• Thank you all very much for sharing your time with us in 2025. We hope you all have a safe and happy 2026!

AND HERE WE GO - THE 2019 GENERAL ELECTION THREAD

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 18645
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
sssh - don't tell anyone.

My £520 a month is more than 3/4 of the individual state pension! And what sector of the population is likely to be dependent upon the state pension as their sole source of income? Yup - the poorest. But let's not think that such a 2-tier system will come to pass - rather let's just be very aware what it could mean.
Click to expand...
But there is a two tier state pension and that sees many on the lower rate who may have made more years contributions only get around £520 a month. No ones finding the money to fix their pension rip off.
 
patricks148 said:
they were but compared to todays shambles...Brish Rail was run like a finely honed peaces of precision engineering:ROFLMAO:

that will be music to DFT ears NHS scotland is devolved:LOL:
Click to expand...

Yup........Unfortunately I have had quite a lot of experience of both the Scottish and English NHS and care systems over the last three years.
From a personal view the ENHS does not do joined up thinking with health and care, this ends up wasting a hell of a lot of money.
The staff seem less competent and the facilities fairly elderly. They also charge you for parking, that cost me £6 a day for 11 days at Darlington, not that I minded paying but parking is free in Scotland

Re the railways I am old enough to have experienced both.
The old services were not that bad and much better value for money than todays.
The rolling stock, stations, staff and catering were very poor.
And of course they were run by the Unions so lots of strikes.
 
SocketRocket said:
Failed people by not consulting with them or considering how their lives may be affected by the social engineering of the liberal Elete. No matter how some may consider others lives have been enriched by our fabulous diversity many dont like the way it has changed the way they live for what they consider the worse.
Click to expand...

I'm pleased that there is an acceptance (I think) that core to the leave vote in many constituencies was immigration - and not simply the impact of immigration - because governments can do something about impact on services - but the very fact of the immigration - the immigrants themselves.

And it seems that many leave voters believe that leaving the EU will sort many of the issues they put down to having arisen out of immigration (that they have been led to believe or have not been dissuaded of) - when I fear that these expectations will not be met. Lower immigration will not relieve pressure on services - the only way that immigrant pressure on services can be reduced is by large numbers of the current immigrant community 'going home'.

But consider that many of the immigrant community were born here - do we expect their parents to 'go home' and leave the children here - or do we expect them to leave and tear their children from their friends? We also need the current immigrant community to stay - we need them for all the services that depend upon them. We cannot have them leave. And so even if net immigration fell to zero on 1st February the same issues with public services will remain - and they will remain for as long as spending on public services is limited within notional 'affordability' constraints - spending limits that do little more than 'tidy up the fringe when the green needs relaying'.

And so those in the poorer communities - those feeling left behind and ignored - those whose expectations have been raised in respect of what leaving the EU will bring- in their faith in Leave they will vote for the 'Leave' Party in this General Election - because that will deliver all of what they need. But what if it doesn't - these communities will be sorely disappointed - and someone will feel the brunt of their disappointment.

They will of the people is portrayed as a collective - therefore what have we done :(
 
chrisd said:
I am old enough, and state run concerns were badly neglected, being starved of money and run by the unions. They were sold off quite rightly, made money when they were, and are, much better now than at the point they were sold. I cant see the owners selling them back without a fight in the courts.
Click to expand...
Starved by successive Tory governments who pandered to the “I am alright jack” crowd and then sold them off.
now it’s rather ironic when you read the griping about entitlement but failure to admit a level of responsibility..
Just saying 🙂
 
ColchesterFC said:
I don't understand why Labour are claiming that we would spend an extra £500 million per week on drugs if the US get access to the market. One example that Corbyn has raised is the issue of humira, a drug used to treat Crohn's disease and arthritis. The NHS currently pays around £1200 per pack whereas in America it is £8000 per pack. Assuming that US drug companies got access to the UK market why would the NHS stop buying it from our current supplier at £1200 and switch to an American supplier at £8000?
Click to expand...

"Preferred Supplier Status."

I've seen it numerous times with organisations, and its a rip-off. Sign a contract with a company for x/y/z drugs at a cheap price but end up paying a lot more for drugs a/b/c. It can work very well providing it is tightly managed. In most cases I've come across it doesn't work.
 
harpo_72 said:
Starved by successive Tory governments who pandered to the “I am alright jack” crowd and then sold them off.
now it’s rather ironic when you read the griping about entitlement but failure to admit a level of responsibility..
Just saying 🙂
Click to expand...
I'd be more inclined to accept this if you admitted it was to do with more than the Torys
 
harpo_72 said:
Starved by successive Tory governments who pandered to the “I am alright jack” crowd and then sold them off.
now it’s rather ironic when you read the griping about entitlement but failure to admit a level of responsibility..
Just saying 🙂
Click to expand...

Might be worth looking up when most of the union trouble occurred, the impact on society, who was in power for the majority of that time, and when the sell offs occurred...
 
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
I'm pleased that there is an acceptance (I think) that core to the leave vote in many constituencies was immigration - and not simply the impact of immigration - because governments can do something about impact on services - but the very fact of the immigration - the immigrants themselves.

And it seems that many leave voters believe that leaving the EU will sort many of the issues they put down to having arisen out of immigration (that they have been led to believe or have not been dissuaded of) - when I fear that these expectations will not be met. Lower immigration will not relieve pressure on services - the only way that immigrant pressure on services can be reduced is by large numbers of the current immigrant community 'going home'.

But consider that many of the immigrant community were born here - do we expect their parents to 'go home' and leave the children here - or do we expect them to leave and tear their children from their friends? We also need the current immigrant community to stay - we need them for all the services that depend upon them. We cannot have them leave. And so even if net immigration fell to zero on 1st February the same issues with public services will remain - and they will remain for as long as spending on public services is limited within notional 'affordability' constraints - spending limits that do little more than 'tidy up the fringe when the green needs relaying'.

And so those in the poorer communities - those feeling left behind and ignored - those whose expectations have been raised in respect of what leaving the EU will bring- in their faith in Leave they will vote for the 'Leave' Party in this General Election - because that will deliver all of what they need. But what if it doesn't - these communities will be sorely disappointed - and someone will feel the brunt of their disappointment.

They will of the people is portrayed as a collective - therefore what have we done :(
Click to expand...
They're dissapointed now so will show it in the polling booth. If you poke someone in the eye it wont make them your mate by saying it will still hurt next week.
 
harpo_72 said:
Starved by successive Tory governments who pandered to the “I am alright jack” crowd and then sold them off.
now it’s rather ironic when you read the griping about entitlement but failure to admit a level of responsibility..
Just saying 🙂
Click to expand...

Starved of money throughout the 60's and 70's.

Which party was in power for most of that period?
 
Private Canadian renal dialysis unit set up in Darlington, carrying out work for the NHS and paid a premium. Govt of the day - Tony Blair's Labour.
Private American clinic sets up in Stoke-on-Trent doing basic surgery, paid a premium by the NHS. Govt of the day - Tony Blair's Labour.
French clinic sets up, also in Stoke-on-Trent doing hip and knee surgery, paid a premium by the NHS. Govt of the day - Tony Blair's Labour.
South African clinic sets up on the site of the very first NHS hospital, Trafford General, paid a premium by the NHS. Govt of the day - Tony Blair's Labour.

They were just a few, off the cuff, that I can remember when I was still out on the tools.

Give me 20 mins and I could probably list another 15 in northern UK. And that's without listing PFI hospitals or the NHS Procurement division ran by DHL.
 
harpo_72 said:
Starved by successive Tory governments who pandered to the “I am alright jack” crowd and then sold them off.
now it’s rather ironic when you read the griping about entitlement but failure to admit a level of responsibility..
Just saying 🙂
Click to expand...

I suspect you weren't around back in the 50's 60' 70's
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top