Join the Labour Party and save your country!

1457910334

Posts

  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,241
    My views huh! Ignoring your insults....... esp as you continue not to address the points raised :lol:

    However, as you rightly suggested we do...... Corbyn offers the labour party a choice and if someone of the left became leader of the opposition and i d have liked to have seen a more credible left of centre candidate, then the electorate has a choice, electing another right of centre labour leader will ensure even less people see labour as a credible party, instead, people like Liz Kendal etc are fighting to be more tory than the tories.

    But my contention is that people like you (and me, i m not a labour party member) should have zero part in the leadership election and leave that to 2020....
    .
    Luckily the chance of a party with your views holding sway are rather low in the foreseeable future, with good reason :wink: Interesting article by the Guardian here:
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/commentisfree/2015/jul/18/jeremy-corbyn-labour-leadership-election
    Which of the two Labour left factions described in that link would you identify with more, out of interest?
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 9,813
    ^^^ They could if they were built properly. We lived in flats like that in Slovakia and Slovenia and they were really well built and so spacious we needed travel insurance to go to the toilet.
    But, did it have a balcony?
    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.
  • mamba80mamba80 Posts: 5,086
    Luckily the chance of a party with your views holding sway are rather low in the foreseeable future, with good reason :wink: Interesting article by the Guardian here:
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/commentisfree/2015/jul/18/jeremy-corbyn-labour-leadership-election
    Which of the two Labour left factions described in that link would you identify with more, out of interest?


    We will have to wait till 2020 for that wont we?

    64% of the electorate did not vote for the party with right wing, extreme views that people like you support and once low paid workers realise they are also classed as benefit scoungers by the tories, they might start to think rather differently.

    Some people wont be too interested in who runs this country.... and who can blame them? Aussie recruiting agencies expect even more business afer JHunts recent statements.
    http://doctorsbag.net/2015/03/05/uk-doctors-in-australia-why-they-wont-be-going-home-any-time-soon/
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,241
    Luckily the chance of a party with your views holding sway are rather low in the foreseeable future, with good reason :wink: Interesting article by the Guardian here:
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/commentisfree/2015/jul/18/jeremy-corbyn-labour-leadership-election
    Which of the two Labour left factions described in that link would you identify with more, out of interest?


    We will have to wait till 2020 for that wont we?

    64% of the electorate did not vote for the party with right wing, extreme views that people like you support and once low paid workers realise they are also classed as benefit scoungers by the tories, they might start to think rather differently.

    Some people wont be too interested in who runs this country.... and who can blame them? Aussie recruiting agencies expect even more business afer JHunts recent statements.
    http://doctorsbag.net/2015/03/05/uk-doctors-in-australia-why-they-wont-be-going-home-any-time-soon/
    Thanks for the doctor link mamba, very useful andnI have bookmarked it

    It appears to be saying that the main frustration with ever-changing targets and increased red tape (much of it brought in during the Bair/Brown adminsitration.

    Although rather interestingly, the success of the Australian model accordingmto the article is the 'mixed health economy of private and state subsidised services'. It then goes on to explain why the NHS model of being free at the point of access is why the NHS struggles so much. I think this deserves further consideration :)

    The above is in line with the views of two good mates of mine who are NHS consultants, one of whom nearly took a post in Brisbane. He also bemoaned the poor organisation, complete lack of focus on cost and efficiency, the tendency to take the mick on sickies etc even amongst professional staff and unwillingness to change which drove him drink. A good case for root and branch reform based on that.

    You really want to read what you link to before you post it :wink:
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • finchyfinchy Posts: 6,889
    ^^^ They could if they were built properly. We lived in flats like that in Slovakia and Slovenia and they were really well built and so spacious we needed travel insurance to go to the toilet.
    But, did it have a balcony?

    The one in Slovenia did, and we were perfectly positioned to sit and watch the usually calm and peaceful Slovenes turn into complete and utter maniacs the second they got into a car.
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 9,813
    ^^^ They could if they were built properly. We lived in flats like that in Slovakia and Slovenia and they were really well built and so spacious we needed travel insurance to go to the toilet.
    But, did it have a balcony?

    The one in Slovenia did, and we were perfectly positioned to sit and watch the usually calm and peaceful Slovenes turn into complete and utter maniacs the second they got into a car.
    I worked with a guy from Yugoslavia (as it was at the time, not sure of the region) who was "highly strung" and couldn't be bothered waiting in his car at a red light with us as passengers. So he cut the corner on the pavement.
    That little ditty won't save the Country though.
    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.
  • finchyfinchy Posts: 6,889
    Luckily the chance of a party with your views holding sway are rather low in the foreseeable future, with good reason :wink: Interesting article by the Guardian here:
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/commentisfree/2015/jul/18/jeremy-corbyn-labour-leadership-election
    Which of the two Labour left factions described in that link would you identify with more, out of interest?


    We will have to wait till 2020 for that wont we?

    64% of the electorate did not vote for the party with right wing, extreme views that people like you support and once low paid workers realise they are also classed as benefit scoungers by the tories, they might start to think rather differently.

    Some people wont be too interested in who runs this country.... and who can blame them? Aussie recruiting agencies expect even more business afer JHunts recent statements.
    http://doctorsbag.net/2015/03/05/uk-doctors-in-australia-why-they-wont-be-going-home-any-time-soon/
    Thanks for the doctor link mamba, very useful andnI have bookmarked it

    It appears to be saying that the main frustration with ever-changing targets and increased red tape (much of it brought in during the Bair/Brown adminsitration.

    Although rather interestingly, the success of the Australian model accordingmto the article is the 'mixed health economy of private and state subsidised services'. It then goes on to explain why the NHS model of being free at the point of access is why the NHS struggles so much. I think this deserves further consideration :)

    The above is in line with the views of two good mates of mine who are NHS consultants, one of whom nearly took a post in Brisbane. He also bemoaned the poor organisation, complete lack of focus on cost and efficiency, the tendency to take the mick on sickies etc even amongst professional staff and unwillingness to change which drove him drink. A good case for root and branch reform based on that.

    You really want to read what you link to before you post it :wink:

    There's also another doctor who expresses the opinion that Australia needs to avoid the privatisation that has been forced on the NHS, but you must have overlooked that...

    Anyway, comparing Australia and the UK, the Aussies spend nearly twice as much per capita on healthcare as we do, despite having a younger population. British health spending is actually low compared to many other countries. Maybe that's part of our problem?
  • finchyfinchy Posts: 6,889
    ^^^ They could if they were built properly. We lived in flats like that in Slovakia and Slovenia and they were really well built and so spacious we needed travel insurance to go to the toilet.
    But, did it have a balcony?

    The one in Slovenia did, and we were perfectly positioned to sit and watch the usually calm and peaceful Slovenes turn into complete and utter maniacs the second they got into a car.
    I worked with a guy from Yugoslavia (as it was at the time, not sure of the region) who was "highly strung" and couldn't be bothered waiting in his car at a red light with us as passengers. So he cut the corner on the pavement.

    You don't surprise me with that. Slovenes and Croats are the only people I've ever heard describing Italian drivers as "too slow".
    That little ditty won't save the Country though.

    Don't worry about saving the country. Stevo's got that one covered. :wink:
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,241
    Amazing what you can achieve with selective use of statistics finchy. It took me acouole of minutes on google to find the table below that shows the UK spend on heakth as a % of GDP is higher than Australia :roll: And sourced from the Guardian so it must be right...

    http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jun/30/healthcare-spending-world-country

    Although if we take your logic that more ending on health = better, then the USA must have the best healthcare system in the planet :wink:
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • finchyfinchy Posts: 6,889
    Amazing what you can achieve with selective use of statistics finchy. It took me acouole of minutes on google to find the table below that shows the UK spend on heakth as a % of GDP is higher than Australia :roll: And sourced from the Guardian so it must be right...

    http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jun/30/healthcare-spending-world-country

    Although if we take your logic that more ending on health = better, then the USA must have the best healthcare system in the planet :wink:

    Firstly, the figure in the Guardian article contradicts the ones I've seen elsewhere. The Guardian one is WHO, the ones I have seen are World Bank, CIA and OECD. All 4 organisations are credible sources and it should be recognised that you were looking at PPP, whereas I was looking at nominal spending. PPP has the advantage of taking into consideration differences in staff wages, but nominal might be more useful when considering that medicine and medical equipment are purchased from an international market. Secondly, spending as a % of GDP doesn't really tell us much - looking at the data in the article, Singapore only spends 4% of its GDP on healthcare, whereas Sierra Leone spends 13.1%, but because Singapore is so much richer, this translates to much higher spending per capita. As the Australians are richer than us, they could spend a smaller % of GDP while spending more on health. And no, the USA will probably never have the best health care in the world, despite spending so much money, as long as the money is lining the pockets of the medical insurance companies.

    BTW, thanks for the link. It shows that the UK has one of the lowest numbers of doctors per 10,000 people in the highly developed world - a clear need for further spending in that particular area.

    You really want to read what you link to before you post it :wink:
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,241
    Good to see you're open about choosing the source of stats that suit your view.

    So while the stats I have seen on health spend per head differ a bit from what you have picked, let's assume that Prime Minister Finch is now in power and wants to match Australia's spending per capita on health - ie doubling the UK NHS spend. Can you explain how you would raise the small sum of approx £100 billion a year needed to do this? A small crimp in an otherwise admirable plan. As far as I am aware not even comrade Corbyn is proposing that sort of hike in health spending, some ideas are just a bit too far fetched :)

    Also, I am trying to keep this thread on topic - as the title suggests, this is not the 'socialists banging on about their pet policy grievances, moaning about losing the election and doing the country down' thread :wink:
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • finchyfinchy Posts: 6,889
    Good to see you're open about choosing the source of stats that suit your view.

    Not really. I saw stats from several different credible sources which all showed the same thing. Until I clicked on that Guardian link, I hadn't seen the WHO ones.
    So while the stats I have seen on health spend per head differ a bit from what you have picked, let's assume that Prime Minister Finch is now in power and wants to match Australia's spending per capita on health - ie doubling the UK NHS spend. Can you explain how you would raise the small sum of approx £100 billion a year needed to do this? A small crimp in an otherwise admirable plan. As far as I am aware not even comrade Corbyn is proposing that sort of hike in health spending, some ideas are just a bit too far fetched :)

    At no point did I say that we could double levels of spending. Do you have lots of conversations with people living inside your head, or is it only when you go online? You might want to go down to your local hospital and have that one checked out. I just said that comparing the two countries systems is difficult when one country spends a lot more despite having a younger population. In fairness, there are also considerations such as Australia's outback population, who might need higher spending than urban populations, but I doubt that would account for such massive differences.

    Having a similar number of doctors to other wealthy countries would be nice, though.
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,241

    Anyway, comparing Australia and the UK, the Aussies spend nearly twice as much per capita on healthcare as we do, despite having a younger population. British health spending is actually low compared to many other countries. Maybe that's part of our problem?
    Never mind not reading links, try reading your own posts :roll:

    You made a comparison between the UK and Australia in the context of the UK not spending enough on health. The stats you quoted showed that under certain ways of measuring health spend, Australia spent twice as much per capita. So the clear implication of your post above was that it was a good thing to do. I questioned its feasibility. Are you now saying that level of health spending is not such a good idea? Yes or no.

    PS at least you are now conceding that the UK is a wealthy country :wink:
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • finchyfinchy Posts: 6,889

    Anyway, comparing Australia and the UK, the Aussies spend nearly twice as much per capita on healthcare as we do, despite having a younger population. British health spending is actually low compared to many other countries. Maybe that's part of our problem?
    Never mind not reading links, try reading your own posts :roll:

    You made a comparison between the UK and Australia in the context of the UK not spending enough on health. The stats you quoted showed that under certain ways of measuring health spend, Australia spent twice as much per capita. So the clear implication of your post above was that it was a good thing to do. I questioned its feasibility. Are you now saying that level of health spending is not such a good idea? Yes or no.

    Ah, I see your difficulty. It's with the English language. You see, I inserted another sentence, which I've helpfully underlined for you. So you can see that when I say "Maybe that's part of our problem?", it's actually referring to our spending compared to other countries in general, not one country (Australia) in particular.

    That sort of health spending is a good idea if you can afford it. However, to reach the standards of many other countries wouldn't entail doubling our spending on health. For example, if we were to have 30 doctors per 10,000 people, instead of 27, that clearly doesn't mean doubling our spending on doctors' wages.
    PS at least you are now conceding that the UK is a wealthy country :wink:

    I don't think I've ever denied that. Have you been having more of those conversations with the people living in your head? You really do need to get that checked out, but NHS diagnosis can take ages. You should go to a high-spending socialist country, they'll have you sorted out in no time.
  • mamba80mamba80 Posts: 5,086
    Steve, Yet again you only answer what suits you, but that seems to be a Tory trait.
    only a 3rd of the electorate voted Tory and do 1500 dr' s leave for Australia every year or not? and after the tory drive to force consultants work w/e's will this figure go up or down?
    treating highly skilled people like this esp when many hospitals do run a full 7 day week service (by negotiation) is counter productive, just like gove did with the teaching profession (and now with solictors and Barristors) the Tories will just p1$$ people off causing even more problems.

    i thought one of the replies you gave on this or another thread was very revealling, when asked to justify a working person (on low pay) losing so much in the new formulation of TC, you said "there will always be winners and losers" mmmmm yes the losers are people on low pay and winners are folk who dont need it.
  • finchyfinchy Posts: 6,889
    treating highly skilled people like this esp when many hospitals do run a full 7 day week service (by negotiation) is counter productive, just like gove did with the teaching profession (and now with solictors and Barristors) the Tories will just p1$$ people off causing even more problems.

    This could be one of those issues that causes massive long-term damage to the country. We can't get enough teachers to stay in the profession as it is and we are faced with a massive expansion in pupil numbers. We are low on doctors, have an ageing population and will soon need more. To remedy that Osborne has said that pay rises will be capped at 1% (once inflation goes up again, that will be an effective pay cut at a time when private sector wages for highly skilled workers are rising quite quickly). Who is going to end up doing these jobs?
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 9,813
    Who is going to end up doing these jobs?
    Oo, oo, oo! I know, I know!
    UKIP aren't going to like it though.
    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.
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,241

    i thought one of the replies you gave on this or another thread was very revealling, when asked to justify a working person (on low pay) losing so much in the new formulation of TC, you said "there will always be winners and losers" mmmmm yes the losers are people on low pay and winners are folk who dont need it.
    And your point is what? My statement that there are always winners and losers when there is a change in policy is simply a statement of fact. If a policy change didn't change anything then it would be pointless.

    As mentioned be several people including on the welfare cuts thread, there is a widespread feeling and a lot of anecdotal evidence that benefits are too generous and this is one of the reasons why we now have a Tory government.

    Add to that some data on pay over the last 15 years or so, we can see that the pay of the lowest percentiles has increased markedly and in percentage terms much more than the higher percentiles. So this repeated left wing mantra that 'the poor keep getting poorer' which is used to oppose any of the substantial increases in benefits in this period appears not to have a factual basis.
    https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/percentile-points-from-1-to-99-for-total-income-before-and-after-tax

    Anyway on that note and as requested above, can you and finchy keep this thread on topic. The title of this thread should give you a clue. If you want to carry on banging on about your issues with general Tory policy, start yojr own thread and I will happily join in...
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,241
    Also, I am trying to keep this thread on topic - as the title suggests, this is not the 'socialists banging on about their pet policy grievances, moaning about losing the election and doing the country down' thread :wink:
    As mentioned above, in case you didn't read it the first time :wink:
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • pinnopinno Posts: 37,176

    It is Cake Stop. We have a right to go off topic.
    S - The Brazilian beach volleyball team
    W - Wiggle Honda
    "This year will be harder than last year. But that is good news; this year will be easier than next year."
  • pinnopinno Posts: 37,176
    ...and a another thing. Can you not wear out the Wink smiley 'cos the rest of us would like to use it now and again?
    S - The Brazilian beach volleyball team
    W - Wiggle Honda
    "This year will be harder than last year. But that is good news; this year will be easier than next year."
  • mamba80mamba80 Posts: 5,086
    Stevo, you ve contributed no end to this thread going so called off topic over several pages, but now you are losing the argument, you think you can order people about and tell them what they can and cannot say...?

    the points raised are on topic as this is basically a right v left argument, with you starting it by taking the p1$$ out of Corbyns left wing policies that you ve deemed the country needs saving from and a few of us, arguing the opposite pov, your just bitter that so few have come to your rescue :wink:
  • pinnopinno Posts: 37,176
    edited July 2015
    I think the blonde thing in 8 out of 10 cats is hot.
    S - The Brazilian beach volleyball team
    W - Wiggle Honda
    "This year will be harder than last year. But that is good news; this year will be easier than next year."
  • finchyfinchy Posts: 6,889

    Anyway on that note and as requested above, can you and finchy keep this thread on topic. The title of this thread should give you a clue. If you want to carry on banging on about your issues with general Tory policy, start yojr own thread and I will happily join in...

    Are you sure you want to keep this thread on topic? When it does go back on topic, people keep insulting you.
  • finchyfinchy Posts: 6,889
    Add to that some data on pay over the last 15 years or so, we can see that the pay of the lowest percentiles has increased markedly and in percentage terms much more than the higher percentiles. So this repeated left wing mantra that 'the poor keep getting poorer' which is used to oppose any of the substantial increases in benefits in this period appears not to have a factual basis.
    https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/percentile-points-from-1-to-99-for-total-income-before-and-after-tax

    Is that just pay, or is it pay + in work benefits? I'm a bit knackered at the moment (long week, lack of sleep), so I might be missing something, but I can't see anywhere were it gives that information.

    Also, when you say "oppose", did you mean "support"?
  • pinnopinno Posts: 37,176
    Why don't we just insult Stevo without presenting any arguments?
    S - The Brazilian beach volleyball team
    W - Wiggle Honda
    "This year will be harder than last year. But that is good news; this year will be easier than next year."
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,241
    Stevo, you ve contributed no end to this thread going so called off topic over several pages, but now you are losing the argument, you think you can order people about and tell them what they can and cannot say...?

    the points raised are on topic as this is basically a right v left argument, with you starting it by taking the p1$$ out of Corbyns left wing policies that you ve deemed the country needs saving from and a few of us, arguing the opposite pov, your just bitter that so few have come to your rescue :wink:
    Nothing to do with losing any arguments as thats not the case, much as you would like to think so. I just twigged that you are derailing a good topic with general stuff that is not on topic and as I am the OP on this thread, it is a very reasonable request :) . Happy to carry on the Corbyn/Labour debate here or deal with your random moans about Tory policy in a separate thread.

    Now, third time of askimg mamba, in case you didn't get it before...
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,241
    Add to that some data on pay over the last 15 years or so, we can see that the pay of the lowest percentiles has increased markedly and in percentage terms much more than the higher percentiles. So this repeated left wing mantra that 'the poor keep getting poorer' which is used to oppose any of the substantial increases in benefits in this period appears not to have a factual basis.
    https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/percentile-points-from-1-to-99-for-total-income-before-and-after-tax

    Is that just pay, or is it pay + in work benefits? I'm a bit knackered at the moment (long week, lack of sleep), so I might be missing something, but I can't see anywhere were it gives that information.

    Also, when you say "oppose", did you mean "support"?
    Sorry finchy, meant to say 'oppose any reversal of the substantial increases...'

    See you on another thread if you want to carry on :)
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,241
    Back on topic.

    A bit more on policy proposals by the left wing messiah:
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/22/jeremy-corbyn-vows-to-raise-taxes-for-the-rich-if-elected-prime-minister

    Some fairly unoriginal proposals to hike taxes on the rich and on corporations. Clearly not a big student of history on these things or on behavioural responses from the taxpayers involved...although on the bright side if he ever did get in I would never have to worry about job security :)

    Most bookies will give you 2/1 or 9/4 on Labour winning the next election. Wonder what the odds will be if Corbyn wins the leadership contest?
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,241
    Why don't we just insult Stevo without presenting any arguments?
    I'll see you in Botttom Bracket, sonny :wink:
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
Sign In or Register to comment.