BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
It also made it easy for the other parties to hit them with the cheap old stereotype of undemocratic remoaners, however true that might be*
* clue: it's not0 -
That is clearly a different definition of retention to mine. Retention is keeping what you already have, not adding more. To get to 330,000 from 280,000 you need to add 50,000 new. No one has mentioned returning. Yet.surrey_commuter said:
You are right if they have 280,000 nurses, retain 19,000, and recruit another 31,000 then they have 330,000. I really don’t see why Nicky Morgan is a figure of fun.kingstongraham said:
If there are 50,000 more nurses, they have to be paid for. If there are 280,000 and there will be 330,000, then that's 50,000 more.pblakeney said:
“ Extra funding for the NHS, with 50,000 more nurses and 50 million more GP surgery appointments a year.”kingstongraham said:
I understand it isn't 50,000 NEW nurses, but if that's not what the manifesto says, then where's the deception by the Tories? Sounds like an aspiration rather than a realistic plan, but not the worst of those in the manifesto.
That is a direct quote from their own manifesto. Using retention in the figures is like saying "I only lost £100 to the bookies instead of £200 so I am £100 up."
I agree that it is not even the worst aspect of the manifesto.
For clarification I am only picking up on a point made that the Tories are clean. All parties are blatantly lying.
Using retention in the figures is sensible, as long as they have a plan to achieve it and maintain it over the long term. I'm no Tory apologist, but I don't see the issue.
If they had said they were going to bring in 50,000 new nurses, then you'd have a point.
Anyway, the getting Brexit done in a matter of weeks...
Define "done".The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Even if they achieve their total, that will still only be about 10,000 more than the current number of vacancies. The supposed 40 new hospitals represent an 18% increase in the number of hospitals to be staffed with a 3% increase in nursing staff.surrey_commuter said:
You are right if they have 280,000 nurses, retain 19,000, and recruit another 31,000 then they have 330,000. I really don’t see why Nicky Morgan is a figure of fun.kingstongraham said:
If there are 50,000 more nurses, they have to be paid for. If there are 280,000 and there will be 330,000, then that's 50,000 more.pblakeney said:
“ Extra funding for the NHS, with 50,000 more nurses and 50 million more GP surgery appointments a year.”kingstongraham said:
I understand it isn't 50,000 NEW nurses, but if that's not what the manifesto says, then where's the deception by the Tories? Sounds like an aspiration rather than a realistic plan, but not the worst of those in the manifesto.
That is a direct quote from their own manifesto. Using retention in the figures is like saying "I only lost £100 to the bookies instead of £200 so I am £100 up."
I agree that it is not even the worst aspect of the manifesto.
For clarification I am only picking up on a point made that the Tories are clean. All parties are blatantly lying.
Using retention in the figures is sensible, as long as they have a plan to achieve it and maintain it over the long term. I'm no Tory apologist, but I don't see the issue.
If they had said they were going to bring in 50,000 new nurses, then you'd have a point.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I think that it is obvious that they are lying.
Like the other parties. Pick the least bad. Wonderful.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
A persuasive review from Peter Foster of Sir Ivan Rogers's grim view of the likely series of events post-December.
https://mobile.twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1199250350089351168
Key conclusion, which is slightly more positive (although less flattering of Johnson):Personally - and here I dare to disagree with Sir Ivan - I think Johnson is a bottler, judging by what happened in October. He's got no appetite for 'no deal' (to his credit IMO). As Sir Ivan says, he may have no choice, he's so boxed in, but he pivoted last time.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
-
It still seems very strange that Ivan Rogers has not been brought back into the tent.rjsterry said:A persuasive review from Peter Foster of Sir Ivan Rogers's grim view of the likely series of events post-December.
https://mobile.twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1199250350089351168
Key conclusion, which is slightly more positive (although less flattering of Johnson):Personally - and here I dare to disagree with Sir Ivan - I think Johnson is a bottler, judging by what happened in October. He's got no appetite for 'no deal' (to his credit IMO). As Sir Ivan says, he may have no choice, he's so boxed in, but he pivoted last time.
Not sure why he mentions services as I thought we had abandoned them
0 -
For the first time ever I did a bit of leaflet pushing for the local party.
Sadly the lib dems and you saw this on facebooks groups over summer where gripped by hope. No not hope delusion. The European election result created euphoria which like a drug went to there heads and the members really thought they could win. Realism has bitten back. The damage was done though. That's a shame as it hides some very sensible ideas for government.
At least the brexit party has gone and committed electoral suicide.
www.thecycleclinic.co.uk0 -
You went leafleting for the LDs? Good on ya.
Always have time for people who put their time where their mouth is re politics, assuming it's not weird radical politics.0 -
Yes the lib dems. I'll do more too. I am not a fan of there brexit policies as that's delusion but when there manifesto came out there was some sense and the ideas that drove me to be a member were still there.
I thought about voting labour then they said they'd give away broad band. You cant run a nationalised industry by giving its product away. Actually i had decided against labour before that but this policy idea sums up why I wont vote labour apart from there leader stance on the nuclear deterrent. He fails to realise the whole point of it is that you cant use use because the other side has there which is also why they cant use it against us or our close allies that we would blow the world up for. Hense he cant be pm.
I have also decided that voting to get the tories out is voting for what your against and not what your for. I am an optimist at heart and simply want to vote for an agenda that has sone hope rather than angry populism.
The remain pact is another mistake. I firmly believe in pularism. If voters want to vote tactically, they can. parties however should not force the issue with deals. A free vote is the one thing we have that freedom should never be crimped. The pact is a corruption of the voting system (it's already corrupted but why add to that?). At least the party put up another candidate in Canterbury. If the party had withdrawn after the candidate unilaterally stood down I would not be voting lib dem. That candidate was saying to the whole nation voting lib dem is not worth it. Vote labour instead. I'd be spoiling my ballot if another candidate was not shoe horned in. Democratric principles are important and the next time there is a party meeting I will say exactly what I think about pacts.www.thecycleclinic.co.uk0 -
I needed something a bit more lighthearted after reading Ivan Rogers speech.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
You have got to be kidding that Johnson hasn't agreed to do an Andrew Neil interview yet. He's trying to avoid any scrutiny.0
-
-
TM bottled out of the debate and that didn't work out too well.
BJ has a hard decision to make. Bottle or open for scrutiny.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
He does have form for bottling.pblakeney said:TM bottled out of the debate and that didn't work out too well.
BJ has a hard decision to make. Bottle or open for scrutiny.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
-
Moving away from Johnson's sexual incontinence, here is a slightly less hysterical view of the NHS "dossier".
https://mobile.twitter.com/hhesterm/status/1199797309309161472
In summary it fully supports neither party's assertions and gives a hint that we may end up swapping one lot of foreign regulation for another if we chase a US trade deal.
Also, Mr Cummings is not as confident as the polls might suggest.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Tories will be happy.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/11/27/yougov-mrp-conservatives-359-labour-211-snp-43-ld-www.thecycleclinic.co.uk0 -
IFS views on the three main parties' manifestos.All other countries which tax and spend on the scale that Labour proposes have tax systems which levy more tax on the average worker than we do. Liberal Democrat proposals to put a penny on the main rates of income tax would be simple, progressive and would raise a secure level of revenue. While the Conservatives continue to pretend that tax rises will never be needed to secure decent public services, Labour pretends that huge increases in spending can be financed by just big companies and the rich. In this respect neither Labour nor the Conservatives is being honest with the electorate.
The implication of the Conservative manifesto is that they believe most aspects of public policy are just fine as they are. Little in the way of changes to tax, spending, welfare or anything else. Yes, there are some spending increases for health and education already promised, but essentially nothing new in the manifesto.
Labour, by contrast, want to change everything. Their vision is of a state with a far greater role than anything we have seen for more than 40 years. They would tax and spend more than ever before, putting in place a new universal welfare state with free childcare, free university, free personal care, free prescriptions and more besides; they would impose a swathe of new labour market regulations; their minimum wage would directly set the wages of a quarter of private sector workers; they would nationalise a series of companies whose performance is of vital importance to the UK economy; they would enforce transfer of effective ownership of 10% of large companies from current owners to a combination of employees and government. For good or bad five years of Labour government would involve enormous economic and social change.
In the face of such vast ambition from Labour, one should not forget that the Liberal Democrat manifesto is itself a radical document that would involve a decisive move away from the policies of the past decade.
Rarely can a starker choice have been placed before the UK electorate.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I was about to post that summary.www.thecycleclinic.co.uk0
-
Yep, and judging by the Labour change of tack today, there is a faint whiff of leftie desperation in the airthecycleclinic said:
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Not at all the same of course, but just because the Germans voted the nazis as the biggest party in '32 to keep out the commies didn't mean it was a wonderful victory for everyone.
Though in this instance it's the commies blaming the jews.0 -
Send in the T34s.Stevo_666 said:
Yep, and judging by the Labour change of tack today, there is a faint whiff of leftie desperation in the airthecycleclinic said:
Always be yourself, unless you can be Aaron Rodgers....Then always be Aaron Rodgers.0 -
I suppose it has taken a bit of time to invoke Godwin's Law on here...rick_chasey said:Not at all the same of course, but just because the Germans voted the nazis as the biggest party in '32 to keep out the commies didn't mean it was a wonderful victory for everyone.
Though in this instance it's the commies blaming the jews."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Apparently Corbyn is going to tour the North reassuring their core vote in leave areas that there's more to the election than Brexit. I guess when you don't actually have a position on Brexit, there's not a lot of choice there.mr_goo said:
Send in the T34s.Stevo_666 said:
Yep, and judging by the Labour change of tack today, there is a faint whiff of leftie desperation in the airthecycleclinic said:"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Yeah fair. Though I'd argue it's then equally silly to accuse labour of being a bunch of gulag loving commies but you have tory MPs out saying that.Stevo_666 said:
I suppose it has taken a bit of time to invoke Godwin's Law on here...rick_chasey said:Not at all the same of course, but just because the Germans voted the nazis as the biggest party in '32 to keep out the commies didn't mean it was a wonderful victory for everyone.
Though in this instance it's the commies blaming the jews.
Though you might want to actually look at the manifestos that were campaigned on then.
Believe it or not it wasn't all death camps and world wars.0 -
True, the gulag bit isn't correct.rick_chasey said:
Yeah fair. Though I'd argue it's then equally silly to accuse labour of being a bunch of gulag loving commies but you have tory MPs out saying that.Stevo_666 said:
I suppose it has taken a bit of time to invoke Godwin's Law on here...rick_chasey said:Not at all the same of course, but just because the Germans voted the nazis as the biggest party in '32 to keep out the commies didn't mean it was a wonderful victory for everyone.
Though in this instance it's the commies blaming the jews.
Though you might want to actually look at the manifestos that were campaigned on then.
Believe it or not it wasn't all death camps and world wars.
I've read the labour manifesto in a fair bit of detail as I've to warn my board about what we might face if Corbyn gets elected.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
So Boris refuses to turn up for a televised leaders' debate and the Tories make a complaint for bias.
Apparently Gove would have been a good substitute as he has done more for the environment than nearly any other politician!?0 -
Stunt to take away from the bigger issue that BoJo is ducking interviews 'cos he's as sh!t as Corbyn at them.Pross said:So Boris refuses to turn up for a televised leaders' debate and the Tories make a complaint for bias.
Apparently Gove would have been a good substitute as he has done more for the environment than nearly any other politician!?0 -
At least his handlers have the sense to keep him away from themrick_chasey said:
Stunt to take away from the bigger issue that BoJo is ducking interviews 'cos he's as sh!t as Corbyn at them.Pross said:So Boris refuses to turn up for a televised leaders' debate and the Tories make a complaint for bias.
Apparently Gove would have been a good substitute as he has done more for the environment than nearly any other politician!?0
