This is astonishingly well done. Absolutely first rate. Please watch and share with your whole world:
I happened upon a segment of PM on BBC Radio 4 today. They had an expert on [sorry, I didn't know who he was, but you could go back to the PM Radio 4 schedules and look it up, and listen] regarding financing the NHS. Asked what the NHS would require just to stand still, the annual total was calculated to be 3.3% improvement per annum, because of the demographically ageing population, extended lives and the slight inflationary costs. The expert said that Labour would be pledging 4.3% per annum. Lib-Dem would be pledging 3.8%, and the Tories 3.1% [after calculation of intentions as the Conservatives have not pledged a figure]. This means that the NHS will be even worse off under the Tories, who are privatising the service undercover, and that the Lib-Dems and Labour are set to improve the service. Against this backdrop of a fading NHS under our current ruling party, you have the majority of a population on the other side of the Atlantic [the USA population] voting 78% in favour of an National Health style service, when asked. The only real doubters were the ones who feared losing their money that they had already put into their private insurance deals. Yet, here in the UK, the disaster called Farage, is on record admitting to a requirement for a private insurance health service for the UK, if the UK went the way he'd propose. He's just pointing the way that all right-wing politicians ultimately want a health service to go. So what would one extrapolate from that? The poor are to be left to their own despair? Good health is not a right, but a perk of being financially secure? Do we really not give a **** until it hits the fan?
I totally LOVE flying. But I've had to make the decision that, unless it is absolutely 100% necessary [it won't be], I'm not going to be doing it anymore. Incidentally, I give FLT a pass because it's part of his job. If he could do it effectively and financially in any other way I feel sure he would.
I’ve taken the euro star at times and I do longer trips so as to make more time available I’m less flights. Not so great for the family though. I did fly on holiday this month though, but usually drive.
It's true. The poorest contribute the least to Climate Change, simply because they are the least mobile and consume the least. So is that a Tory policy to keep emissions down. I really wouldn't put it past them. Contrast that with an ability to responsibly purchase [or lease] a BEV, and to install rooftop solar and battery storage if we were all a little better off financially. Truthfully, there are loads of things we can change in our lifestyles without having to wear a hair shirt. One just needs to take the reality of Climate Change [and Air Pollution] seriously.
It's OK, I know you "get it" FLT. It's why I give you the pass. You have to live in the current real world, as we all do. I would hope you would consider making changes to your lifestyle, but I wouldn't expect you to wholesale quit your job because it was environmentally sensitive.
No depths are too low for the anti-Corbyn brigade to sink to: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...or-shot-dead-a9226866.html#Echobox=1575053334
A better policy would be to allow a small number of flights per person each year. The poor who can't afford to fly could then sell their entitlement to businessmen etc who need more.
That's not the worst idea I've heard. Can't imagine a Tory government allowing the poor to profit so easily though.
There’s been a few other reasons I’ve thought of quitting for though! Actually, I had a long hard think about it two years ago, when Blue Planet first launched its attack. For several weeks I wrestled with my conscience to understand if I believed I was good to carry on.
Stumbled across the environmental "hero" Stanley Johnson's thoughts on the level of literacy of the "Great British Public." https://www.theguardian.com/politic...nley-johnson-suggests-uk-public-is-illiterate Incidentally, I can spell the name Pinocchio, and I know what the particular reference refers to. But what is he suggesting? That the national populace are generally dense? When it rather more a case of the quality of their education. Does Stanley Johnson know the angle of repose of various soil types and structures? He doesn't? I could tell him that within a few seconds, and give him a basic understanding of the process [which is pretty much all I remember these days]. People are not thick. They may well be uneducated and certainly mislead though.
FFS as any Tory will tell you the poor have far more money than they need already. It is the rich they will say who need more money. I thought you lot understood the Tory fiscal model: The rich get richer the poor get poorer. Why waste good money on housing and medical care for the poor and the old and a good education for the young when that money could be better invested helping the rich get richer. What do you think Brexit is all about. Johnson is doing all he can to make sure his rich mates don't have to pay any tax on their profits stashed away overseas..
2 very good articles about, first why Corbyn’s stance on Israel is not antisemitic, and second why he is being constantly harried over it by the establishment: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/28/palestinian-struggle-jeremy-corbyn-zionism https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/27/british-arms-exports-israel-new-record (The second piece is 18 months old but still relevant)
