Right "Facts" = "Propaganda" to the left. Left "Evidence" = "lies and smears" to the right. There can never truly be a proper debate because everyone is as bad as each other - painting things the way they see them and completly closing their minds to any other point of view, whether or not it is supported by "facts". Osbourne cocked up the Tax credit situation as it did leave some vulnerable people exposed - but he was forced to act upon a potentially diastrous financial situation left to him by previous administations - he is either, therefore, a saint or a sinner depending on your point of view. The truth, very boringly I am afraid, is somewhere between the two. Just like most of us. However we must remain thankful that we are free to be able to express our views and opinions where others sadly will never be able to.
Sorry, I thought it was Osbourne who tripled the national debt and lead us into a double dip recession. And whose genius plan to boost a stagnating economy was to cut hundreds of pounds off the monthly income of millions of people, right before Christmas - which would hugely effect the sales of the retail industry - you know the Christmas/January sales that most retailers rely on to balance the books each year. Especially with Argos/Homebase on the rocks. Genius plan... I just find it laughable that someone uses an obviously biased source and slanted/suspect figures to try and state that a government that is privatising the NHS and underfunding it to such an extent that there's crisis's in most NHS boards, is actually a government that is the NHS' shining light and saviour. It just strikes me as almost satire...
Rather than make fatuous comments, how about actually challenging the facts as given in my post. Per Which of the facts can you prove to be false? It is very easy to sit there saying they are not facts, but I look forward to seeing you actually correct the figures quoted at some point
Wini, facts are facts. 2+2 = 4 cannot be disputed. Some may be so entrenched in their dogma that they refuse to accept the facts, but that does not make the facts any less true.
Why are they comparing weeks and quarters to months in two of the three examples, including times that don't overlap at all? That's not the way to do things, is it? As for the good Dr herself, I couldn't help but notice a rather unusual gap in her bio: http://www.racheljoyce.org.uk/about-rachel/ "She has worked in some of the most deprived areas in the country and has held executive level positions in organisations with budgets of £100 millions." That's interesting which organisations would those be, then? What small business is she a partner in? Seems odd to omit those details. I'd recommend that anyone who thinks that the situation in Israel and Palestine is a bit complicated should steer clear of her Twitter feed, by the way. She seems to have some rather entrenched views on the subject.
I just read the first paragraph and thought, WTF. "She joined the Conservative party because she became increasingly concerned about social justice, education...." Conservative and social justice isn't the only oxyMORON here.
Did you miss the bit where I pointed out that they're not comparing like for like? Asking whether she's got a financial stake in privatising the NHS is also a completely legitimate question. Lots of those involved in politics do and her blogs is incredibly vague about her non-NHS business activities, for some reason.
I know and was just reiterating the obvious for the benefit of others. Sadly they failed to or simply chose not to comprehend. Now the tactics of diversion & deviation begin, but the facts remain resolute.
So no attempt to address the dubious comparisons, then? One particular week in April to the whole of March and the third quarter of 14/15 to February 15. That's not an intelligent or accurate way of comparing figures, is it? The other obvious point is that the link provided in the blog that you referenced doesn't actually contain those stats. I'm fairly sure that they're accurate, as there'd be little point in fudging them otherwise, but I don't see a link to their source. She doesn't claim those figures are from that source, either. She merely points out the UK's rank according to it.
Reading a book by Tom Clancy called "Executive Orders." Although it is fictional, some of the information is true with regard to US politics and its stage management. Going back a page regarding the funding of Presidential candidates, corporate America funds both parties so if a Democrat is elected, these businesses with remind him or her just who helped to get him or her elected. PS In today's politics, Clancy is a MOR Republican judging by the book and his profile on Wikipedia.
I did enjoy that book when I was younger, and was interesting concept replacing the whole government after they get killed. Was eerie reading it a few years before 9/11 considering the way the government is taken out. Though Clancys politics are quite like Donald trumps, and his geopolitics and foreign policy ideas (at least reading between the lines on his books) are a little bit like the tea party
"Which way will I turn next? Shall I go through the exit door or stay in the room?" Our wonderful PM continues to drift on the issue that is very important to the UK.
It is so important that I am very pleased that he is giving it plenty of careful consideration and not fully entrenching himself in one camp or t'other from the outset
http://www.goal.com/en/news/13712/e...ble?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter In Corbyn We Trust! Good man, he's got taste...
