Why do you reduce everything down to your perception of what you think I mean or think? What makes you think I am some nationalist that wants a Merry England? I want a Merry world that understands there are differences but doesn't discriminate because of them and doesn't **** on people because they are just a commodity to earn money. I don;t think the sales pitch of globalism is bad. I think it probably both of our ideals. The reality though is it is all about money and they will say whatever you and I want to hear to make sure they get more and more of it and keep it all.
There used to be a lot of houseboats on the Brayford pool in Lincoln. When they decided to "regenerate" the area around the pool (where they built their University) they tripled the mooring charges to drive the houseboats off so they could just have posh boats in their new "marina."
"Linked at the bottom a new report by the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Electoral Conduct, commission by the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) Against Anti-semitism – it details all the instances of racism expressed by or suffered by candidates of each of the largest parties contesting this year’s local and general elections. It’s evident that no party is entirely free of these poisonous views – but, troublingly, the extract also makes clear that the Labour Party seems to have a particularly sizeable problem, especially in terms of anti-semitism." Doesn't quite marry up to Shami's whitewash report! FULL REPORT: https://files.graph.cool/cj3e6rg8y906h0104uh8bojao/cj4sjq5ig01ii0111biq3f3ft
This is a sensible article about waste of public money on the ConservativeHome website: An Excerpt with the link below: "We have some excellent, efficient, reforming local authorities and publicly-funded organisations, but the spotlight inevitably falls on those where parsimony certainly doesn’t appear to extend to top bosses holding the taxpayers’ purse strings. There is a sense of entitlement, despite being amongst the highest paid ten per cent in the country, enjoying enviable pensions. To them, public service evidently means lining their own pockets. Whilst in most businesses, resignations mean that someone is choosing to leave a post, without any expectation of a payoff, it is commonplace to reward senior public sector staff when they ‘resign’, even if otherwise likely to be dismissed, or when they move onto another even higher paid post!" "It’s also quite commonplace for senior staff to be self-employed by their own tax-efficient companies, or to negotiate special allowances, including removal costs; £60,000 was given to a newly appointed council director moving a few miles up the road from a neighbouring county." http://www.conservativehome.com/loc...ld-apply-to-council-chief-executives-too.html
Is that the one where they are looking to invoke a law from Henry VIII's time to allow them to pass new laws without going through the parliamentary process? If so, what could ever go wrong?
Yep, a potentially very dangerous precedent could be set here; ministers could be given the power to completely bypass parliament.
I read this morning that the Henry VIII law is already used, but only for minor things, such as road widening (the example given). With the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, not being transferred into UK law, (the Government have stated this) the danger is if something more important, that deals with other areas, such as equality, human rights and the right to justice gets dealt with using the archaic law. Scary times ahead.
Hey, the great knowledgeable British electorate voted for this stuff, so don't knock it. BTW, did anyone see last night's edition of This Week.? Dear oh dear: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b08y3dc3/this-week-13072017
You mean like presidential decree that Obama used at will and Macron is planning to utilise constantly? I do agree with you that any change that isn't minor (like the road widening above) should go through parliament but I can't remember people moaning when Obama was bypassing "government" to push through what he wanted. Not something we want over here. It could well be something they put in there to concede amendments to. They often add stuff in to "soak up" the amendments and then end up with the paper they likely would have wanted in the first place.
I have considered it myself as a change of pace. Back in the 2000's I thought about buying a houseboat on the Itchen, and I still haven't completely ruled out living abroad on a boat. In the UK it is just simply too sodding cold to live on a boat. You're sitting in the middle of a great heatsink and, unless it is summer, it sucks every last comfortable drop out of the boat. In the Med it is perfectly possible, temperature wise. Even inland waterways in Southern Europe.
This is interesting. Just one council but indicative of what I have described over the past few (hundred) pages of councils (all colours) re-directing state funds to preferred partners, giving contracts to them ignoring the tendering process and in many cases. Paying over the odds for state funded projects etc. And this is as independent as you can get because it is done by "armchair auditors" that utilise the transparency rules. This is a very very widespread problem that uses good causes like "decent homes initiative" as cover to divert public money away from the public: Summary in this article. Full report (pdf) linked afterward: https://hammersmithfulhamforum.com/...uditors-to-check-the-accounts-for-hf-council/ http://www.brixtonblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/LPA_July2017.pdf
The NHS has been ranked the number one health system in a comparison of 11 countries. The UK health service was praised for its safety, affordability and efficiency, but fared less well on outcomes such as preventing early death and cancer survival. The research by the Commonwealth Fund, a US think tank, looked at countries across the world, including the US, Canada, Australia, France and Germany. The US came bottom. It is the second time in a row that the UK has finished top. Three years ago, when the survey was last done, the UK was also number one. It comes despite the NHS being in the grip of the tightest financial squeeze in its history with lengthening waiting times. The NHS was praised for the safety of its care, the systems in place to prevent ill-health, such as vaccinations and screening, the speed at which people get help and that there was equitable access regardless of income. Only in one of the four themes looked at did the NHS perform poorly compared with the other nations - health outcomes. This covers general health of the population, early deaths and cancer survival among other measures. 1 UK 2 Australia 3 Netherlands 4 = New Zealand 4 = Norway 6 = Sweden 6 = Switzerland 8 Germany 9 Canada 10 France 11 US http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40608253
And it would perform better in the areas where it is weak if it was properly funded. This should be a signal that the NHS does things the right way and should be financed to perform even better. Not used as an excuse to fund it even less because it was at the top of the tree anyway.
In addition, if it was "run properly" and by this I mean better financial control with less of he expensive, wrong management, then it could be even better.
Spot on. Get rid of the internal market and retrain all those layers of management to do jobs more directly involved with patient care.
No doubt. My gripe has never been with the function of the NHS nor the frontline people, but the shocking management and distribution of money within it. I have felt unfortunately that when I have made comment about the NHS here, some people have assumed it a criticism of the organisation. In a politics thread that's what people do; they jump to conclusions.
