Join the Labour Party and save your country!

Stevo_666

Tangled Metal wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

There definitely aren't enough brainless idiots to vote for a Lib Dem majority.

Who knows what will happen.

Curious, in the context of this thread, why you think Lib Dems are brainless.

What is it about their policies that are so brainless?

If Rolf is right there arena lot of brainless idiots out there who might vote Labour or Tory. I haven't seen any evidence that Lib Dem voters are more intelligent than people who vote for other parties, have you?

That's an answer to a different question, Stevo (tut, tut ). Which of their policies do you think are brainless? Genuinely interested.

https://www.libdems.org.uk/manifesto#

If was an explanation to the first question and I quote "why do you think Liberals Democrat are brainless?". Well I added the missing question mark but that was a question and he answered it by linking it to Rolf's comment about brainless labour and tory voters.

Question asked and answered. It's the second part you need to wait for. I'm sure it'll come along soon... Right Stevo?

Ten pages into the future....

It's a long wait but it comes, sort of.

Aside from the slightly surreal scenario of us having a proxy argument on behalf of Stevo and Rick, are you saying that the answer to the first question is that brainless people are evenly distributed across the political spectrum, therefore some Lib Dems (members or voters?) must be brainless? Seems fair enough to me, but not much of an argument for or against supporting them.

Surreal is good at times. But yes, I believe strongly in the brainless argument being good for all parties. Personally that's why I don't support any party just vote for the least worse one at the time I vote based on what I hear and read about them. That I hope takes me out of the brainless category.

It's all a pint half full situation anyway with politics I fear.

Now when do you think Stevo will answer the second part? On the 12th of never is odds on! Although he could be trawling the internet for links to prove his point instead of hiding money in some shell company in a warm part of the world. Our whatever he really does.

The world of tax and treasury is often a bit more mundane than that. But it is amusing that quite a few people on here ask 'does he really do that for a living?". I do actually

I'm not trying to prove much of a point today, just giving Rolf a bit of perspective on his 'Stupid tory and labour voters' point :P

Stevo_666

Rolf F wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

There definitely aren't enough brainless idiots to vote for a Lib Dem majority.

Who knows what will happen.

Curious, in the context of this thread, why you think Lib Dems are brainless.

What is it about their policies that are so brainless?

If Rolf is right there arena lot of brainless idiots out there who might vote Labour or Tory. I haven't seen any evidence that Lib Dem voters are more intelligent than people who vote for other parties, have you?

That's an answer to a different question, Stevo (tut, tut ). Which of their policies do you think are brainless? Genuinely interested.

https://www.libdems.org.uk/manifesto#

You appear to be confusing brainless policies with brainless voters (the latter being Rolf's point and mine) Fyi - busy day, as you all know, tax doesn't just save itself

Aye. And Stevos addition of the Lib Dems to my post is fair enough as well though arguably he might have been baiting me on the basis that my politics are fundamentally middle of the road so I would naturally tend to favour them. Which I would argue is a sign of intelligence (of course I would!) - ie being able to see the positive in policies driven by all three of these parties is smart as they all do have good ideas. But I would tend to think that the more extremist a mindset the less it can see the positive in other perspectives; and that is a bad thing. In this respect coalitions with the Lib Dems make sense but of course Camerons govt and the voters were too immature to see that. Had Cameron been less of an ars* about the coalition then the Conservatives wouldn't have ended up in such a precarious position now. I have no sympathy for them!

I think you get my point Rolf

mamba80

Another reason not to vote Tory...

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/s ... king-point

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 78713.html

All very well May saying she is on the side of the down trodden etc but be it the disabled, the poor or the victims of domestic violence, as always actions speak louder than words.

surrey_commuter

mamba80 wrote:

Another reason not to vote Tory...

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/s ... king-point

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 78713.html

All very well May saying she is on the side of the down trodden etc but be it the disabled, the poor or the victims of domestic violence, as always actions speak louder than words.

52% of people voted to be poorer - why can't you respect the democratic will of the people?

mamba80

Surrey Commuter wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Another reason not to vote Tory...

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/s ... king-point

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 78713.html

All very well May saying she is on the side of the down trodden etc but be it the disabled, the poor or the victims of domestic violence, as always actions speak louder than words.

52% of people voted to be poorer - why can't you respect the democratic will of the people?

i know im anti democratic... just cant help myself.

i just fcuking hate injustice, this country is going back to the 70s alright.... the 1870s...

fwiw, my mum needed a refuge, without it, my father would have killed her.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

All very well May saying she is on the side of the down trodden etc but be it the disabled, the poor or the victims of domestic violence, as always actions speak louder than words.

What about the 90-odd% of of us who don't fall into that category?

All sounds very laudable but ignoring the needs of the large majority of the population is what Labour seem to be majoring on - and you seem to be buying it hook, line and sinker.

kingstongraham

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

All very well May saying she is on the side of the down trodden etc but be it the disabled, the poor or the victims of domestic violence, as always actions speak louder than words.

What about the 90-odd% of of us who don't fall into that category?

All sounds very laudable but ignoring the needs of the large majority of the population is what Labour seem to be majoring on - and you seem to be buying it hook, line and sinker.

Most of us aren't in need of medical treatment. What's the NHS doing for us???

Stevo_666

KingstonGraham wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

All very well May saying she is on the side of the down trodden etc but be it the disabled, the poor or the victims of domestic violence, as always actions speak louder than words.

What about the 90-odd% of of us who don't fall into that category?

All sounds very laudable but ignoring the needs of the large majority of the population is what Labour seem to be majoring on - and you seem to be buying it hook, line and sinker.

Most of us aren't in need of medical treatment. What's the NHS doing for us???

Slight difference. Pretty much all of us will need medical treatment at some point but most of us will not fall into mamaba's categories above.

Take your point though about the NHS in my case, as I use BUPA

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

All very well May saying she is on the side of the down trodden etc but be it the disabled, the poor or the victims of domestic violence, as always actions speak louder than words.

What about the 90-odd% of of us who don't fall into that category?

All sounds very laudable but ignoring the needs of the large majority of the population is what Labour seem to be majoring on - and you seem to be buying it hook, line and sinker.

Most of us aren't in need of medical treatment. What's the NHS doing for us???

Slight difference. Pretty much all of us will need medical treatment at some point but most of us will not fall into mamaba's categories above.

Take your point though about the NHS in my case, as I use BUPA

You judge societies on how well they look after those in need, not how well they look after average joe.

ballysmate

KingstonGraham wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

All very well May saying she is on the side of the down trodden etc but be it the disabled, the poor or the victims of domestic violence, as always actions speak louder than words.

What about the 90-odd% of of us who don't fall into that category?

All sounds very laudable but ignoring the needs of the large majority of the population is what Labour seem to be majoring on - and you seem to be buying it hook, line and sinker.

Most of us aren't in need of medical treatment. What's the NHS doing for us???

Well I was in need of treatment yesterday and used the NHS and would like to thank here and now all the people who contributed tax pounds for my treatment. Much appreciated.
But that's the thing isn't it, everyone views services in order of priority don't they? NHS and refuges will be on everyone's list somewhere.
People look at the political parties and look to see who will in most probability would be most likely to address their priorities. The last few years the Tories have edged out the other parties.
Some/few/many on here may think that that would be the Labour party and will vote for them. Some may vote Labour because they blame the Tories for Brexit and wouldn't vote for them for that issue alone.
But all those who now seem to eye Corbyn as the Massiah and worthy of their vote, how have Labour's policies that were derided as being risible only a few months ago, taken on a new lustre?
After all McDonnell himself said that if Labour were elected they were planning for a run on the pound, regardless of Brexit.

tangled_metal

I used private healthcare myself a few years back. Thank you NHS for funding it. I want to only use private Healthcare from now on. The local private hospital does nice coffees and they're free. Nice receptionist coffee, biscuits, fast service, excellent service, English doctor, nurses, technicians and English trained ones too. No language issues. No putting samples in the clinical waste bin only to root it out to send to the labs. Seriously I wish I could afford private. All done cheaper than the local NHS hospital could do it too.

ballysmate

Tangled Metal wrote:

I used private healthcare myself a few years back. Thank you NHS for funding it. I want to only use private Healthcare from now on. The local private hospital does nice coffees and they're free. Nice receptionist coffee, biscuits, fast service, excellent service, English doctor, nurses, technicians and English trained ones too. No language issues. No putting samples in the clinical waste bin only to root it out to send to the labs. Seriously I wish I could afford private. All done cheaper than the local NHS hospital could do it too.

My op was done under the nhs at a private hospital as was my op last year. Excellent as you say.
Last year my consultant who saw me gave me a target date for my op and promised that it would be met. If not he would have to do the op and not get paid for it.
Way to go.

tangled_metal

My private checkup was done under the block booking of private Healthcare. They bought up a number of consultations at a certain price then any further ones above that contractual number were completely free to the nhs. Both parties were happy with the contract and I got to see a private consultant audiologist plus technicians for free. Also in half the waiting time for any of the three other hospitals in the trust I was with. I got a half hour drive home from it (15 minutes from work) instead of the hour plus drive to the one with the next shortest waiting time. I got free parking. I got seen after work at just before 6pm instead of waiting around all day only to be sent home for another appointment later instead. All this without it costing the nhs any more money. That's from the gp who's involved in commissioning so she knew the score.

I really didn't want to go private and was quite prepared for a much longer wait but the GPA explained it and begrudgingly (because it didn't make sense to me so felt wrong still) I went private. As I said good reagent) treatment and good coffee & biscuits! What's wrong with that?

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

All very well May saying she is on the side of the down trodden etc but be it the disabled, the poor or the victims of domestic violence, as always actions speak louder than words.

What about the 90-odd% of of us who don't fall into that category?

All sounds very laudable but ignoring the needs of the large majority of the population is what Labour seem to be majoring on - and you seem to be buying it hook, line and sinker.

Domestic violence effects all income groups, 2 women a week are murdered by their partners in the UK, maybe when or if your grandaughter is battered by her professional partner, you might learn some compassion but somehow i doubt it, you re a good fit in todays Tory party.

take a read, might by your child or grandchild affected by this.....
https://www.womensaid.org.uk/informatio ... tic-abuse/

john80

I would be careful going down the private medical treatment rabbit hole peeps. Sure the private sector is great in the beginning as they want and need your custom. After a while though they do that corporate thing of buying out the competition and you turn up only to find that your not a customer you are a captive to their whims.

In all seriously though are we really sure that the private sector can provide healthcare cheaper than the NHS. Surely the comparison between cost of UK and USA treatment which is well documented would say this is not possible. Or is it just that USA private providers are so poor at this and our UK private companies would be so much better.

surrey_commuter

john80 wrote:

I would be careful going down the private medical treatment rabbit hole peeps. Sure the private sector is great in the beginning as they want and need your custom. After a while though they do that corporate thing of buying out the competition and you turn up only to find that your not a customer you are a captive to their whims.

In all seriously though are we really sure that the private sector can provide healthcare cheaper than the NHS. Surely the comparison between cost of UK and USA treatment which is well documented would say this is not possible. Or is it just that USA private providers are so poor at this and our UK private companies would be so much better.

NHS is a massive customer and they are buying excess stock

rick_chasey

Sleeeeeeze

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41688280

Ian Lavery MP received £165,000 from the 10-member trade union he ran.
We have learned this from the trade union regulator which has now released a report into Mr Lavery's actions as general secretary of the NUM Northumberland Area.
He will now face questions on his record over a number of disputed payments by the union he ran.
Mr Lavery, who is the chairman of the Labour Party, denies any wrongdoing.

rick_chasey

Timberland, going hard after millennials

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Sleeeeeeze

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41688280

Ian Lavery MP received £165,000 from the 10-member trade union he ran.
We have learned this from the trade union regulator which has now released a report into Mr Lavery's actions as general secretary of the NUM Northumberland Area.
He will now face questions on his record over a number of disputed payments by the union he ran.
Mr Lavery, who is the chairman of the Labour Party, denies any wrongdoing.

Well done Rick, you beat me to it

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Timberland, going hard after millennials

...in Hong Kong if you bother to read that ad properly

rick_chasey

You think our prospects here are materially better?

rick_chasey

and FWIW, here's the London version.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

and FWIW, here's the London version.

Sounds like it's a global issue, so best get used to the idea of making yourself useful when you're a wrinkly. Might make a change from now?

rick_chasey

Come say that to me when you're so old you're eating your food through a straw....

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Come say that to me when you're so old you're eating your food through a straw....

You'll probably be too busy working to pay for my food that needs eating through a straw.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

and FWIW, here's the London version.

Meh. Who wants to retire?

rick_chasey

My old man!

pblakeney

rjsterry wrote:

Meh. Who wants to retire?

Keep working and paying taxes to cover my retirement.
Good man!

rjsterry

PBlakeney wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Meh. Who wants to retire?

Keep working and paying taxes to cover my retirement.
Good man!

You're welcome. Hope you're not just relying on that. I've always assumed that the state pension would be negligible by the time I was old enough to draw it.

mamba80

rjsterry wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Meh. Who wants to retire?

Keep working and paying taxes to cover my retirement.
Good man!

You're welcome. Hope you're not just relying on that. I've always assumed that the state pension would be negligible by the time I was old enough to draw it.

My current company pension, in which i ve paid in 6/6% with my employer (for the last 12 years) pays me about 1/3rd of the value of the current state pension, assuming i keeping working for another 15years, in fact unless i live to 83, i wont even get back what has been paid in.
Pensions are a bit of con tbh.

Maybe i should borrow at such historical low rates and go into property? lol! whatever happened to austerity and living within our means?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41714128

I m sure thats another Labour Marxist policy they ve pinched?