Off Topic Politics Thread
- Thread starter ChilcoSaint
- Start date
-
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
-
Absolutely! Trump can have a late-night chat show on Channel 5, which no one ever watches!
We can put Mr. F on Fox News. He should fit in nicely there.
New UK/USA tariff. You have to take Buffoon Johnson as well.
The dumbing down of the world continues. And when the idiots have voted Boris and Nigel into power, taken the UK back into the imperialistic dark ages and sold everything including the NHS to the yanks, we’ll be buying “Freedom Gas” to further pollute and poison our planet?
Did anyone see Brian Cox’ “The Planets” last night and wonder (like I did) how long it’ll be before Earth starts to resemble Venus?
Bronze Age
Medieval
The Renaissance
Age of Discover
.........and now the Time of Stupid.
Doesn't feel fun to be part of that legacy.
I found that film the other day - The Age of Stupid. Little reminder to get around to watching it.
For those who don't know, it's a drama-documentary which stars Pete Postlethwaite as a man living alone in the devastated world of 2055, watching archival film and asking, "Why didn't we stop climate change when we had the chance?"
I'll answer that question. Because when a common sense approach to looking after ourselves would have seemed to have been the answer to our future, we chose to go in exactly the opposite direction so that the top 1% pf the world's population could hang on to their present ways for just a little bit longer until they kick the bucket and leave the mess to the rest of us. And I include Brexit as part of that opposite direction. Retreating to inward looking Nation states and hauling up the drawbridge is NOT the thing to do. Global cooperation is what is needed. Because Climate Change and Pollution don't respect a nation's borders. Think about that Brexiteers when you look at your kids and grandkids.
And putting an “X” against the names of doltish clowns like Trump and Farage who deny there’s a problem is hardly a sensible approach.
Just saw this, sums up Brexit nicely:
You must log in or register to see images
Excellent from Led by Donkeys
You must log in or register to see media
You must log in or register to see images
A couple of years ago a "famous" war story author heard I was in Serbia and sent me a friend request on facebook. I accepted. He probably regrets it now. We're not the best of friends. His name is Terence Strong. He has some devoted followers that agree with everything he posts. To his credit he hasn't unfriended me yet. Maybe he likes having just one person to argue with. This is his latest post. I haven't answered yet (but then he just usually ignores me, but not always) Not a fan of Jeremy. I think he needs some new friends!
Is that true or comparing apples and oranges? If we want to assess a like for like spending per person in monetary (not % of GDP) then we would have to isolate out state provided healthcare from private healthcare. As we know in this country we champion the fact we have the NHS and we have a vast amount less private healthcare. Other countries (in Europe as well) have much more private healthcare and it does cost more than free healthcare.
The figures usually used simply state the spending in each country which includes private healthcare etc. Going further and using % of GDP to try and make it seem we spend less per person as well. Are we really spending less per person in actual money in terms of state provided "free at the point of use" healthcare?
As far as I remember, Italy is the only other European country that comes close to state provided healthcare in terms of % of the population that it provides for.
As for Wales and Scotland spending. Wales is well documented as spending lots more and providing a poorer service, so much it is a constant political football that the Tories bash Labour with and has been for at least a decade now.
The Scottish example is a very strange number seeing as Sturgeon stated last year that Scotaland health spending is 7% higher than in England. You seem to have found evidence to say she was being modest!!!
Gordon Brown last year attacked healthcare spending in Scotland. Detailing that it has to be higher because of the remoteness and spread of the population across a large area. Much cheaper to centralise healthcare is areas of high population which is not possible in many parts of Scotland. HE also detailed that pensioners are a much higher % than in England.
Scotland spent 12% more than England in the year SNP took over. By last year it was 7% more. In real terms that means that Scots receive £150 per person less healthcare than they did in 2007.
Are the Welsh figures from the same source? People on here rubbishing Guido (which yes does have an agenda and there is some extrapolation) yet are happy to jump on stuff from other sources (Lefty Guido) when it suits their agenda. Nearly as bad as Ocasio Cortez and her use of numbers.
Yes I have heard of her, quite a lot in fact. She is of the Boris - £350m political persuasion to push her agendas. Quite happy to bandy numbers around and when called out on the numbers just brush it off. Fine for her though, eh? The Pentagon would be deliriously happy with the money she stated they get.
If the metro media don't learn then their constant publicity will put that chap into the job. It is they that are pushing the whole Boris WILL be PM agenda because they are so obsessed with their virtuousness that they can't see they are doing exactly what happened with Trump in the US. They are reaching a point where Tory MPs will be in a position where they can't keep him out of the final 2 because the media have pushed the narrative so far.
If there hadn't been this constant "Boris, Boris, Boris" media obsession he would never have made the final 2, yet we are already now hearing more and more Tory MPs repeating the narrative of "only person who can beat Farage" etc.
You mean this LEAVE thingy might actually cost the old country a few bob?
Most definitely, seeing as a lot of those "bob" savings were companies paying less because migrants would work for less. Companies having to pay more to get British to do those jobs will undoubtedly cost "the country" more in terms of profit but of course will mean some will come back with more tax take.
the immigration stance by arch remainer Theresa May? Blame her not the leave vote. It was her that kept her "bargaining chip" against leave campaigners saying rights should be given straight away. It is the media that is scaring people into thinking they will be sent back. It was her policies that resulted in Windrush, not helped by previous decades of governments not sorting out what ended up resulting in the Windrush scandal.
The irony is that the Tory party has become so un-Tory that they are at the moment adopting an "anyone but a Thatcherite" stance and thus don't want Raab in there. The irony being that their electorate are much more likely to want a Thatcherite than a Blair clone. The constant "old world" assertions about The Tory party being a winning machine, will always survive, blah, blah completely ignores the change in politics the internet's recent advances have helped to make possible.
p.s. Gove is the front runner with MPs at the moment
Rudd (remainer central) was HS when Windrush broke. Javid came in when she resigned and was immediately called "coconut" and "uncle Tom" by the left.
I agree that the UK has a "generally majority centre left sensibility" but that is not how they vote. They vote normally for a majority (just.......like the referendum result) centre to right "portfolio." This of course ignores the Blair landslides, where Blair coaxed some of the right wing voters over to Labour's initial commitments.
There is a big difference in people's outlook and what they vote for.
My main point was that private healthcare is more expensive than public healthcare and you've pretty much agreed with what I was trying to say. I think you were more arguing with who I was replying to.
Anyway, combining the two is the best way to compare due to the different health care systems which is why it's usually used. I wasn't trying to compare government spending per person which is pretty pointless but actual spending per person.
America's government spends as much as we do per person but the American people get much less coverage from that money and end up paying a lot privately on top of that so they pay more per person.
Is this not the same as groups that are funded by groups that are funded by groups that are funded by people like Soros?