+' for any of this. And believe me, if I could find a way to, I would! Struggling to imagine Reeves rolling out a furlough scheme to pay 10 million peoples wages. " Why? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"" I still say I am sorry for your losses (I note, despite your comments about me being 'a bit low', you can't bring yourself to reciprocate re my losses, which is also a bit low if I may say so) but the nightmare scenarios you correctly paint, would still have happened if every last Government official had obeyed every last rule. The government you’re referring to led a protracted campaign with a view to adopting a social isolation strategy for literally every single person in the entire country, with comprehensive guidelines for where exceptions would be made. People were expected to accept the impact of that strategy for the sake of the greater good, causing lasting trauma for millions of people and decimating livelihoods for millions more. Entire industries collapsed. It changed the world. They were then caught breaking those rules themselves for the most frivolous and salacious reasons. Shameful, insulting and inexcusable. Don’t rationalise their behaviour, you are a meaningless peasant to them. . A few cabinet minsters supposed to have broken do called lockdown rules is hardly going to make any difference to to the crisis . Strangely those who are so keen to criticise the government are not so keen to apply the same stance to all the NHS workers who ignored social isolation rules during the clap for NHS sessions at 8 pm on Thursdays. " NHS workers were at work, exposed to COVID on a constant basis because they were treating people with it. They spent their entire time in close contact with each other and seriously ill COVID patients. They risked their lives to ensure others lived. “The death of human empathy is one of the earliest and most telling signs of a culture about to fall into barbarism,” - Hannah Arendt. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Strange how those who are so keen to use services provided by the government are ready to criticise them. " Is this you telling us that if Labour forms the next government you not only won’t criticise them, you will rebuke anyone else who does? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Strange how those who are so keen to use services provided by the government are ready to criticise them. A lot of people recognise how hard the government work and how many were saved from financial disaster during Covid . Numerous lives were saved . Standards hardly enter the equation unless you are a fully paid up member of the pious and self righteous brigade. Results matter and that is what the government achieved . Interestingly the pious and self righteous were not bothered about Angrla Raynor and Kier Starmer having a drink during lockdown or the thousands who went to the beach in Brighton . The government prevented many deaths and gave enormous financial support. We should all the very greatfull. " On today of all days you refer to only those of the pious and self righteous brigade and having and upholding standards.. Even for you a new level of bizarre nonsense.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Strange how those who are so keen to use services provided by the government are ready to criticise them. A lot of people recognise how hard the government work and how many were saved from financial disaster during Covid . Numerous lives were saved . Standards hardly enter the equation unless you are a fully paid up member of the pious and self righteous brigade. Results matter and that is what the government achieved . Interestingly the pious and self righteous were not bothered about Angrla Raynor and Kier Starmer having a drink during lockdown or the thousands who went to the beach in Brighton . The government prevented many deaths and gave enormous financial support. We should all the very greatfull. On today of all days you refer to only those of the pious and self righteous brigade and having and upholding standards.. Even for you a new level of bizarre nonsense.. ". Everyone is entitled to any opinion. What is bizarre nonsense to one person is entirely rational to others. There will always be fully paid up members of the pious and self righteous brigade who love criticising others. Usually best to form an opinion on what society as a whole think. In any even there is plenty of information available for anyone to sense check their opinions against that of others. Just as well lots of people agree with what you describe as bizarre nonsense | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don’t think we are all operating on the same plane of logic here but nonetheless, I am engaged with what’s gonna come next "You said “logic” you kidder you | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Strange how those who are so keen to use services provided by the government are ready to criticise them. A lot of people recognise how hard the government work and how many were saved from financial disaster during Covid . Numerous lives were saved . Standards hardly enter the equation unless you are a fully paid up member of the pious and self righteous brigade. Results matter and that is what the government achieved . Interestingly the pious and self righteous were not bothered about Angrla Raynor and Kier Starmer having a drink during lockdown or the thousands who went to the beach in Brighton . The government prevented many deaths and gave enormous financial support. We should all the very greatfull. On today of all days you refer to only those of the pious and self righteous brigade and having and upholding standards.. Even for you a new level of bizarre nonsense.. . Everyone is entitled to any opinion. What is bizarre nonsense to one person is entirely rational to others. There will always be fully paid up members of the pious and self righteous brigade who love criticising others. Usually best to form an opinion on what society as a whole think. In any even there is plenty of information available for anyone to sense check their opinions against that of others. Just as well lots of people agree with what you describe as bizarre nonsense "Finally you say something I agree with. Multiple opinion polls with the general public were very very clear that the vast majority of people were very angry and critical of the behaviour at partygate and Cummings etc. I am sure they are all rationale, formed their opinions on available knowledge and would think trying to defend the behaviour would be seen as bizarre! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Strange how those who are so keen to use services provided by the government are ready to criticise them. A lot of people recognise how hard the government work and how many were saved from financial disaster during Covid . Numerous lives were saved . Standards hardly enter the equation unless you are a fully paid up member of the pious and self righteous brigade. Results matter and that is what the government achieved . Interestingly the pious and self righteous were not bothered about Angrla Raynor and Kier Starmer having a drink during lockdown or the thousands who went to the beach in Brighton . The government prevented many deaths and gave enormous financial support. We should all the very greatfull. On today of all days you refer to only those of the pious and self righteous brigade and having and upholding standards.. Even for you a new level of bizarre nonsense.. . Everyone is entitled to any opinion. What is bizarre nonsense to one person is entirely rational to others. There will always be fully paid up members of the pious and self righteous brigade who love criticising others. Usually best to form an opinion on what society as a whole think. In any even there is plenty of information available for anyone to sense check their opinions against that of others. Just as well lots of people agree with what you describe as bizarre nonsense
Finally you say something I agree with. Multiple opinion polls with the general public were very very clear that the vast majority of people were very angry and critical of the behaviour at partygate and Cummings etc. I am sure they are all rationale, formed their opinions on available knowledge and would think trying to defend the behaviour would be seen as bizarre!". What do you define as the vast majority and who conducted the opinion polls ? I would have thought that most people did not really care. They wanted lives to be saved . My opinions are not unique . Not everyone is obsessed with partygate. Strange how when it comes to election results they differ from public opinion. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Strange how those who are so keen to use services provided by the government are ready to criticise them. A lot of people recognise how hard the government work and how many were saved from financial disaster during Covid . Numerous lives were saved . Standards hardly enter the equation unless you are a fully paid up member of the pious and self righteous brigade. Results matter and that is what the government achieved . Interestingly the pious and self righteous were not bothered about Angrla Raynor and Kier Starmer having a drink during lockdown or the thousands who went to the beach in Brighton . The government prevented many deaths and gave enormous financial support. We should all the very greatfull. On today of all days you refer to only those of the pious and self righteous brigade and having and upholding standards.. Even for you a new level of bizarre nonsense.. . Everyone is entitled to any opinion. What is bizarre nonsense to one person is entirely rational to others. There will always be fully paid up members of the pious and self righteous brigade who love criticising others. Usually best to form an opinion on what society as a whole think. In any even there is plenty of information available for anyone to sense check their opinions against that of others. Just as well lots of people agree with what you describe as bizarre nonsense "What in your opinion do you think was the general feeling within society when they saw the Queen sat alone at her husband's funeral, following the rules as did many others in similar tragic circumstances and the behaviours of those such as Boris that you defend ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Strange how those who are so keen to use services provided by the government are ready to criticise them. A lot of people recognise how hard the government work and how many were saved from financial disaster during Covid . Numerous lives were saved . Standards hardly enter the equation unless you are a fully paid up member of the pious and self righteous brigade. Results matter and that is what the government achieved . Interestingly the pious and self righteous were not bothered about Angrla Raynor and Kier Starmer having a drink during lockdown or the thousands who went to the beach in Brighton . The government prevented many deaths and gave enormous financial support. We should all the very greatfull. On today of all days you refer to only those of the pious and self righteous brigade and having and upholding standards.. Even for you a new level of bizarre nonsense.. . Everyone is entitled to any opinion. What is bizarre nonsense to one person is entirely rational to others. There will always be fully paid up members of the pious and self righteous brigade who love criticising others. Usually best to form an opinion on what society as a whole think. In any even there is plenty of information available for anyone to sense check their opinions against that of others. Just as well lots of people agree with what you describe as bizarre nonsense
Finally you say something I agree with. Multiple opinion polls with the general public were very very clear that the vast majority of people were very angry and critical of the behaviour at partygate and Cummings etc. I am sure they are all rationale, formed their opinions on available knowledge and would think trying to defend the behaviour would be seen as bizarre!. What do you define as the vast majority and who conducted the opinion polls ? I would have thought that most people did not really care. They wanted lives to be saved . My opinions are not unique . Not everyone is obsessed with partygate. Strange how when it comes to election results they differ from public opinion. "Hmmm your argument undermines your own argument Pat. That’s the problem when you head down the rabbit hole. You say: " I would have thought that most people did not really care " Based on what? Which polls support your claim. Or is this your opinion again? Totally meaningless supposition. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Everyone is entitled to any opinion. What is bizarre nonsense to one person is entirely rational to others. There will always be fully paid up members of the pious and self righteous brigade who love criticising others. Usually best to form an opinion on what society as a whole think. In any even there is plenty of information available for anyone to sense check their opinions against that of others. Just as well lots of people agree with what you describe as bizarre nonsense " Hmmmm….who are these paid up member of the pious and self righteous brigade? I’ve not come across that phrase before and you’ve said it a few times. Who’s paying them? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Actually one more thing…politicians by definition are meant to adopt the standards they advocate, at least publicly. In the case of social isolation, the public were expected to take it on faith; it was never more than a hypothetical countermeasure. What harm do you think it did to that faith (and therefore compliance) to see their own leaders disregarding it? Yes and no. We were in an unprecedented pandemic with uncertain outcomes. I see no problem with locking-down the general population but allowing some the freedom to keep government functioning. With hindsight, they should have stated that at the outset, and (most) people would have accepted it. Agree but very boozy parties were not necessary for the continued functioning of govt. If we held each other to the standards we hold politicians too, maybe we would have a more coherent society A nice sentiment but we have already exchanged views on this. I hold those responsible for designing and implementing legislation, laws, rules to a higher standard than the man in the street." And I agree, which is the part you keep missing. But the public get what they deserve and have what they deserve. Berxit was voted for by the public and the government was put in power with a huge majority to get it done. It didn’t matter that the people in power were self serving which was on full view, before, during and after the result, but the people wanted it. We then gasp in disbelief that they are self serving and have the audacity to be that way, they were given a free pass to get on with it by the people. The NHS mismanaged and failing, lockdowns to protect it, some very courageous people working but let’s be clear, the majority of the NHS paused and closed, some areas still catching up now. What’s the answer to failing healthcare services, throw more money at it, that is what the people want and what the government will keep on doing. It needs political leaders to be bold and tell the public it is failing, and unlikely to recover to a place that will serve the needs of the country. But that will upset the people, so it is being dragged on, costing billions upon billions with no chance of recovery. The government is a reflection of the people’s wants and needs. We get what we deserve | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Actually one more thing…politicians by definition are meant to adopt the standards they advocate, at least publicly. In the case of social isolation, the public were expected to take it on faith; it was never more than a hypothetical countermeasure. What harm do you think it did to that faith (and therefore compliance) to see their own leaders disregarding it? Yes and no. We were in an unprecedented pandemic with uncertain outcomes. I see no problem with locking-down the general population but allowing some the freedom to keep government functioning. With hindsight, they should have stated that at the outset, and (most) people would have accepted it. Agree but very boozy parties were not necessary for the continued functioning of govt. If we held each other to the standards we hold politicians too, maybe we would have a more coherent society A nice sentiment but we have already exchanged views on this. I hold those responsible for designing and implementing legislation, laws, rules to a higher standard than the man in the street. And I agree, which is the part you keep missing. But the public get what they deserve and have what they deserve. Berxit was voted for by the public and the government was put in power with a huge majority to get it done. It didn’t matter that the people in power were self serving which was on full view, before, during and after the result, but the people wanted it. We then gasp in disbelief that they are self serving and have the audacity to be that way, they were given a free pass to get on with it by the people. The NHS mismanaged and failing, lockdowns to protect it, some very courageous people working but let’s be clear, the majority of the NHS paused and closed, some areas still catching up now. What’s the answer to failing healthcare services, throw more money at it, that is what the people want and what the government will keep on doing. It needs political leaders to be bold and tell the public it is failing, and unlikely to recover to a place that will serve the needs of the country. But that will upset the people, so it is being dragged on, costing billions upon billions with no chance of recovery. The government is a reflection of the people’s wants and needs. We get what we deserve " Then the interesting question is why is the above the people's wants and needs? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Actually one more thing…politicians by definition are meant to adopt the standards they advocate, at least publicly. In the case of social isolation, the public were expected to take it on faith; it was never more than a hypothetical countermeasure. What harm do you think it did to that faith (and therefore compliance) to see their own leaders disregarding it? Yes and no. We were in an unprecedented pandemic with uncertain outcomes. I see no problem with locking-down the general population but allowing some the freedom to keep government functioning. With hindsight, they should have stated that at the outset, and (most) people would have accepted it. Agree but very boozy parties were not necessary for the continued functioning of govt. If we held each other to the standards we hold politicians too, maybe we would have a more coherent society A nice sentiment but we have already exchanged views on this. I hold those responsible for designing and implementing legislation, laws, rules to a higher standard than the man in the street. And I agree, which is the part you keep missing. But the public get what they deserve and have what they deserve. Berxit was voted for by the public and the government was put in power with a huge majority to get it done. It didn’t matter that the people in power were self serving which was on full view, before, during and after the result, but the people wanted it. We then gasp in disbelief that they are self serving and have the audacity to be that way, they were given a free pass to get on with it by the people. The NHS mismanaged and failing, lockdowns to protect it, some very courageous people working but let’s be clear, the majority of the NHS paused and closed, some areas still catching up now. What’s the answer to failing healthcare services, throw more money at it, that is what the people want and what the government will keep on doing. It needs political leaders to be bold and tell the public it is failing, and unlikely to recover to a place that will serve the needs of the country. But that will upset the people, so it is being dragged on, costing billions upon billions with no chance of recovery. The government is a reflection of the people’s wants and needs. We get what we deserve " . We need to accept that health treatment costs money and all the costs have to be accounted for . Part privatisation works in other European counties , there is no reason why we should be an exception. In Ireland there is no such thing as a free NHS service, you have to make a part payment towards what you receive. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Actually one more thing…politicians by definition are meant to adopt the standards they advocate, at least publicly. In the case of social isolation, the public were expected to take it on faith; it was never more than a hypothetical countermeasure. What harm do you think it did to that faith (and therefore compliance) to see their own leaders disregarding it? Yes and no. We were in an unprecedented pandemic with uncertain outcomes. I see no problem with locking-down the general population but allowing some the freedom to keep government functioning. With hindsight, they should have stated that at the outset, and (most) people would have accepted it. Agree but very boozy parties were not necessary for the continued functioning of govt. If we held each other to the standards we hold politicians too, maybe we would have a more coherent society A nice sentiment but we have already exchanged views on this. I hold those responsible for designing and implementing legislation, laws, rules to a higher standard than the man in the street. And I agree, which is the part you keep missing. But the public get what they deserve and have what they deserve. Berxit was voted for by the public and the government was put in power with a huge majority to get it done. It didn’t matter that the people in power were self serving which was on full view, before, during and after the result, but the people wanted it. We then gasp in disbelief that they are self serving and have the audacity to be that way, they were given a free pass to get on with it by the people. The NHS mismanaged and failing, lockdowns to protect it, some very courageous people working but let’s be clear, the majority of the NHS paused and closed, some areas still catching up now. What’s the answer to failing healthcare services, throw more money at it, that is what the people want and what the government will keep on doing. It needs political leaders to be bold and tell the public it is failing, and unlikely to recover to a place that will serve the needs of the country. But that will upset the people, so it is being dragged on, costing billions upon billions with no chance of recovery. The government is a reflection of the people’s wants and needs. We get what we deserve Then the interesting question is why is the above the people's wants and needs?" The answer to that is multifaceted and very complex, far too reaching for me to even begin, but it is a great question. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Strange how those who are so keen to use services provided by the government are ready to criticise them. A lot of people recognise how hard the government work and how many were saved from financial disaster during Covid . Numerous lives were saved . Standards hardly enter the equation unless you are a fully paid up member of the pious and self righteous brigade. Results matter and that is what the government achieved . Interestingly the pious and self righteous were not bothered about Angrla Raynor and Kier Starmer having a drink during lockdown or the thousands who went to the beach in Brighton . The government prevented many deaths and gave enormous financial support. We should all the very greatfull. On today of all days you refer to only those of the pious and self righteous brigade and having and upholding standards.. Even for you a new level of bizarre nonsense.. . Everyone is entitled to any opinion. What is bizarre nonsense to one person is entirely rational to others. There will always be fully paid up members of the pious and self righteous brigade who love criticising others. Usually best to form an opinion on what society as a whole think. In any even there is plenty of information available for anyone to sense check their opinions against that of others. Just as well lots of people agree with what you describe as bizarre nonsense
Finally you say something I agree with. Multiple opinion polls with the general public were very very clear that the vast majority of people were very angry and critical of the behaviour at partygate and Cummings etc. I am sure they are all rationale, formed their opinions on available knowledge and would think trying to defend the behaviour would be seen as bizarre!. What do you define as the vast majority and who conducted the opinion polls ? I would have thought that most people did not really care. They wanted lives to be saved . My opinions are not unique . Not everyone is obsessed with partygate. Strange how when it comes to election results they differ from public opinion.
Hmmm your argument undermines your own argument Pat. That’s the problem when you head down the rabbit hole. You say:
I would have thought that most people did not really care
Based on what? Which polls support your claim. Or is this your opinion again? Totally meaningless supposition. ". Sometimes you have to ballpark figures and use common sense and judgement. As you asked the question and implied that you were correct what percentage of the population agree with your opinion . ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Actually one more thing…politicians by definition are meant to adopt the standards they advocate, at least publicly. In the case of social isolation, the public were expected to take it on faith; it was never more than a hypothetical countermeasure. What harm do you think it did to that faith (and therefore compliance) to see their own leaders disregarding it? Yes and no. We were in an unprecedented pandemic with uncertain outcomes. I see no problem with locking-down the general population but allowing some the freedom to keep government functioning. With hindsight, they should have stated that at the outset, and (most) people would have accepted it. Agree but very boozy parties were not necessary for the continued functioning of govt. If we held each other to the standards we hold politicians too, maybe we would have a more coherent society A nice sentiment but we have already exchanged views on this. I hold those responsible for designing and implementing legislation, laws, rules to a higher standard than the man in the street. And I agree, which is the part you keep missing. But the public get what they deserve and have what they deserve. Berxit was voted for by the public and the government was put in power with a huge majority to get it done. It didn’t matter that the people in power were self serving which was on full view, before, during and after the result, but the people wanted it. We then gasp in disbelief that they are self serving and have the audacity to be that way, they were given a free pass to get on with it by the people. The NHS mismanaged and failing, lockdowns to protect it, some very courageous people working but let’s be clear, the majority of the NHS paused and closed, some areas still catching up now. What’s the answer to failing healthcare services, throw more money at it, that is what the people want and what the government will keep on doing. It needs political leaders to be bold and tell the public it is failing, and unlikely to recover to a place that will serve the needs of the country. But that will upset the people, so it is being dragged on, costing billions upon billions with no chance of recovery. The government is a reflection of the people’s wants and needs. We get what we deserve . We need to accept that health treatment costs money and all the costs have to be accounted for . Part privatisation works in other European counties , there is no reason why we should be an exception. In Ireland there is no such thing as a free NHS service, you have to make a part payment towards what you receive. " What's wrong with full privatisation together with adhering to the principle of 'free at the point of need'? Then we might get a national health service fit for the 21st century. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Actually one more thing…politicians by definition are meant to adopt the standards they advocate, at least publicly. In the case of social isolation, the public were expected to take it on faith; it was never more than a hypothetical countermeasure. What harm do you think it did to that faith (and therefore compliance) to see their own leaders disregarding it? Yes and no. We were in an unprecedented pandemic with uncertain outcomes. I see no problem with locking-down the general population but allowing some the freedom to keep government functioning. With hindsight, they should have stated that at the outset, and (most) people would have accepted it. Agree but very boozy parties were not necessary for the continued functioning of govt. If we held each other to the standards we hold politicians too, maybe we would have a more coherent society A nice sentiment but we have already exchanged views on this. I hold those responsible for designing and implementing legislation, laws, rules to a higher standard than the man in the street. And I agree, which is the part you keep missing. But the public get what they deserve and have what they deserve. Berxit was voted for by the public and the government was put in power with a huge majority to get it done. It didn’t matter that the people in power were self serving which was on full view, before, during and after the result, but the people wanted it. We then gasp in disbelief that they are self serving and have the audacity to be that way, they were given a free pass to get on with it by the people. The NHS mismanaged and failing, lockdowns to protect it, some very courageous people working but let’s be clear, the majority of the NHS paused and closed, some areas still catching up now. What’s the answer to failing healthcare services, throw more money at it, that is what the people want and what the government will keep on doing. It needs political leaders to be bold and tell the public it is failing, and unlikely to recover to a place that will serve the needs of the country. But that will upset the people, so it is being dragged on, costing billions upon billions with no chance of recovery. The government is a reflection of the people’s wants and needs. We get what we deserve " I think the reason I may have missed you agreeing is because you keep referring to “we” as in: " We get what we deserve " I am not part of that “we” in my opinion. Apparently according to another poster that could indicate I am pious (although there is a huge irony calling someone that on a swinger website). That’s not to say I think I walk on water. I know my flaws. But I do not vote for or accept self serving MPs, at least not knowingly. Made me chuckle though as your post is borderline nihilist! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nobody in a civilised society should die because they couldn’t afford medical care, food or shelter. They do, and have done for centuries, but I’ll never support that sentiment, it is an abhorrent and vile way to view human life. " Nobody but you said that. There multiple options to healthcare, explore them and utilise the best ideas, or let it fail. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Actually one more thing…politicians by definition are meant to adopt the standards they advocate, at least publicly. In the case of social isolation, the public were expected to take it on faith; it was never more than a hypothetical countermeasure. What harm do you think it did to that faith (and therefore compliance) to see their own leaders disregarding it? Yes and no. We were in an unprecedented pandemic with uncertain outcomes. I see no problem with locking-down the general population but allowing some the freedom to keep government functioning. With hindsight, they should have stated that at the outset, and (most) people would have accepted it. Agree but very boozy parties were not necessary for the continued functioning of govt. If we held each other to the standards we hold politicians too, maybe we would have a more coherent society A nice sentiment but we have already exchanged views on this. I hold those responsible for designing and implementing legislation, laws, rules to a higher standard than the man in the street. And I agree, which is the part you keep missing. But the public get what they deserve and have what they deserve. Berxit was voted for by the public and the government was put in power with a huge majority to get it done. It didn’t matter that the people in power were self serving which was on full view, before, during and after the result, but the people wanted it. We then gasp in disbelief that they are self serving and have the audacity to be that way, they were given a free pass to get on with it by the people. The NHS mismanaged and failing, lockdowns to protect it, some very courageous people working but let’s be clear, the majority of the NHS paused and closed, some areas still catching up now. What’s the answer to failing healthcare services, throw more money at it, that is what the people want and what the government will keep on doing. It needs political leaders to be bold and tell the public it is failing, and unlikely to recover to a place that will serve the needs of the country. But that will upset the people, so it is being dragged on, costing billions upon billions with no chance of recovery. The government is a reflection of the people’s wants and needs. We get what we deserve I think the reason I may have missed you agreeing is because you keep referring to “we” as in: We get what we deserve I am not part of that “we” in my opinion. Apparently according to another poster that could indicate I am pious (although there is a huge irony calling someone that on a swinger website). That’s not to say I think I walk on water. I know my flaws. But I do not vote for or accept self serving MPs, at least not knowingly. Made me chuckle though as your post is borderline nihilist! " What nonsense…. If you can’t accept that the voting public are accountable for the people they put in power and that we as in the Nation, have a responsibility you will forever be calling MP’s cunts. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Strange how those who are so keen to use services provided by the government are ready to criticise them. A lot of people recognise how hard the government work and how many were saved from financial disaster during Covid . Numerous lives were saved . Standards hardly enter the equation unless you are a fully paid up member of the pious and self righteous brigade. Results matter and that is what the government achieved . Interestingly the pious and self righteous were not bothered about Angrla Raynor and Kier Starmer having a drink during lockdown or the thousands who went to the beach in Brighton . The government prevented many deaths and gave enormous financial support. We should all the very greatfull. On today of all days you refer to only those of the pious and self righteous brigade and having and upholding standards.. Even for you a new level of bizarre nonsense.. . Everyone is entitled to any opinion. What is bizarre nonsense to one person is entirely rational to others. There will always be fully paid up members of the pious and self righteous brigade who love criticising others. Usually best to form an opinion on what society as a whole think. In any even there is plenty of information available for anyone to sense check their opinions against that of others. Just as well lots of people agree with what you describe as bizarre nonsense
Finally you say something I agree with. Multiple opinion polls with the general public were very very clear that the vast majority of people were very angry and critical of the behaviour at partygate and Cummings etc. I am sure they are all rationale, formed their opinions on available knowledge and would think trying to defend the behaviour would be seen as bizarre!. What do you define as the vast majority and who conducted the opinion polls ? I would have thought that most people did not really care. They wanted lives to be saved . My opinions are not unique . Not everyone is obsessed with partygate. Strange how when it comes to election results they differ from public opinion.
Hmmm your argument undermines your own argument Pat. That’s the problem when you head down the rabbit hole. You say:
I would have thought that most people did not really care
Based on what? Which polls support your claim. Or is this your opinion again? Totally meaningless supposition. . Sometimes you have to ballpark figures and use common sense and judgement. As you asked the question and implied that you were correct what percentage of the population agree with your opinion . ? "Multiple published opinion polls using robust representative samples a couple/few years back demonstrated how people felt about things like partygate. You can use a search engine of your choice and look it up
Your statement seems to based on nothing. Go figure | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nobody but you said that. There multiple options to healthcare, explore them and utilise the best ideas, or let it fail. " I know, it’s just skipping a few logical steps. Privatisation and capitalisation relies on infinite growth and sickness, disability etc. have zero chance of a return on investment. You privatise in any way and the growth has to come from somewhere and it must grow or it will fail. Who foots the bill? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Actually one more thing…politicians by definition are meant to adopt the standards they advocate, at least publicly. In the case of social isolation, the public were expected to take it on faith; it was never more than a hypothetical countermeasure. What harm do you think it did to that faith (and therefore compliance) to see their own leaders disregarding it? Yes and no. We were in an unprecedented pandemic with uncertain outcomes. I see no problem with locking-down the general population but allowing some the freedom to keep government functioning. With hindsight, they should have stated that at the outset, and (most) people would have accepted it. Agree but very boozy parties were not necessary for the continued functioning of govt. If we held each other to the standards we hold politicians too, maybe we would have a more coherent society A nice sentiment but we have already exchanged views on this. I hold those responsible for designing and implementing legislation, laws, rules to a higher standard than the man in the street. And I agree, which is the part you keep missing. But the public get what they deserve and have what they deserve. Berxit was voted for by the public and the government was put in power with a huge majority to get it done. It didn’t matter that the people in power were self serving which was on full view, before, during and after the result, but the people wanted it. We then gasp in disbelief that they are self serving and have the audacity to be that way, they were given a free pass to get on with it by the people. The NHS mismanaged and failing, lockdowns to protect it, some very courageous people working but let’s be clear, the majority of the NHS paused and closed, some areas still catching up now. What’s the answer to failing healthcare services, throw more money at it, that is what the people want and what the government will keep on doing. It needs political leaders to be bold and tell the public it is failing, and unlikely to recover to a place that will serve the needs of the country. But that will upset the people, so it is being dragged on, costing billions upon billions with no chance of recovery. The government is a reflection of the people’s wants and needs. We get what we deserve . We need to accept that health treatment costs money and all the costs have to be accounted for . Part privatisation works in other European counties , there is no reason why we should be an exception. In Ireland there is no such thing as a free NHS service, you have to make a part payment towards what you receive. " Good example, the Irish system is more costly to the population, and nowhere near as good as the NHS. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Actually one more thing…politicians by definition are meant to adopt the standards they advocate, at least publicly. In the case of social isolation, the public were expected to take it on faith; it was never more than a hypothetical countermeasure. What harm do you think it did to that faith (and therefore compliance) to see their own leaders disregarding it? Yes and no. We were in an unprecedented pandemic with uncertain outcomes. I see no problem with locking-down the general population but allowing some the freedom to keep government functioning. With hindsight, they should have stated that at the outset, and (most) people would have accepted it. Agree but very boozy parties were not necessary for the continued functioning of govt. If we held each other to the standards we hold politicians too, maybe we would have a more coherent society A nice sentiment but we have already exchanged views on this. I hold those responsible for designing and implementing legislation, laws, rules to a higher standard than the man in the street. And I agree, which is the part you keep missing. But the public get what they deserve and have what they deserve. Berxit was voted for by the public and the government was put in power with a huge majority to get it done. It didn’t matter that the people in power were self serving which was on full view, before, during and after the result, but the people wanted it. We then gasp in disbelief that they are self serving and have the audacity to be that way, they were given a free pass to get on with it by the people. The NHS mismanaged and failing, lockdowns to protect it, some very courageous people working but let’s be clear, the majority of the NHS paused and closed, some areas still catching up now. What’s the answer to failing healthcare services, throw more money at it, that is what the people want and what the government will keep on doing. It needs political leaders to be bold and tell the public it is failing, and unlikely to recover to a place that will serve the needs of the country. But that will upset the people, so it is being dragged on, costing billions upon billions with no chance of recovery. The government is a reflection of the people’s wants and needs. We get what we deserve Then the interesting question is why is the above the people's wants and needs? The answer to that is multifaceted and very complex, far too reaching for me to even begin, but it is a great question. " Fair enough. That's where the conversation actually gets interesting though. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Actually one more thing…politicians by definition are meant to adopt the standards they advocate, at least publicly. In the case of social isolation, the public were expected to take it on faith; it was never more than a hypothetical countermeasure. What harm do you think it did to that faith (and therefore compliance) to see their own leaders disregarding it? Yes and no. We were in an unprecedented pandemic with uncertain outcomes. I see no problem with locking-down the general population but allowing some the freedom to keep government functioning. With hindsight, they should have stated that at the outset, and (most) people would have accepted it. Agree but very boozy parties were not necessary for the continued functioning of govt. If we held each other to the standards we hold politicians too, maybe we would have a more coherent society A nice sentiment but we have already exchanged views on this. I hold those responsible for designing and implementing legislation, laws, rules to a higher standard than the man in the street. And I agree, which is the part you keep missing. But the public get what they deserve and have what they deserve. Berxit was voted for by the public and the government was put in power with a huge majority to get it done. It didn’t matter that the people in power were self serving which was on full view, before, during and after the result, but the people wanted it. We then gasp in disbelief that they are self serving and have the audacity to be that way, they were given a free pass to get on with it by the people. The NHS mismanaged and failing, lockdowns to protect it, some very courageous people working but let’s be clear, the majority of the NHS paused and closed, some areas still catching up now. What’s the answer to failing healthcare services, throw more money at it, that is what the people want and what the government will keep on doing. It needs political leaders to be bold and tell the public it is failing, and unlikely to recover to a place that will serve the needs of the country. But that will upset the people, so it is being dragged on, costing billions upon billions with no chance of recovery. The government is a reflection of the people’s wants and needs. We get what we deserve " What makes you say it’s unlikely to ever recover to a place that serves the needs of the country ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Actually one more thing…politicians by definition are meant to adopt the standards they advocate, at least publicly. In the case of social isolation, the public were expected to take it on faith; it was never more than a hypothetical countermeasure. What harm do you think it did to that faith (and therefore compliance) to see their own leaders disregarding it? Yes and no. We were in an unprecedented pandemic with uncertain outcomes. I see no problem with locking-down the general population but allowing some the freedom to keep government functioning. With hindsight, they should have stated that at the outset, and (most) people would have accepted it. Agree but very boozy parties were not necessary for the continued functioning of govt. If we held each other to the standards we hold politicians too, maybe we would have a more coherent society A nice sentiment but we have already exchanged views on this. I hold those responsible for designing and implementing legislation, laws, rules to a higher standard than the man in the street. And I agree, which is the part you keep missing. But the public get what they deserve and have what they deserve. Berxit was voted for by the public and the government was put in power with a huge majority to get it done. It didn’t matter that the people in power were self serving which was on full view, before, during and after the result, but the people wanted it. We then gasp in disbelief that they are self serving and have the audacity to be that way, they were given a free pass to get on with it by the people. The NHS mismanaged and failing, lockdowns to protect it, some very courageous people working but let’s be clear, the majority of the NHS paused and closed, some areas still catching up now. What’s the answer to failing healthcare services, throw more money at it, that is what the people want and what the government will keep on doing. It needs political leaders to be bold and tell the public it is failing, and unlikely to recover to a place that will serve the needs of the country. But that will upset the people, so it is being dragged on, costing billions upon billions with no chance of recovery. The government is a reflection of the people’s wants and needs. We get what we deserve I think the reason I may have missed you agreeing is because you keep referring to “we” as in: We get what we deserve I am not part of that “we” in my opinion. Apparently according to another poster that could indicate I am pious (although there is a huge irony calling someone that on a swinger website). That’s not to say I think I walk on water. I know my flaws. But I do not vote for or accept self serving MPs, at least not knowingly. Made me chuckle though as your post is borderline nihilist! What nonsense…. If you can’t accept that the voting public are accountable for the people they put in power and that we as in the Nation, have a responsibility you will forever be calling MP’s cunts." Now you are misunderstanding. “The public gets what the public wants” (The Jam) but saying “we” includes me. I don’t accept that. I’m sure plenty others don’t either. When Labour wins in 4th July and we get 4-5 years of Labour Govt. I am sure there are folks on here who will be moaning about Labour/the Govt. Are you going to say “we got what we deserve” to them? They will no doubt retort “I didn’t vote for them/this!” I didn’t vote for Johnson. I didn’t vote for the sleaze, corruption, and huge ineptitude of the Johnson Govt. But you are saying I deserved it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nobody but you said that. There multiple options to healthcare, explore them and utilise the best ideas, or let it fail. I know, it’s just skipping a few logical steps. Privatisation and capitalisation relies on infinite growth and sickness, disability etc. have zero chance of a return on investment. You privatise in any way and the growth has to come from somewhere and it must grow or it will fail. Who foots the bill? " There are many successful healthcare systems to adopt best practices from. remove numbers from the NHS that can afford private care, through tax incentives, freeing up resources to support those who can’t afford private healthcare. Tax generated by private healthcare to support the NHS, would increase. I have no answer to the perfect model, but there are other options that should be explored to better support the health of the nation, over throwing more money at the NHS. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Actually one more thing…politicians by definition are meant to adopt the standards they advocate, at least publicly. In the case of social isolation, the public were expected to take it on faith; it was never more than a hypothetical countermeasure. What harm do you think it did to that faith (and therefore compliance) to see their own leaders disregarding it? Yes and no. We were in an unprecedented pandemic with uncertain outcomes. I see no problem with locking-down the general population but allowing some the freedom to keep government functioning. With hindsight, they should have stated that at the outset, and (most) people would have accepted it. Agree but very boozy parties were not necessary for the continued functioning of govt. If we held each other to the standards we hold politicians too, maybe we would have a more coherent society A nice sentiment but we have already exchanged views on this. I hold those responsible for designing and implementing legislation, laws, rules to a higher standard than the man in the street. And I agree, which is the part you keep missing. But the public get what they deserve and have what they deserve. Berxit was voted for by the public and the government was put in power with a huge majority to get it done. It didn’t matter that the people in power were self serving which was on full view, before, during and after the result, but the people wanted it. We then gasp in disbelief that they are self serving and have the audacity to be that way, they were given a free pass to get on with it by the people. The NHS mismanaged and failing, lockdowns to protect it, some very courageous people working but let’s be clear, the majority of the NHS paused and closed, some areas still catching up now. What’s the answer to failing healthcare services, throw more money at it, that is what the people want and what the government will keep on doing. It needs political leaders to be bold and tell the public it is failing, and unlikely to recover to a place that will serve the needs of the country. But that will upset the people, so it is being dragged on, costing billions upon billions with no chance of recovery. The government is a reflection of the people’s wants and needs. We get what we deserve I think the reason I may have missed you agreeing is because you keep referring to “we” as in: We get what we deserve I am not part of that “we” in my opinion. Apparently according to another poster that could indicate I am pious (although there is a huge irony calling someone that on a swinger website). That’s not to say I think I walk on water. I know my flaws. But I do not vote for or accept self serving MPs, at least not knowingly. Made me chuckle though as your post is borderline nihilist! What nonsense…. If you can’t accept that the voting public are accountable for the people they put in power and that we as in the Nation, have a responsibility you will forever be calling MP’s cunts. Now you are misunderstanding. “The public gets what the public wants” (The Jam) but saying “we” includes me. I don’t accept that. I’m sure plenty others don’t either. When Labour wins in 4th July and we get 4-5 years of Labour Govt. I am sure there are folks on here who will be moaning about Labour/the Govt. Are you going to say “we got what we deserve” to them? They will no doubt retort “I didn’t vote for them/this!” I didn’t vote for Johnson. I didn’t vote for the sleaze, corruption, and huge ineptitude of the Johnson Govt. But you are saying I deserved it?" Let me ask you this question. How many times have you read in these forums, vote for anyone other than Tory? The majority vote brings in the government, if the majority voted in the Tory party, I think I say the people got what they deserved. Now you will bring in PR  but you know my thoughts on that, nothing will ever be agreed | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" There are many successful healthcare systems to adopt best practices from. remove numbers from the NHS that can afford private care, through tax incentives, freeing up resources to support those who can’t afford private healthcare. Tax generated by private healthcare to support the NHS, would increase. I have no answer to the perfect model, but there are other options that should be explored to better support the health of the nation, over throwing more money at the NHS." To be honest, the NHS snafu isn’t something I’m really informed enough to discuss to that extent so of course I won’t dispute what you’re saying there. My original point was probably also a little misplaced and you can tug on that thread all the way back to the very concept of ownership. It’s much more in the realm of core belief and value structure than practical matters. Have you heard of The Eden Project and the concept of a resource based economy as opposed to a currency based economy? Basically impossible to implement but it’s fascinating stuff. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Actually one more thing…politicians by definition are meant to adopt the standards they advocate, at least publicly. In the case of social isolation, the public were expected to take it on faith; it was never more than a hypothetical countermeasure. What harm do you think it did to that faith (and therefore compliance) to see their own leaders disregarding it? Yes and no. We were in an unprecedented pandemic with uncertain outcomes. I see no problem with locking-down the general population but allowing some the freedom to keep government functioning. With hindsight, they should have stated that at the outset, and (most) people would have accepted it. Agree but very boozy parties were not necessary for the continued functioning of govt. If we held each other to the standards we hold politicians too, maybe we would have a more coherent society A nice sentiment but we have already exchanged views on this. I hold those responsible for designing and implementing legislation, laws, rules to a higher standard than the man in the street. And I agree, which is the part you keep missing. But the public get what they deserve and have what they deserve. Berxit was voted for by the public and the government was put in power with a huge majority to get it done. It didn’t matter that the people in power were self serving which was on full view, before, during and after the result, but the people wanted it. We then gasp in disbelief that they are self serving and have the audacity to be that way, they were given a free pass to get on with it by the people. The NHS mismanaged and failing, lockdowns to protect it, some very courageous people working but let’s be clear, the majority of the NHS paused and closed, some areas still catching up now. What’s the answer to failing healthcare services, throw more money at it, that is what the people want and what the government will keep on doing. It needs political leaders to be bold and tell the public it is failing, and unlikely to recover to a place that will serve the needs of the country. But that will upset the people, so it is being dragged on, costing billions upon billions with no chance of recovery. The government is a reflection of the people’s wants and needs. We get what we deserve What makes you say it’s unlikely to ever recover to a place that serves the needs of the country ?" Out dated ideology that hasn’t been able to cope over many years, with no real strategy other than more money. I’m not saying it won’t exist in some form in 25 years, but I would hope by then the country has woken up to change | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Actually one more thing…politicians by definition are meant to adopt the standards they advocate, at least publicly. In the case of social isolation, the public were expected to take it on faith; it was never more than a hypothetical countermeasure. What harm do you think it did to that faith (and therefore compliance) to see their own leaders disregarding it? Yes and no. We were in an unprecedented pandemic with uncertain outcomes. I see no problem with locking-down the general population but allowing some the freedom to keep government functioning. With hindsight, they should have stated that at the outset, and (most) people would have accepted it. Agree but very boozy parties were not necessary for the continued functioning of govt. If we held each other to the standards we hold politicians too, maybe we would have a more coherent society A nice sentiment but we have already exchanged views on this. I hold those responsible for designing and implementing legislation, laws, rules to a higher standard than the man in the street. And I agree, which is the part you keep missing. But the public get what they deserve and have what they deserve. Berxit was voted for by the public and the government was put in power with a huge majority to get it done. It didn’t matter that the people in power were self serving which was on full view, before, during and after the result, but the people wanted it. We then gasp in disbelief that they are self serving and have the audacity to be that way, they were given a free pass to get on with it by the people. The NHS mismanaged and failing, lockdowns to protect it, some very courageous people working but let’s be clear, the majority of the NHS paused and closed, some areas still catching up now. What’s the answer to failing healthcare services, throw more money at it, that is what the people want and what the government will keep on doing. It needs political leaders to be bold and tell the public it is failing, and unlikely to recover to a place that will serve the needs of the country. But that will upset the people, so it is being dragged on, costing billions upon billions with no chance of recovery. The government is a reflection of the people’s wants and needs. We get what we deserve Then the interesting question is why is the above the people's wants and needs? The answer to that is multifaceted and very complex, far too reaching for me to even begin, but it is a great question. Fair enough. That's where the conversation actually gets interesting though." It really would and it would be great to discuss the biggest issues that people believe need addressing. Doing that usually ends up with (Thread closed by moderators) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Actually one more thing…politicians by definition are meant to adopt the standards they advocate, at least publicly. In the case of social isolation, the public were expected to take it on faith; it was never more than a hypothetical countermeasure. What harm do you think it did to that faith (and therefore compliance) to see their own leaders disregarding it? Yes and no. We were in an unprecedented pandemic with uncertain outcomes. I see no problem with locking-down the general population but allowing some the freedom to keep government functioning. With hindsight, they should have stated that at the outset, and (most) people would have accepted it. Agree but very boozy parties were not necessary for the continued functioning of govt. If we held each other to the standards we hold politicians too, maybe we would have a more coherent society A nice sentiment but we have already exchanged views on this. I hold those responsible for designing and implementing legislation, laws, rules to a higher standard than the man in the street. And I agree, which is the part you keep missing. But the public get what they deserve and have what they deserve. Berxit was voted for by the public and the government was put in power with a huge majority to get it done. It didn’t matter that the people in power were self serving which was on full view, before, during and after the result, but the people wanted it. We then gasp in disbelief that they are self serving and have the audacity to be that way, they were given a free pass to get on with it by the people. The NHS mismanaged and failing, lockdowns to protect it, some very courageous people working but let’s be clear, the majority of the NHS paused and closed, some areas still catching up now. What’s the answer to failing healthcare services, throw more money at it, that is what the people want and what the government will keep on doing. It needs political leaders to be bold and tell the public it is failing, and unlikely to recover to a place that will serve the needs of the country. But that will upset the people, so it is being dragged on, costing billions upon billions with no chance of recovery. The government is a reflection of the people’s wants and needs. We get what we deserve . We need to accept that health treatment costs money and all the costs have to be accounted for . Part privatisation works in other European counties , there is no reason why we should be an exception. In Ireland there is no such thing as a free NHS service, you have to make a part payment towards what you receive. What's wrong with full privatisation together with adhering to the principle of 'free at the point of need'? Then we might get a national health service fit for the 21st century. " Because private healthcare companies exist to make profit, and you can’t make profit in healthcare if you have to accept and treat EVERY patient, like the NHS does. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Actually one more thing…politicians by definition are meant to adopt the standards they advocate, at least publicly. In the case of social isolation, the public were expected to take it on faith; it was never more than a hypothetical countermeasure. What harm do you think it did to that faith (and therefore compliance) to see their own leaders disregarding it? Yes and no. We were in an unprecedented pandemic with uncertain outcomes. I see no problem with locking-down the general population but allowing some the freedom to keep government functioning. With hindsight, they should have stated that at the outset, and (most) people would have accepted it. Agree but very boozy parties were not necessary for the continued functioning of govt. If we held each other to the standards we hold politicians too, maybe we would have a more coherent society A nice sentiment but we have already exchanged views on this. I hold those responsible for designing and implementing legislation, laws, rules to a higher standard than the man in the street. And I agree, which is the part you keep missing. But the public get what they deserve and have what they deserve. Berxit was voted for by the public and the government was put in power with a huge majority to get it done. It didn’t matter that the people in power were self serving which was on full view, before, during and after the result, but the people wanted it. We then gasp in disbelief that they are self serving and have the audacity to be that way, they were given a free pass to get on with it by the people. The NHS mismanaged and failing, lockdowns to protect it, some very courageous people working but let’s be clear, the majority of the NHS paused and closed, some areas still catching up now. What’s the answer to failing healthcare services, throw more money at it, that is what the people want and what the government will keep on doing. It needs political leaders to be bold and tell the public it is failing, and unlikely to recover to a place that will serve the needs of the country. But that will upset the people, so it is being dragged on, costing billions upon billions with no chance of recovery. The government is a reflection of the people’s wants and needs. We get what we deserve . We need to accept that health treatment costs money and all the costs have to be accounted for . Part privatisation works in other European counties , there is no reason why we should be an exception. In Ireland there is no such thing as a free NHS service, you have to make a part payment towards what you receive. What's wrong with full privatisation together with adhering to the principle of 'free at the point of need'? Then we might get a national health service fit for the 21st century. Because private healthcare companies exist to make profit, and you can’t make profit in healthcare if you have to accept and treat EVERY patient, like the NHS does." What's wrong with making a profit if the system is more efficient and meets service commitments? I'd rather a private company made a fair profit and I get to see a Doctor when I need rather than waiting 10 months for our wonderful 'free' NHS. Works perfectly well elsewhere, so why not in the UK? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nobody but you said that. There multiple options to healthcare, explore them and utilise the best ideas, or let it fail. I know, it’s just skipping a few logical steps. Privatisation and capitalisation relies on infinite growth and sickness, disability etc. have zero chance of a return on investment. You privatise in any way and the growth has to come from somewhere and it must grow or it will fail. Who foots the bill? There are many successful healthcare systems to adopt best practices from. remove numbers from the NHS that can afford private care, through tax incentives, freeing up resources to support those who can’t afford private healthcare. Tax generated by private healthcare to support the NHS, would increase. I have no answer to the perfect model, but there are other options that should be explored to better support the health of the nation, over throwing more money at the NHS." That is an interesting approach but I fear a cliff edge in eligibility that, as always, impacts the squeezed middle. Super rich = private healthcare is a no brainer Poor = state/tax payer funded healthcare Middle = who going to be eligible for what and at what level of income? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Actually one more thing…politicians by definition are meant to adopt the standards they advocate, at least publicly. In the case of social isolation, the public were expected to take it on faith; it was never more than a hypothetical countermeasure. What harm do you think it did to that faith (and therefore compliance) to see their own leaders disregarding it? Yes and no. We were in an unprecedented pandemic with uncertain outcomes. I see no problem with locking-down the general population but allowing some the freedom to keep government functioning. With hindsight, they should have stated that at the outset, and (most) people would have accepted it. Agree but very boozy parties were not necessary for the continued functioning of govt. If we held each other to the standards we hold politicians too, maybe we would have a more coherent society A nice sentiment but we have already exchanged views on this. I hold those responsible for designing and implementing legislation, laws, rules to a higher standard than the man in the street. And I agree, which is the part you keep missing. But the public get what they deserve and have what they deserve. Berxit was voted for by the public and the government was put in power with a huge majority to get it done. It didn’t matter that the people in power were self serving which was on full view, before, during and after the result, but the people wanted it. We then gasp in disbelief that they are self serving and have the audacity to be that way, they were given a free pass to get on with it by the people. The NHS mismanaged and failing, lockdowns to protect it, some very courageous people working but let’s be clear, the majority of the NHS paused and closed, some areas still catching up now. What’s the answer to failing healthcare services, throw more money at it, that is what the people want and what the government will keep on doing. It needs political leaders to be bold and tell the public it is failing, and unlikely to recover to a place that will serve the needs of the country. But that will upset the people, so it is being dragged on, costing billions upon billions with no chance of recovery. The government is a reflection of the people’s wants and needs. We get what we deserve Then the interesting question is why is the above the people's wants and needs? The answer to that is multifaceted and very complex, far too reaching for me to even begin, but it is a great question. Fair enough. That's where the conversation actually gets interesting though. It really would and it would be great to discuss the biggest issues that people believe need addressing. Doing that usually ends up with (Thread closed by moderators) "Indeed. It's not just what the issues are. But why people believe things that are demonstrably bad for them, are what they want. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nobody but you said that. There multiple options to healthcare, explore them and utilise the best ideas, or let it fail. I know, it’s just skipping a few logical steps. Privatisation and capitalisation relies on infinite growth and sickness, disability etc. have zero chance of a return on investment. You privatise in any way and the growth has to come from somewhere and it must grow or it will fail. Who foots the bill? There are many successful healthcare systems to adopt best practices from. remove numbers from the NHS that can afford private care, through tax incentives, freeing up resources to support those who can’t afford private healthcare. Tax generated by private healthcare to support the NHS, would increase. I have no answer to the perfect model, but there are other options that should be explored to better support the health of the nation, over throwing more money at the NHS. That is an interesting approach but I fear a cliff edge in eligibility that, as always, impacts the squeezed middle. Super rich = private healthcare is a no brainer Poor = state/tax payer funded healthcare Middle = who going to be eligible for what and at what level of income?" So what's the difference between private healthcare and private education? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Actually one more thing…politicians by definition are meant to adopt the standards they advocate, at least publicly. In the case of social isolation, the public were expected to take it on faith; it was never more than a hypothetical countermeasure. What harm do you think it did to that faith (and therefore compliance) to see their own leaders disregarding it? Yes and no. We were in an unprecedented pandemic with uncertain outcomes. I see no problem with locking-down the general population but allowing some the freedom to keep government functioning. With hindsight, they should have stated that at the outset, and (most) people would have accepted it. Agree but very boozy parties were not necessary for the continued functioning of govt. If we held each other to the standards we hold politicians too, maybe we would have a more coherent society A nice sentiment but we have already exchanged views on this. I hold those responsible for designing and implementing legislation, laws, rules to a higher standard than the man in the street. And I agree, which is the part you keep missing. But the public get what they deserve and have what they deserve. Berxit was voted for by the public and the government was put in power with a huge majority to get it done. It didn’t matter that the people in power were self serving which was on full view, before, during and after the result, but the people wanted it. We then gasp in disbelief that they are self serving and have the audacity to be that way, they were given a free pass to get on with it by the people. The NHS mismanaged and failing, lockdowns to protect it, some very courageous people working but let’s be clear, the majority of the NHS paused and closed, some areas still catching up now. What’s the answer to failing healthcare services, throw more money at it, that is what the people want and what the government will keep on doing. It needs political leaders to be bold and tell the public it is failing, and unlikely to recover to a place that will serve the needs of the country. But that will upset the people, so it is being dragged on, costing billions upon billions with no chance of recovery. The government is a reflection of the people’s wants and needs. We get what we deserve . We need to accept that health treatment costs money and all the costs have to be accounted for . Part privatisation works in other European counties , there is no reason why we should be an exception. In Ireland there is no such thing as a free NHS service, you have to make a part payment towards what you receive. What's wrong with full privatisation together with adhering to the principle of 'free at the point of need'? Then we might get a national health service fit for the 21st century. Because private healthcare companies exist to make profit, and you can’t make profit in healthcare if you have to accept and treat EVERY patient, like the NHS does. What's wrong with making a profit if the system is more efficient and meets service commitments? I'd rather a private company made a fair profit and I get to see a Doctor when I need rather than waiting 10 months for our wonderful 'free' NHS. Works perfectly well elsewhere, so why not in the UK?" I’m not saying there is anything wrong with making a profit, I’m saying that if you are going to maintain a free at the point of use health service that is fully privatised then you are not going to make a profit from it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nobody but you said that. There multiple options to healthcare, explore them and utilise the best ideas, or let it fail. I know, it’s just skipping a few logical steps. Privatisation and capitalisation relies on infinite growth and sickness, disability etc. have zero chance of a return on investment. You privatise in any way and the growth has to come from somewhere and it must grow or it will fail. Who foots the bill? There are many successful healthcare systems to adopt best practices from. remove numbers from the NHS that can afford private care, through tax incentives, freeing up resources to support those who can’t afford private healthcare. Tax generated by private healthcare to support the NHS, would increase. I have no answer to the perfect model, but there are other options that should be explored to better support the health of the nation, over throwing more money at the NHS. That is an interesting approach but I fear a cliff edge in eligibility that, as always, impacts the squeezed middle. Super rich = private healthcare is a no brainer Poor = state/tax payer funded healthcare Middle = who going to be eligible for what and at what level of income? So what's the difference between private healthcare and private education?" Interesting point but needs a lot of thought. NotMe is suggesting tax incentives for those using private healthcare. If that was removing VAT from treatment/consulting costs then I guess that brings it in line with current Pvt Sch set up? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There was NO justification for their behaviour during Partygate. Disgusting. All started with Cummings and Johnson standing by him. . The government did exactly what people expected of them during Covid ,saving many lives and people from Financial ruin. Even the term partygate is ridiculous. Having a drink in an office for ten minutes is hsrdly a party . Those who chose to criticise the government during this period probably had nothing else to do with their lives. A bit thank you to the cabinet for working so hard during the crisis . " Hear hear | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There are very nervous billionaires in the next room and they’re getting nervous about where this conversation is going…." The smart money is offshore Range boss lives in Monaco. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"" I still say I am sorry for your losses (I note, despite your comments about me being 'a bit low', you can't bring yourself to reciprocate re my losses, which is also a bit low if I may say so) but the nightmare scenarios you correctly paint, would still have happened if every last Government official had obeyed every last rule. The government you’re referring to led a protracted campaign with a view to adopting a social isolation strategy for literally every single person in the entire country, with comprehensive guidelines for where exceptions would be made. People were expected to accept the impact of that strategy for the sake of the greater good, causing lasting trauma for millions of people and decimating livelihoods for millions more. Entire industries collapsed. It changed the world. They were then caught breaking those rules themselves for the most frivolous and salacious reasons. Shameful, insulting and inexcusable. Don’t rationalise their behaviour, you are a meaningless peasant to them. " I'm sorry but 'you are a meaningless peasant' is highly inappropriate on a political forum where someone just takes a different view to you. This is your respectful, thoughtful side, right? Or is that the bit that introduces a mental illness to describe another poster who has the audacity to take a different, right of centre view to you? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The revisionism is strong in this thread
The boot-licking is stronger "At least you condemn the south coast couple for publicly supporting your bullying of me and another poster, but why bully in the first place, particularly using a mental health condition as a weapon? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"" Strangely those who are so keen to criticise the government are not so keen to apply the same stance to all the NHS workers who ignored social isolation rules during the clap for NHS sessions at 8 pm on Thursdays. Irrelevant, almost a straw man argument. The NHS workers weren’t making the rules. For the record, I agree; they shouldn’t have done so either. Nobody should have broken the rules. Millions of people did, I repeatedly broke numerous social isolation rules throughout the whole period. However, I wasn’t blustering at a pulpit each day sanctimoniously preaching of their necessity, nor responsible for making them and neither were the NHS workers you speak of. I’m not trying to make the point that their hypocrisy cost lives, of course it didn’t. However, I do feel that the disdain they showed for the general public eclipsed any likelihood of them being seen as heroes and to argue otherwise is to cast the same disdain on those that lost relatives and livelihoods by virtue of those rules being imposed. " What about the disdain you showed to your fellow human beings, particularly the old and vulnerable, when you "repeatedly broke numerous social isolation rules throughout the whole period" Unbelievable! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@JayPrime very well said in your posts. "You think repeatedly breaking numerous social isolation rules throughout the whole period is 'very well said'? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Actually one more thing…politicians by definition are meant to adopt the standards they advocate, at least publicly. In the case of social isolation, the public were expected to take it on faith; it was never more than a hypothetical countermeasure. What harm do you think it did to that faith (and therefore compliance) to see their own leaders disregarding it? Yes and no. We were in an unprecedented pandemic with uncertain outcomes. I see no problem with locking-down the general population but allowing some the freedom to keep government functioning. With hindsight, they should have stated that at the outset, and (most) people would have accepted it." That's a reasonable point | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@JayPrime very well said in your posts.
You think repeatedly breaking numerous social isolation rules throughout the whole period is 'very well said'?
"U mad? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@JayPrime very well said in your posts.
You think repeatedly breaking numerous social isolation rules throughout the whole period is 'very well said'?
"Classic! Pick one point out of many! Straw clutching much | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The revisionism is strong in this thread
The boot-licking is stronger
At least you condemn the south coast couple for publicly supporting your bullying of me and another poster, but why bully in the first place, particularly using a mental health condition as a weapon?
"A) Are we the “south coast couple” if so not seeing him condemning us? B) You think JayPrime has bullied you  really? You may want to read a range of your own posts across many threads before you start accusing anyone of bullying. Glasshouses and all that | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@JayPrime very well said in your posts.
You think repeatedly breaking numerous social isolation rules throughout the whole period is 'very well said'?
Classic! Pick one point out of many! Straw clutching much "Everyone makes mistakes, it’s probably quite embarrassing for him and we mustn’t make him feel at all threatened. It’s ok Olli, you’re safe here. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"@JayPrime very well said in your posts.
You think repeatedly breaking numerous social isolation rules throughout the whole period is 'very well said'?
"If there’s anything you’d like to talk about, don’t you worry, you’re amongst friends and we all care about you very much. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Talk about a backfiring strategy. Who the hell is advising Sunak? Who is his strategy director? Communications Director? They are utterly useless. Starting to feel like sabotage! Is Cummings still in the background getting his own back on the Tories? " It’s almost as if, knowing Labour had a letter from the treasury showing him to be a liar, Starmer deliberately let Sunak repeat the lie again and again. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Talk about a backfiring strategy. Who the hell is advising Sunak? Who is his strategy director? Communications Director? They are utterly useless. Starting to feel like sabotage! Is Cummings still in the background getting his own back on the Tories? " You will believe the strategy has backfired if you read comments in here or media reports. I know for sure that some people have heard the headline and are talking how labour are going to hike taxes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Talk about a backfiring strategy. Who the hell is advising Sunak? Who is his strategy director? Communications Director? They are utterly useless. Starting to feel like sabotage! Is Cummings still in the background getting his own back on the Tories? You will believe the strategy has backfired if you read comments in here or media reports. I know for sure that some people have heard the headline and are talking how labour are going to hike taxes. " I watched one of the political programs on catch up yesterday and a lady from the guardian made an interesting point about the £2k Labour tax rise thing. She was saying the figure and the quote are designed to be argued about. If the figure is accurate or not is not the point of it. The point is for the conversation all over the place at to be about Labour and tax rises. Judging by news outlets and these forums it seems to be working. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Talk about a backfiring strategy. Who the hell is advising Sunak? Who is his strategy director? Communications Director? They are utterly useless. Starting to feel like sabotage! Is Cummings still in the background getting his own back on the Tories? You will believe the strategy has backfired if you read comments in here or media reports. I know for sure that some people have heard the headline and are talking how labour are going to hike taxes. I watched one of the political programs on catch up yesterday and a lady from the guardian made an interesting point about the £2k Labour tax rise thing. She was saying the figure and the quote are designed to be argued about. If the figure is accurate or not is not the point of it. The point is for the conversation all over the place at to be about Labour and tax rises. Judging by news outlets and these forums it seems to be working." The tax rises are guaranteed It’s just who is and who is not going to be paying it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Talk about a backfiring strategy. Who the hell is advising Sunak? Who is his strategy director? Communications Director? They are utterly useless. Starting to feel like sabotage! Is Cummings still in the background getting his own back on the Tories? You will believe the strategy has backfired if you read comments in here or media reports. I know for sure that some people have heard the headline and are talking how labour are going to hike taxes. I watched one of the political programs on catch up yesterday and a lady from the guardian made an interesting point about the £2k Labour tax rise thing. She was saying the figure and the quote are designed to be argued about. If the figure is accurate or not is not the point of it. The point is for the conversation all over the place at to be about Labour and tax rises. Judging by news outlets and these forums it seems to be working." So true, he played an absolute blinder, it amazes me people don’t understand what this election strategy is about and are getting sucked into the pot. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Talk about a backfiring strategy. Who the hell is advising Sunak? Who is his strategy director? Communications Director? They are utterly useless. Starting to feel like sabotage! Is Cummings still in the background getting his own back on the Tories? You will believe the strategy has backfired if you read comments in here or media reports. I know for sure that some people have heard the headline and are talking how labour are going to hike taxes. " As my father reminds me, Jim Callaghan in 1970’s levied 98% investment income tax and 83% earned income tax | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Talk about a backfiring strategy. Who the hell is advising Sunak? Who is his strategy director? Communications Director? They are utterly useless. Starting to feel like sabotage! Is Cummings still in the background getting his own back on the Tories? You will believe the strategy has backfired if you read comments in here or media reports. I know for sure that some people have heard the headline and are talking how labour are going to hike taxes. As my father reminds me, Jim Callaghan in 1970’s levied 98% investment income tax and 83% earned income tax " It’s a good job Thatcher got in by the looks of things | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Talk about a backfiring strategy. Who the hell is advising Sunak? Who is his strategy director? Communications Director? They are utterly useless. Starting to feel like sabotage! Is Cummings still in the background getting his own back on the Tories? You will believe the strategy has backfired if you read comments in here or media reports. I know for sure that some people have heard the headline and are talking how labour are going to hike taxes. As my father reminds me, Jim Callaghan in 1970’s levied 98% investment income tax and 83% earned income tax " That will never happen again. The world is far more mobile than it was in the 70s. High earners can live pretty much anywhere. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nobody but you said that. There multiple options to healthcare, explore them and utilise the best ideas, or let it fail. I know, it’s just skipping a few logical steps. Privatisation and capitalisation relies on infinite growth and sickness, disability etc. have zero chance of a return on investment. You privatise in any way and the growth has to come from somewhere and it must grow or it will fail. Who foots the bill? There are many successful healthcare systems to adopt best practices from. remove numbers from the NHS that can afford private care, through tax incentives, freeing up resources to support those who can’t afford private healthcare. Tax generated by private healthcare to support the NHS, would increase. I have no answer to the perfect model, but there are other options that should be explored to better support the health of the nation, over throwing more money at the NHS. That is an interesting approach but I fear a cliff edge in eligibility that, as always, impacts the squeezed middle. Super rich = private healthcare is a no brainer Poor = state/tax payer funded healthcare Middle = who going to be eligible for what and at what level of income? So what's the difference between private healthcare and private education? Interesting point but needs a lot of thought. NotMe is suggesting tax incentives for those using private healthcare. If that was removing VAT from treatment/consulting costs then I guess that brings it in line with current Pvt Sch set up?" This type of incentive, removing VAT would create a greater demand on the private sector, releasing places in the NHS. It seems so obvious a thing to do | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nobody but you said that. There multiple options to healthcare, explore them and utilise the best ideas, or let it fail. I know, it’s just skipping a few logical steps. Privatisation and capitalisation relies on infinite growth and sickness, disability etc. have zero chance of a return on investment. You privatise in any way and the growth has to come from somewhere and it must grow or it will fail. Who foots the bill? There are many successful healthcare systems to adopt best practices from. remove numbers from the NHS that can afford private care, through tax incentives, freeing up resources to support those who can’t afford private healthcare. Tax generated by private healthcare to support the NHS, would increase. I have no answer to the perfect model, but there are other options that should be explored to better support the health of the nation, over throwing more money at the NHS. That is an interesting approach but I fear a cliff edge in eligibility that, as always, impacts the squeezed middle. Super rich = private healthcare is a no brainer Poor = state/tax payer funded healthcare Middle = who going to be eligible for what and at what level of income? So what's the difference between private healthcare and private education? Interesting point but needs a lot of thought. NotMe is suggesting tax incentives for those using private healthcare. If that was removing VAT from treatment/consulting costs then I guess that brings it in line with current Pvt Sch set up? This type of incentive, removing VAT would create a greater demand on the private sector, releasing places in the NHS. It seems so obvious a thing to do" I wonder what a cost benefit analysis would reveal? ie would the loss of VAT be (more than) offset by the savings in the NHS (not to mention direct benefits to patients with more well off people possibly able to afford private freeing up capacity for poorer people). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nobody but you said that. There multiple options to healthcare, explore them and utilise the best ideas, or let it fail. I know, it’s just skipping a few logical steps. Privatisation and capitalisation relies on infinite growth and sickness, disability etc. have zero chance of a return on investment. You privatise in any way and the growth has to come from somewhere and it must grow or it will fail. Who foots the bill? There are many successful healthcare systems to adopt best practices from. remove numbers from the NHS that can afford private care, through tax incentives, freeing up resources to support those who can’t afford private healthcare. Tax generated by private healthcare to support the NHS, would increase. I have no answer to the perfect model, but there are other options that should be explored to better support the health of the nation, over throwing more money at the NHS. That is an interesting approach but I fear a cliff edge in eligibility that, as always, impacts the squeezed middle. Super rich = private healthcare is a no brainer Poor = state/tax payer funded healthcare Middle = who going to be eligible for what and at what level of income? So what's the difference between private healthcare and private education? Interesting point but needs a lot of thought. NotMe is suggesting tax incentives for those using private healthcare. If that was removing VAT from treatment/consulting costs then I guess that brings it in line with current Pvt Sch set up? This type of incentive, removing VAT would create a greater demand on the private sector, releasing places in the NHS. It seems so obvious a thing to do I wonder what a cost benefit analysis would reveal? ie would the loss of VAT be (more than) offset by the savings in the NHS (not to mention direct benefits to patients with more well off people possibly able to afford private freeing up capacity for poorer people)." The only flaw I see in this VAT approach, is that the private sector use a lot of NHS Doctors/Consultants who are basically moonlighting. That just puts more pressure on the NHS. Actually, I don't know why the practice is allowed. I can't imagine an Architect in Zaha Hadid practice knocking-off at 5pm to do a few hours at Foster. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nobody but you said that. There multiple options to healthcare, explore them and utilise the best ideas, or let it fail. I know, it’s just skipping a few logical steps. Privatisation and capitalisation relies on infinite growth and sickness, disability etc. have zero chance of a return on investment. You privatise in any way and the growth has to come from somewhere and it must grow or it will fail. Who foots the bill? There are many successful healthcare systems to adopt best practices from. remove numbers from the NHS that can afford private care, through tax incentives, freeing up resources to support those who can’t afford private healthcare. Tax generated by private healthcare to support the NHS, would increase. I have no answer to the perfect model, but there are other options that should be explored to better support the health of the nation, over throwing more money at the NHS. That is an interesting approach but I fear a cliff edge in eligibility that, as always, impacts the squeezed middle. Super rich = private healthcare is a no brainer Poor = state/tax payer funded healthcare Middle = who going to be eligible for what and at what level of income? So what's the difference between private healthcare and private education? Interesting point but needs a lot of thought. NotMe is suggesting tax incentives for those using private healthcare. If that was removing VAT from treatment/consulting costs then I guess that brings it in line with current Pvt Sch set up? This type of incentive, removing VAT would create a greater demand on the private sector, releasing places in the NHS. It seems so obvious a thing to do I wonder what a cost benefit analysis would reveal? ie would the loss of VAT be (more than) offset by the savings in the NHS (not to mention direct benefits to patients with more well off people possibly able to afford private freeing up capacity for poorer people). The only flaw I see in this VAT approach, is that the private sector use a lot of NHS Doctors/Consultants who are basically moonlighting. That just puts more pressure on the NHS. Actually, I don't know why the practice is allowed. I can't imagine an Architect in Zaha Hadid practice knocking-off at 5pm to do a few hours at Foster." I believe, but happy to be corrected, that in the UK a doctor is required to work a minimum number of hours a year in the NHS to be allowed to practice in the private sector? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nobody but you said that. There multiple options to healthcare, explore them and utilise the best ideas, or let it fail. I know, it’s just skipping a few logical steps. Privatisation and capitalisation relies on infinite growth and sickness, disability etc. have zero chance of a return on investment. You privatise in any way and the growth has to come from somewhere and it must grow or it will fail. Who foots the bill? There are many successful healthcare systems to adopt best practices from. remove numbers from the NHS that can afford private care, through tax incentives, freeing up resources to support those who can’t afford private healthcare. Tax generated by private healthcare to support the NHS, would increase. I have no answer to the perfect model, but there are other options that should be explored to better support the health of the nation, over throwing more money at the NHS. That is an interesting approach but I fear a cliff edge in eligibility that, as always, impacts the squeezed middle. Super rich = private healthcare is a no brainer Poor = state/tax payer funded healthcare Middle = who going to be eligible for what and at what level of income? So what's the difference between private healthcare and private education? Interesting point but needs a lot of thought. NotMe is suggesting tax incentives for those using private healthcare. If that was removing VAT from treatment/consulting costs then I guess that brings it in line with current Pvt Sch set up? This type of incentive, removing VAT would create a greater demand on the private sector, releasing places in the NHS. It seems so obvious a thing to do I wonder what a cost benefit analysis would reveal? ie would the loss of VAT be (more than) offset by the savings in the NHS (not to mention direct benefits to patients with more well off people possibly able to afford private freeing up capacity for poorer people). The only flaw I see in this VAT approach, is that the private sector use a lot of NHS Doctors/Consultants who are basically moonlighting. That just puts more pressure on the NHS. Actually, I don't know why the practice is allowed. I can't imagine an Architect in Zaha Hadid practice knocking-off at 5pm to do a few hours at Foster. I believe, but happy to be corrected, that in the UK a doctor is required to work a minimum number of hours a year in the NHS to be allowed to practice in the private sector?" Possibly. But the thing is this, in my experience professionals drawing salaries comparable to Doctors, especially Consultants, don't work to the clock. They are obliged to get their assigned job done. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nobody but you said that. There multiple options to healthcare, explore them and utilise the best ideas, or let it fail. I know, it’s just skipping a few logical steps. Privatisation and capitalisation relies on infinite growth and sickness, disability etc. have zero chance of a return on investment. You privatise in any way and the growth has to come from somewhere and it must grow or it will fail. Who foots the bill? There are many successful healthcare systems to adopt best practices from. remove numbers from the NHS that can afford private care, through tax incentives, freeing up resources to support those who can’t afford private healthcare. Tax generated by private healthcare to support the NHS, would increase. I have no answer to the perfect model, but there are other options that should be explored to better support the health of the nation, over throwing more money at the NHS. That is an interesting approach but I fear a cliff edge in eligibility that, as always, impacts the squeezed middle. Super rich = private healthcare is a no brainer Poor = state/tax payer funded healthcare Middle = who going to be eligible for what and at what level of income? So what's the difference between private healthcare and private education? Interesting point but needs a lot of thought. NotMe is suggesting tax incentives for those using private healthcare. If that was removing VAT from treatment/consulting costs then I guess that brings it in line with current Pvt Sch set up? This type of incentive, removing VAT would create a greater demand on the private sector, releasing places in the NHS. It seems so obvious a thing to do I wonder what a cost benefit analysis would reveal? ie would the loss of VAT be (more than) offset by the savings in the NHS (not to mention direct benefits to patients with more well off people possibly able to afford private freeing up capacity for poorer people). The only flaw I see in this VAT approach, is that the private sector use a lot of NHS Doctors/Consultants who are basically moonlighting. That just puts more pressure on the NHS. Actually, I don't know why the practice is allowed. I can't imagine an Architect in Zaha Hadid practice knocking-off at 5pm to do a few hours at Foster." If the private sector grew and was able to train and mirror the NHS for recruitment as it did so, that could answer that issue | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nobody but you said that. There multiple options to healthcare, explore them and utilise the best ideas, or let it fail. I know, it’s just skipping a few logical steps. Privatisation and capitalisation relies on infinite growth and sickness, disability etc. have zero chance of a return on investment. You privatise in any way and the growth has to come from somewhere and it must grow or it will fail. Who foots the bill? There are many successful healthcare systems to adopt best practices from. remove numbers from the NHS that can afford private care, through tax incentives, freeing up resources to support those who can’t afford private healthcare. Tax generated by private healthcare to support the NHS, would increase. I have no answer to the perfect model, but there are other options that should be explored to better support the health of the nation, over throwing more money at the NHS. That is an interesting approach but I fear a cliff edge in eligibility that, as always, impacts the squeezed middle. Super rich = private healthcare is a no brainer Poor = state/tax payer funded healthcare Middle = who going to be eligible for what and at what level of income? So what's the difference between private healthcare and private education? Interesting point but needs a lot of thought. NotMe is suggesting tax incentives for those using private healthcare. If that was removing VAT from treatment/consulting costs then I guess that brings it in line with current Pvt Sch set up? This type of incentive, removing VAT would create a greater demand on the private sector, releasing places in the NHS. It seems so obvious a thing to do I wonder what a cost benefit analysis would reveal? ie would the loss of VAT be (more than) offset by the savings in the NHS (not to mention direct benefits to patients with more well off people possibly able to afford private freeing up capacity for poorer people). The only flaw I see in this VAT approach, is that the private sector use a lot of NHS Doctors/Consultants who are basically moonlighting. That just puts more pressure on the NHS. Actually, I don't know why the practice is allowed. I can't imagine an Architect in Zaha Hadid practice knocking-off at 5pm to do a few hours at Foster. If the private sector grew and was able to train and mirror the NHS for recruitment as it did so, that could answer that issue" Yes, and maybe that's a condition the government place on the private sector for giving tax incentives. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nobody but you said that. There multiple options to healthcare, explore them and utilise the best ideas, or let it fail. I know, it’s just skipping a few logical steps. Privatisation and capitalisation relies on infinite growth and sickness, disability etc. have zero chance of a return on investment. You privatise in any way and the growth has to come from somewhere and it must grow or it will fail. Who foots the bill? There are many successful healthcare systems to adopt best practices from. remove numbers from the NHS that can afford private care, through tax incentives, freeing up resources to support those who can’t afford private healthcare. Tax generated by private healthcare to support the NHS, would increase. I have no answer to the perfect model, but there are other options that should be explored to better support the health of the nation, over throwing more money at the NHS. That is an interesting approach but I fear a cliff edge in eligibility that, as always, impacts the squeezed middle. Super rich = private healthcare is a no brainer Poor = state/tax payer funded healthcare Middle = who going to be eligible for what and at what level of income? So what's the difference between private healthcare and private education? Interesting point but needs a lot of thought. NotMe is suggesting tax incentives for those using private healthcare. If that was removing VAT from treatment/consulting costs then I guess that brings it in line with current Pvt Sch set up? This type of incentive, removing VAT would create a greater demand on the private sector, releasing places in the NHS. It seems so obvious a thing to do I wonder what a cost benefit analysis would reveal? ie would the loss of VAT be (more than) offset by the savings in the NHS (not to mention direct benefits to patients with more well off people possibly able to afford private freeing up capacity for poorer people). The only flaw I see in this VAT approach, is that the private sector use a lot of NHS Doctors/Consultants who are basically moonlighting. That just puts more pressure on the NHS. Actually, I don't know why the practice is allowed. I can't imagine an Architect in Zaha Hadid practice knocking-off at 5pm to do a few hours at Foster. If the private sector grew and was able to train and mirror the NHS for recruitment as it did so, that could answer that issue Yes, and maybe that's a condition the government place on the private sector for giving tax incentives." Doesn’t this seem to be an obvious way forward? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nobody but you said that. There multiple options to healthcare, explore them and utilise the best ideas, or let it fail. I know, it’s just skipping a few logical steps. Privatisation and capitalisation relies on infinite growth and sickness, disability etc. have zero chance of a return on investment. You privatise in any way and the growth has to come from somewhere and it must grow or it will fail. Who foots the bill? There are many successful healthcare systems to adopt best practices from. remove numbers from the NHS that can afford private care, through tax incentives, freeing up resources to support those who can’t afford private healthcare. Tax generated by private healthcare to support the NHS, would increase. I have no answer to the perfect model, but there are other options that should be explored to better support the health of the nation, over throwing more money at the NHS. That is an interesting approach but I fear a cliff edge in eligibility that, as always, impacts the squeezed middle. Super rich = private healthcare is a no brainer Poor = state/tax payer funded healthcare Middle = who going to be eligible for what and at what level of income? So what's the difference between private healthcare and private education? Interesting point but needs a lot of thought. NotMe is suggesting tax incentives for those using private healthcare. If that was removing VAT from treatment/consulting costs then I guess that brings it in line with current Pvt Sch set up? This type of incentive, removing VAT would create a greater demand on the private sector, releasing places in the NHS. It seems so obvious a thing to do I wonder what a cost benefit analysis would reveal? ie would the loss of VAT be (more than) offset by the savings in the NHS (not to mention direct benefits to patients with more well off people possibly able to afford private freeing up capacity for poorer people). The only flaw I see in this VAT approach, is that the private sector use a lot of NHS Doctors/Consultants who are basically moonlighting. That just puts more pressure on the NHS. Actually, I don't know why the practice is allowed. I can't imagine an Architect in Zaha Hadid practice knocking-off at 5pm to do a few hours at Foster. If the private sector grew and was able to train and mirror the NHS for recruitment as it did so, that could answer that issue Yes, and maybe that's a condition the government place on the private sector for giving tax incentives. Doesn’t this seem to be an obvious way forward? " On the surface it sounds good but I suspect there are minefields full of challenges! Back to my earlier point on cliff edge. Are you proposing that people who can afford Private Healthcare must use it (sweetened by tax incentives) or just that they are encouraged to use it (via tax incentives)? The former would worry me unless there was some kind of sliding scale otherwise we hit a cliff edge that once again unduly “punishes” the “squeezed middle”! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nobody but you said that. There multiple options to healthcare, explore them and utilise the best ideas, or let it fail. I know, it’s just skipping a few logical steps. Privatisation and capitalisation relies on infinite growth and sickness, disability etc. have zero chance of a return on investment. You privatise in any way and the growth has to come from somewhere and it must grow or it will fail. Who foots the bill? There are many successful healthcare systems to adopt best practices from. remove numbers from the NHS that can afford private care, through tax incentives, freeing up resources to support those who can’t afford private healthcare. Tax generated by private healthcare to support the NHS, would increase. I have no answer to the perfect model, but there are other options that should be explored to better support the health of the nation, over throwing more money at the NHS. That is an interesting approach but I fear a cliff edge in eligibility that, as always, impacts the squeezed middle. Super rich = private healthcare is a no brainer Poor = state/tax payer funded healthcare Middle = who going to be eligible for what and at what level of income? So what's the difference between private healthcare and private education? Interesting point but needs a lot of thought. NotMe is suggesting tax incentives for those using private healthcare. If that was removing VAT from treatment/consulting costs then I guess that brings it in line with current Pvt Sch set up? This type of incentive, removing VAT would create a greater demand on the private sector, releasing places in the NHS. It seems so obvious a thing to do I wonder what a cost benefit analysis would reveal? ie would the loss of VAT be (more than) offset by the savings in the NHS (not to mention direct benefits to patients with more well off people possibly able to afford private freeing up capacity for poorer people). The only flaw I see in this VAT approach, is that the private sector use a lot of NHS Doctors/Consultants who are basically moonlighting. That just puts more pressure on the NHS. Actually, I don't know why the practice is allowed. I can't imagine an Architect in Zaha Hadid practice knocking-off at 5pm to do a few hours at Foster. If the private sector grew and was able to train and mirror the NHS for recruitment as it did so, that could answer that issue Yes, and maybe that's a condition the government place on the private sector for giving tax incentives. Doesn’t this seem to be an obvious way forward? On the surface it sounds good but I suspect there are minefields full of challenges! Back to my earlier point on cliff edge. Are you proposing that people who can afford Private Healthcare must use it (sweetened by tax incentives) or just that they are encouraged to use it (via tax incentives)? The former would worry me unless there was some kind of sliding scale otherwise we hit a cliff edge that once again unduly “punishes” the “squeezed middle”!" If I was given a choice in how this would rollout, I would remove the 20% VAT, and look at the uptake. I understand there is already a high % increase in people going private, so I think dropping VAT would really drive a direction towards private care. Of course there would need to be safe guards in place, such as unsuccessful operations to be picked up without charge (if they are run of the mill, or it was guaranteed to remedy and didn’t). A 5 year trial would drive next steps. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Private health only works if the private sector pick up the costs of training. Similar with teaching. Based on my limited understanding they get a free ride. We all pay for doctors training. Encouraging private reduces those needing NHS. But increases the demand for doctors in private. So more leave/reduce NHS hours... Which creates a waiting list again! The issue is supply of qualified medical people. We need to solve that. And ideally through training our own.... Otherwise hello more immigrantuon !" As mentioned further up if the private sector is encouraged to grow through tax incentives, they should become a trainer and employer. That would remove the ridiculous situation of NHS doctors jumping over to private and back again all in a days work, along with balancing out alternative solutions to healthcare that can be self efficient. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Private health only works if the private sector pick up the costs of training. Similar with teaching. Based on my limited understanding they get a free ride. We all pay for doctors training. Encouraging private reduces those needing NHS. But increases the demand for doctors in private. So more leave/reduce NHS hours... Which creates a waiting list again! The issue is supply of qualified medical people. We need to solve that. And ideally through training our own.... Otherwise hello more immigrantuon !" The shortage of Doctors is puzzling. We've more and more medical schools in the UK now, some focusing on only graduate entry to fast-track qualification. So where are all the Doctors all going? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I do wonder if with so many women being on the stage whether farage will “tone it down “ because I think there are going to be accusations of him bullying everyone! The Sunak fiasco is an absolute gift to everyone, farage especially, as it will give him another issue to attack that his one trick pony of immigration immigration immigration… I am interested to see if he tries to hide in the rest of the debate or whether they all gang up on him if there are questions on economy, part privatising the NHS and especially climate change and science… Does penny attack Labour or the flank to her right? " I would be very surprised if Mordaunt doesn't dominate this round, perfect defence against Rayners angry outbursts. Farage is in difficult territory as you say, and I'm really interested how he plays this. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"First impression.. call me shallow if you want I really like penny, but that hairdo is giving off Margaret thatcher vibes and it is actually scaring me!!! "Mordaunt is several levels above the rest of the panel, makes Rayner look very rough around the edges | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sunak is a coward sending Mordaunt to repeatedly make his apologies for abandoning the veterans yesterday " She is doing better than Sunak, she is top tier compared to the rest of the panel and batted away the stale Liz Truss attack with such ease. Every time Rayner opens her mouth she appears to be overly aggressive | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The important issues. How the female MPs look. "Sorry it’s just cause penny is my political crush and this has devastated me!!! Anyway.. farage skirting around the “I was people to have private insurance and fuck the NHS” question there | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The important issues. How the female MPs look. "Those 80s shoulders on Rayner arghhh | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The 70,000 more nurses is there biggest lie. Net increase is 27,000 (as stated by tory minister either on LK or QT). And most of them were nicked from red list countries." And cancelling training bursaries, replacing them with repayable student loans, at usury 9% interest rates. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The 70,000 more nurses is there biggest lie. Net increase is 27,000 (as stated by tory minister either on LK or QT). And most of them were nicked from red list countries. And cancelling training bursaries, replacing them with repayable student loans, at usury 9% interest rates. " You're late to the party. Nursing bursary was removed but it has been back for some time. At a reduced level. Bursaries exist for other HCPs also physio, radiologists and the such like. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Stephen Flynn is having a blinder! If it wasn’t for that whole “Scottish independence” thing sound like the progressive person I would like! " The Welsh guy is having a good old dig at blue, red and farage. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I would be surprised if anyone would come away from this feeling great about a labour government on the horizon. " I think the back handed compliment “can’t be as bad as what we now have” applies… I prefer “attack dog” Angela…. I don’t think either Angela or penny are doing well tonight The only thing I am taken out of this is I can see why both labour and conservatives will only agree to leaders doing head to heads.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I would be surprised if anyone would come away from this feeling great about a labour government on the horizon. I think the back handed compliment “can’t be as bad as what we now have” applies… I prefer “attack dog” Angela…. I don’t think either Angela or penny are doing well tonight The only thing I am taken out of this is I can see why both labour and conservatives will only agree to leaders doing head to heads.." The government change is coming but I'm starting to feel nervous about the next phase, I can't see anyone of them making it better than it is now | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All a bit scrappy in my view. I think farage was right to question the NHS model and just endlessly throwing money at it. But quote of the debate for me was from the lady from the greens in her closing statement. Labour have changed, they have changed into the conservatives." you can feel that the other parties smell blood to become tje opposition, or at least make real inroads for once. And all came across better than the conlabs. Even NF. Sperate the kids next time pls. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nothing much to offer and definitely no prospect of any money to pay for it. Labour very guarded on the funding for their policies. " non Dom, tax Dodgers, vat on public schools irrc. I think greens are tax Dodgers and NI. Couldn't tell you anybody else from the recent convos. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nothing much to offer and definitely no prospect of any money to pay for it. Labour very guarded on the funding for their policies. non Dom, tax Dodgers, vat on public schools irrc. I think greens are tax Dodgers and NI. Couldn't tell you anybody else from the recent convos. " non Dom £3.2bn vat on public schools £1.6bn Together will raise 0.004% of annual £1.2 TRn state spending Labour not telling the truth. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well if the viewer polls are anything to go by, Farage smashed it. This was the chap who 'couldn't debate' we were told. That said, the results probably reflect his personal popularity rather than seats for Reform. It'll be an interesting parliament if he wins Clacton." 25% Farage. Among those who voted Conservative in 2019, 47% placed the Reform leader at the top of the pile. 19% Rayner 7% Mordaunt Sunaks actions this week the final nail for the tories. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well if the viewer polls are anything to go by, Farage smashed it. This was the chap who 'couldn't debate' we were told. That said, the results probably reflect his personal popularity rather than seats for Reform. It'll be an interesting parliament if he wins Clacton." I didn't see it. Did Farage actually debate, or did the polls just reflect people who don't like foriegners thinking Farage is great because he "tells it like it is" and other such? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well if the viewer polls are anything to go by, Farage smashed it. This was the chap who 'couldn't debate' we were told. That said, the results probably reflect his personal popularity rather than seats for Reform. It'll be an interesting parliament if he wins Clacton. I didn't see it. Did Farage actually debate, or did the polls just reflect people who don't like foriegners thinking Farage is great because he "tells it like it is" and other such?" We wouldn't want a politician "telling it like it is" eh? Heaven forbid! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well if the viewer polls are anything to go by, Farage smashed it. This was the chap who 'couldn't debate' we were told. That said, the results probably reflect his personal popularity rather than seats for Reform. It'll be an interesting parliament if he wins Clacton. I didn't see it. Did Farage actually debate, or did the polls just reflect people who don't like foriegners thinking Farage is great because he "tells it like it is" and other such? We wouldn't want a politician "telling it like it is" eh? Heaven forbid!" You understand what I meant though? People who think they "tell it like it is".... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well if the viewer polls are anything to go by, Farage smashed it. This was the chap who 'couldn't debate' we were told. That said, the results probably reflect his personal popularity rather than seats for Reform. It'll be an interesting parliament if he wins Clacton. I didn't see it. Did Farage actually debate, or did the polls just reflect people who don't like foriegners thinking Farage is great because he "tells it like it is" and other such?" To be fair to Farage he did debate , he left the pointy shouty interrupting stuff to Mordaunt | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well if the viewer polls are anything to go by, Farage smashed it. This was the chap who 'couldn't debate' we were told. That said, the results probably reflect his personal popularity rather than seats for Reform. It'll be an interesting parliament if he wins Clacton. I didn't see it. Did Farage actually debate, or did the polls just reflect people who don't like foriegners thinking Farage is great because he "tells it like it is" and other such? To be fair to Farage he did debate , he left the pointy shouty interrupting stuff to Mordaunt " Fair enough. What happened to the politicians that could actually debate. Tony Benn types don't seem to exist anymore. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well if the viewer polls are anything to go by, Farage smashed it. This was the chap who 'couldn't debate' we were told. That said, the results probably reflect his personal popularity rather than seats for Reform. It'll be an interesting parliament if he wins Clacton. I didn't see it. Did Farage actually debate, or did the polls just reflect people who don't like foriegners thinking Farage is great because he "tells it like it is" and other such? We wouldn't want a politician "telling it like it is" eh? Heaven forbid!" ‘Telling it like it is’ and common sense are closely related, in the sense they are almost entirely defined by the opinions you already hold. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nothing much to offer and definitely no prospect of any money to pay for it. Labour very guarded on the funding for their policies. non Dom, tax Dodgers, vat on public schools irrc. I think greens are tax Dodgers and NI. Couldn't tell you anybody else from the recent convos. non Dom £3.2bn vat on public schools £1.6bn Together will raise 0.004% of annual £1.2 TRn state spending Labour not telling the truth." and 5bn from the tax avoidance. No idea who much they are spending. Maybe that's your point. But together we have identified and put numbers aganst some areas. Now, can you do the same for the others? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well if the viewer polls are anything to go by, Farage smashed it. This was the chap who 'couldn't debate' we were told. That said, the results probably reflect his personal popularity rather than seats for Reform. It'll be an interesting parliament if he wins Clacton. I didn't see it. Did Farage actually debate, or did the polls just reflect people who don't like foriegners thinking Farage is great because he "tells it like it is" and other such? To be fair to Farage he did debate , he left the pointy shouty interrupting stuff to Mordaunt Fair enough. What happened to the politicians that could actually debate. Tony Benn types don't seem to exist anymore." trouble is outside this forum, most people don't care about proper debates. And the format of these debates doesn't allow detail. How many times are questions moved on when there's a degree of challenge or controversy. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well if the viewer polls are anything to go by, Farage smashed it. This was the chap who 'couldn't debate' we were told. That said, the results probably reflect his personal popularity rather than seats for Reform. It'll be an interesting parliament if he wins Clacton. I didn't see it. Did Farage actually debate, or did the polls just reflect people who don't like foriegners thinking Farage is great because he "tells it like it is" and other such? To be fair to Farage he did debate , he left the pointy shouty interrupting stuff to Mordaunt Fair enough. What happened to the politicians that could actually debate. Tony Benn types don't seem to exist anymore.trouble is outside this forum, most people don't care about proper debates. And the format of these debates doesn't allow detail. How many times are questions moved on when there's a degree of challenge or controversy. " True. It seems more about sound bites. I watched it, the only person who seemed to have any skill was the Plaid Cymru leader. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well if the viewer polls are anything to go by, Farage smashed it. This was the chap who 'couldn't debate' we were told. That said, the results probably reflect his personal popularity rather than seats for Reform. It'll be an interesting parliament if he wins Clacton." farage did both the best, and second worst! His support is very much the (ex) Tory base. (That is you either though he did the best, or was one of the worst). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well if the viewer polls are anything to go by, Farage smashed it. This was the chap who 'couldn't debate' we were told. That said, the results probably reflect his personal popularity rather than seats for Reform. It'll be an interesting parliament if he wins Clacton.farage did both the best, and second worst! His support is very much the (ex) Tory base. (That is you either though he did the best, or was one of the worst). " The format played to Farage’s strengths, lots of people to have a go at (which he is good at) and no time for him to go into depth about anything (which he’s very bad at). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Farage now garnering support over tories in over 55 voter group https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/06/nigel-farage-reform-over-55-voters-poll-redfield-and-wilton/" Well older people are more likely to exhibit prejudice… | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Farage now garnering support over tories in over 55 voter group https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/06/nigel-farage-reform-over-55-voters-poll-redfield-and-wilton/ Well older people are more likely to exhibit prejudice…" But wisdom comes with age I've heard. Probably to some more than others tho. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Farage now garnering support over tories in over 55 voter group https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/06/nigel-farage-reform-over-55-voters-poll-redfield-and-wilton/ Well older people are more likely to exhibit prejudice… But wisdom comes with age I've heard. Probably to some more than others tho." Remember Nigel Farage on QT at the height of the financial crises, he had to explain fractional reserve banking to the panel, how the credit crisis had actually occurred. The other panel members did not have much to say, clearly his knowledge way over their heads. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Farage now garnering support over tories in over 55 voter group https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/06/nigel-farage-reform-over-55-voters-poll-redfield-and-wilton/ Well older people are more likely to exhibit prejudice… But wisdom comes with age I've heard. Probably to some more than others tho. Remember Nigel Farage on QT at the height of the financial crises, he had to explain fractional reserve banking to the panel, how the credit crisis had actually occurred. The other panel members did not have much to say, clearly his knowledge way over their heads. " I'd have loved to see this episode. (Not coz I doubt farage doesn't know his onions. This should be his bread and butter. But to see the rest) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You can easily tell who has been programmed to hate Farage regardless "You can easily tell those who have been programmed to love Farage regardless | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
