Off Topic Politics Thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
TheSecondStain said:
A few good noble thoughts there Beef. The only thing I would take issue with is that you say that people vote for what helps them the most. That's a generalisation. There are significant numbers of people who vote for what they perceive as 'the good of the country'. That might mean voting against their own primary interests. There are also people who think they are voting for their own interests, but are entirely misguided by which financial category they believe they fall into, and are actually voting against themselves through ignorance. That happens a lot. The British are an odd breed. We're still a bit too quick to the forelock tug [good for the country [our betters] mentality] forgetting that they are the most important individuals in their lives.
Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure if I'm ashamed or proud of voting for all 3 major parties in my life. I think I may've met Beef's description of most tories when I voted for them back in the 70s. I just voted for the bloke (and they were all blokes) who seemed most reasonable. In pre-internet days information available was a little basic. Since then I've voted Lib/Lib-dem/Labour in that order, based mainly on party issues.

Of course ironically apart from my first vote it's all seemed rather pointless as I've chosen to live in areas where the outcome was never in doubt, roll on proportional representation.

I think most people like to think they're not 'bad'. Those that vote Conservative at present have convinced themselves that the guff that party spouts is true. As do Labour supporters. The difference is Labour seem to want more fairness in society, and they've not yet been tested on this. People will always vote for change eventually.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheSecondStain
greensaint said:
I'm not quite sure if I'm ashamed or proud of voting for all 3 major parties in my life. I think I may've met Beef's description of most tories when I voted for them back in the 70s. I just voted for the bloke (and they were all blokes) who seemed most reasonable. In pre-internet days information available was a little basic. Since then I've voted Lib/Lib-dem/Labour in that order, based mainly on party issues.

Of course ironically apart from my first vote it's all seemed rather pointless as I've chosen to live in areas where the outcome was never in doubt, roll on proportional representation.

I think most people like to think they're not 'bad'. Those that vote Conservative at present have convinced themselves that the guff that party spouts is true. As do Labour supporters. The difference is Labour seem to want more fairness in society, and they've not yet been tested on this. People will always vote for change eventually.
Click to expand...

Was I dreaming the 13 years from 1997-2010? <confused>
 
There are reasons to be optimistic where Labour is concerned. I must first state that I am not a card carrying party member. I am however close to many who are active. There does seem to be a coming together in generational terms where folks are saying enough is enough. This lot have f***ed it up so much we have a chance to do something different. The problem is agreeing an agenda.. Europe being the elephant in the room. In social policy terms my views could easily accommodate Mr Corbyn but the notion that we are better off outside of the EU in both the economic and jurisdiction paradigms seems to me to be verging on the psychotic. You can't implement good social policy if the economy is down the pan and if the Tories are left unchecked in terms of law there will be no balance and social disorder will ensue. COYRs
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheSecondStain
tiggermaster said:
There are reasons to be optimistic where Labour is concerned. I must first state that I am not a card carrying party member. I am however close to many who are active. There does seem to be a coming together in generational terms where folks are saying enough is enough. This lot have f***ed it up so much we have a chance to do something different. The problem is agreeing an agenda.. Europe being the elephant in the room. In social policy terms my views could easily accommodate Mr Corbyn but the notion that we are better off outside of the EU in both the economic and jurisdiction paradigms seems to me to be verging on the psychotic. You can't implement good social policy if the economy is down the pan and if the Tories are left unchecked in terms of law there will be no balance and social disorder will ensue. COYRs
Click to expand...
I think first and foremost, people need representation. It's well time to do away with FPTP and go for the most democratic form of PR. It's long overdue. There's probably more actual representation in social political media than in Parliament at present, so our political system needs to go with the times. Otherwise, people will start to ignore it again in ever growing numbers. Do this and we won't have so many, or as big, room elephants.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StJabbo
I know there are a couple of posters on here with knowledge of how things work in the NHS, so perhaps someone can explain the following.

Apparently, as I understand it, 26.9% of private hospitals have charity status, which "entitles" them to up to 80% discount on their business rates. Over the next five years this will save the private hospitals somewhere in the region of £52m. Good news for share holders.

NHS hospitals do not have charity status, so have to pay the full cost of their business rates, which will amount to £1.83 billion, over the next 5 years.

Private hospitals charge individuals, at the point of service, for the services they provide, which isn't charitable, whereas NHS hospitals do not charge at the point of service, which is charitable. I accept that we do pay for NHS services through taxes, but I think you get my meaning.

How does this work, and why can't NHS hospitals claim charity status?
 
St Badger said:
I know there are a couple of posters on here with knowledge of how things work in the NHS, so perhaps someone can explain the following.

Apparently, as I understand it, 26.9% of private hospitals have charity status, which "entitles" them to up to 80% discount on their business rates. Over the next five years this will save the private hospitals somewhere in the region of £52m. Good news for share holders.

NHS hospitals do not have charity status, so have to pay the full cost of their business rates, which will amount to £1.83 billion, over the next 5 years.

Private hospitals charge individuals, at the point of service, for the services they provide, which isn't charitable, whereas NHS hospitals do not charge at the point of service, which is charitable. I accept that we do pay for NHS services through taxes, but I think you get my meaning.

How does this work, and why can't NHS hospitals claim charity status?
Click to expand...

Why should the NHS have to pay ANY business rate, for pete's sake.?
 
  • Like
Reactions: remembercolinlee and SaintinSerbia
St Badger said:
I know there are a couple of posters on here with knowledge of how things work in the NHS, so perhaps someone can explain the following.

Apparently, as I understand it, 26.9% of private hospitals have charity status, which "entitles" them to up to 80% discount on their business rates. Over the next five years this will save the private hospitals somewhere in the region of £52m. Good news for share holders.

NHS hospitals do not have charity status, so have to pay the full cost of their business rates, which will amount to £1.83 billion, over the next 5 years.

Private hospitals charge individuals, at the point of service, for the services they provide, which isn't charitable, whereas NHS hospitals do not charge at the point of service, which is charitable. I accept that we do pay for NHS services through taxes, but I think you get my meaning.

How does this work, and why can't NHS hospitals claim charity status?
Click to expand...

Don't get me going about private schools and THEIR charitable status.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ......loading......, remembercolinlee and Archers Road
Beef said:
You must log in or register to see media

Scum
Click to expand...
Indeed. All the Police chief is saying is that they would prioritise those most vulnerable. Those tend to be poor, non-English speaking people. I can understand that. The next most vulnerable might be the poor, English speaking people.
If a Tory MP isn't able to understand the basic premise, that the poorest and least able to commuicate should be the ones to prioritise first because they are the most vulnerable, after helping to make sure that the Police have to prioritise because their budgets are so squeezed, then he shouldn't be a serving MP.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VocalMinority
This is what happens when you think you've got a mandate to get tough on immigrants. A man who was born in Britain, to British parents, has been told to leave the country: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...d-raised-in-britain-told-to-leave-home-office

Despite all his protests, applications for right to abode, citizenship etc.., he was told to get out of Britain asap or face the consequences, which could have included a £5K fine and being forcibly removed or locked up. He is devastated. His country appears to have abandoned him. I bet he feels ****ing great. Well he might feel a tad better now: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ngly-telling-british-man-shane-ridge-leave-uk

Because the Home Office ****ed up. Such is the Get Out fever that is going on in this country [this bloke is just one a big sample] they overlooked that he was actually a British citizen after all. Instead of erring on the side of giving him the benefit of the doubt, until every avenue had been explored, they jumped on the idea that they could get heavy because his birthright was appeared tenuous. That is, if you're a Home Office clerk and you've lost your spectacles. They apologised by email. That was nice. The guy is just picking himself off the floor after realising he has his country back again. Honestly, I'd be tempted to tell them where to stick it. It makes you ashamed to be British.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Archers Road
TheSecondStain said:
This is what happens when you think you've got a mandate to get tough on immigrants. A man who was born in Britain, to British parents, has been told to leave the country: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...d-raised-in-britain-told-to-leave-home-office

Despite all his protests, applications for right to abode, citizenship etc.., he was told to get out of Britain asap or face the consequences, which could have included a £5K fine and being forcibly removed or locked up. He is devastated. His country appears to have abandoned him. I bet he feels ****ing great. Well he might feel a tad better now: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ngly-telling-british-man-shane-ridge-leave-uk

Because the Home Office ****ed up. Such is the Get Out fever that is going on in this country [this bloke is just one a big sample] they overlooked that he was actually a British citizen after all. Instead of erring on the side of giving him the benefit of the doubt, until every avenue had been explored, they jumped on the idea that they could get heavy because his birthright was appeared tenuous. That is, if you're a Home Office clerk and you've lost your spectacles. They apologised by email. That was nice. The guy is just picking himself off the floor after realising he has his country back again. Honestly, I'd be tempted to tell them where to stick it. It makes you ashamed to be British.
Click to expand...
If they can get is so badly wrong as to try and kick out somebody born in Britain to British parents, makes you wonder how many other times they are getting it wrong. These people aren't just losing a couple of weeks benefits, they're losing their life.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TheSecondStain
VocalMinority said:
If they can get is so badly wrong as to try and kick out somebody born in Britain to British parents, makes you wonder how many other times they are getting it wrong. These people aren't just losing a couple of weeks benefits, they're losing their life.
Click to expand...
Exactly. And there are hundreds, maybe even a few thousands who are being persecuted, not for being illegal immigrants, but because their citizenship is suddenly not acceptable, due to a change in this government's attitude or Home Office error.
 
  • Like
Reactions: greensaint and VocalMinority
Trumps gonna send them all back in March? send them back where? to where their parents were born? Stick 'em on a flight to Mexico City? with no passport? No money? 800,000 of them? World's gone ****ing crazy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Saints_Alive
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back