None at all mate, but it’s worth knowing the history of a party that nearly bankrupted this country and sold €20,000,000,000 worth of our gold for 6 sherbet dabs and a packet of Tuder, if it doesn’t bother you no problem mate.
That doesn't matter 'cos it's history, Roochy . . . . and they wouldn't do it now 'cos they're so honest and highly competent, which is easy to claim/judge when they'll never get the chance to prove otherwise
I honestly don’t mind if they get in, if and it’s a big if, they are good enough but all I remember every time they get in, they are a disaster, and at the moment this party is the worst it has ever been in my life time.
It's interesting, you've obviously picked the peak price of gold in the entire of the last 20 years, which is understandable given that's what the media will have been selling. If you look at what the gold would have been worth today, he lost us approximately $17.5bn which is around £14.5bn. So over 3 years he cost the country what would be worth today £14.5bn - of course we have no idea what he invested the £3.5bn in at the time, but we'll assume it was wasted money for the sake of this argument. So this government, in just the 2 examples I had off the top of my head, lost this country more money in 1 year than Gordon Brown lost us in a 3 year period by selling off all of our gold - something that some people are still bitter about 20 years later. Does it not matter to you as much that this government is losing the money right now as it did when Brown lost it 20 years ago?
Of course it does that’s why I’ve just wrote earlier I have no idea who to vote for, because they are all s hite, people who keep voting for the same party just because their mam and dad’s did need to take a serious look at themselves.
The only thing I could say for certain about my politics is that I've never seen a Tory party worth voting for in my lifetime. I'm not Labour as such, and I have voted otherwise in the past, but this current government are dangerous and need replacing. Starmer might not be a good option but a better option than this government is good enough right now. As for my mam and dad, they're not very political and at least one of them was a red wall Tory voter at the last election. I've no idea how old you are, but I'm only old enough to have seen the Blair/Brown Labour governments, and Tory from the end of Thatcher onwards. But on the whole (accepting that all government make mistakes) the Blair labour government was more prosperous for the people of this country than any in my lifetime.
The only government I'm interested in is the current one. Anything else is irrelevant. We've had this one for years and the country's in a real mess, so no one else to blame. The airports are in chaos and it's quicker to cross the Channel in a blow up boat than by using a tunnel that was supposed to revolutionise European trade and travel.
I've posted previously, Sunak has now surpassed the amount lost by brown. As I see the mess we are in today, its the current incumbents who need replacing before they wreck society...
Just joking mate, but there’s loads on google telling you the extra vast sums being given to the NHS now as well
I've stayed off this thread for a long time because discussing politics only leads to people falling out. I am dismayed at the state of political debate in this country and, to some extent, the same things that dismay me in general happen on this thread. The reason I've popped on is to say that last night, as I was driving home from a football match, I was lucky enough to hear Rory Stewart's 'A Long History of Argument' on Radio 4. I only heard one episode of three but it was excellent. It discussed how, partly because of media portrayal and partly because of social media (mainly Twitter) and because of other factors, we no longer engage in true debate or dialogue. It included a quote that compared the current entrenched views to religious extremism of the 16th and 17th centuries. I'd recommend it as an excellent and enlightening listen.
But, we do know that for most months of the Year, The Government has to borrow, usualy billions, just to ballance that months outlay. This suggests, to me, that any substantial increase in funding for The NHS would mean either a savings, (cutbacks), elsewhere, OR more borrowing, OR increasing Government Income through extra taxation. The NHS cost The UK about £150bill a year of which about 99% comes from direct taxation. The saving you allude to would help of course, but these would be, hopefully, one off contributions rather than long term solutions. The lastest figures I could find from an admittedly brief search was that UK Govt expected that income for the year 20/21 would be £873 billion while expenditure would be £928 billion. However I expect that Covid and it's associated costs will have made this figure 'outdated'.
I was behind the railway workers union ( which is unusual) and then I listened to Grant Schnapps this morning, heard what he had to say and am now totally confused. Which one is telling the truth?
Haven't got the foggiest mate. What Shapps said about the unions negotiating with the employers makes sense to me but I know next to nothing about the situation so could well be wrong.
Can’t remember how many years ago , but at one point govt said they’d put extra £20b. into NHS . Around the same time it was said that £20 b (of £120b) went in obesity , type 2 diabetes and their related problems. If the forecast of obesity rates doubling is correct , then the nhs is always going to tread water financially